Group Therapy at Monarch

 

I think I should probably go to more groups.  The groups schedule is changing on April 6, so during that week, I will start going to 3 groups a week instead of 2.


I am not suicidal, but today in Dr. Weir's group, we talked about suicide again, and I learned something interesting.  What I learned was that people who are suicidal sometimes tend more towards epistemic vigilance rather than epistemic trust.  I myself have been leaning towards epistemic vigilance recently, due to my concerns that people are gaslighting me with codes.


It makes the behavior of the government-linked bad guys make sense.  They think they are going to drive me to suicide by influencing factors that are known to be related to suicide.  I think part of what they don't understand is, I am not a normal person with depression, I have a thought disorder and bipolar.  I'm not a trained psychology science person, but my guess is, they don't understand that my epistemic vigilance is stemming from my thought disorder symptoms, including paranoia, and not from depression that might be related to suicide.  I'm a little bit upset at some times, but I'm not really all that depressed right now.


Also on the subject of epistemic trust...I think I need to learn to trust people more.  My blanket reaction to all the codes and whatnot I've been getting is, "almost every signal I see is suspect."  I think the comment is, none of the signals have the date within them, because the government has ordered people--illegally but in a legally binding way--to not speak about certain things to me.  So I should try to trust Dr. Glasser and Dr. Steg.  If it's not over on the "Laburnum anniversary," then Dr. Glasser's clock code was a coincidence, and it will be over by December 1, 2026.  That's me trusting Dr. Steg, who was very likely the person who sent me the "Sandra Hesse" code.  Dr. Steg made an appearance, and Dr. Glasser didn't.  When I was 15 or 16 in the hospital, Dr. Steg complimented me for "working on my condition."  Perhaps he figures that if I work on my condition enough and attend enough groups here, I will learn how to be intelligently epistemically trusting, and be able to pivot away from epistemic vigilance in cases where's it not needed.  I am not that damaged by the gaslighter codes.  There is approximately a 0% chance that I will commit suicide.


Anyway, that's about all that's new with me here at Monarch right now.  I've been getting bossed around more by the mental health support staff...it's not a big deal, though.  I don't let it bother me and I understand it comes with the territory of being in this place.  Worst-case scenario, I will have to wait until December 1.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more