and the extremely thin line between genius and insanity.
Have you ever seen it first hand?
Could it be because the more the genius the more of the mysterious part of the brain is used? Connect this with the supposition that tapping into just a part of the unknown brain leaves us with conflicted data that confuses the brain on an unheard of level?
What if true genius could tap ALL of the brain. Can you even imagine the possibilities? I can't.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NinetyPercentOfYourBrain
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 04, 2010, 04:30:20 AM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NinetyPercentOfYourBrain
I find the source of your link questionable.
It is previously known that highly creative abilities are somewhat more common in people who have familial history of mental illness and thus carry a greater risk of both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Researchers at Stockholm's Karolinska Institute have now sought to explain this link by studying receptors in the thalamic region of the brain.
"We have studied the brain and a certain type of receptor, known as dopamine D2 receptors, and we have shown that the dopamine system in healthy highly creative people is similar to that found in schizophrenics," Dr.Fredrik Ullén, who led the study at the Department of Women's and Children's Health at the institute, told The Local on Tuesday.
http://www.thelocal.se/26708/20100518/
The study, penned by Ullén and Örjan de Manzano, and entitled Thinking Outside a Less Intact Box, indicates that certain characteristics, such as being able to make bizarre and unusual associations are common to both schizophrenics and healthy highly creative people.
From the same link as above. I find this supports my original supposition.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 04:21:53 AM
and the extremely thin line between genius and insanity.
Have you ever seen it first hand?
Maybe, I have a friend who is my age, but he was finishing uni when I started, so he was about 2-3 years ahead at school. Anyway, now he is at Harvard studying a PhD in statistics. Really smart guy, but pretty fucking crazy. I can never tell when he is being serious or if he is just joking.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 04:21:53 AM
Could it be because the more the genius the more of the mysterious part of the brain is used? Connect this with the supposition that tapping into just a part of the unknown brain leaves us with conflicted data that confuses the brain on an unheard of level?
What if true genius could tap ALL of the brain. Can you even imagine the possibilities? I can't.
Can you elaborate by what you mean by this? I'm not sure I get it.
I mean, if you used all of your brain at once you would have a seizure and probably die.
ETA: Just read your new posts, that seems to make more sense than the way I was reading it.
Quote from: Rumckle on August 04, 2010, 04:39:15 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 04:21:53 AM
and the extremely thin line between genius and insanity.
Have you ever seen it first hand?
Maybe, I have a friend who is my age, but he was finishing uni when I started, so he was about 2-3 years ahead at school. Anyway, now he is at Harvard studying a PhD in statistics. Really smart guy, but pretty fucking crazy. I can never tell when he is being serious or if he is just joking.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 04:21:53 AM
Could it be because the more the genius the more of the mysterious part of the brain is used? Connect this with the supposition that tapping into just a part of the unknown brain leaves us with conflicted data that confuses the brain on an unheard of level?
What if true genius could tap ALL of the brain. Can you even imagine the possibilities? I can't.
Can you elaborate by what you mean by this? I'm not sure I get it.
I mean, if you used all of your brain at once you would have a seizure and probably die.
ETA: Just read your new posts, that seems to make more sense than the way I was reading it.
"You could say that this study proves that genius does in fact border on insanity, but people diagnosed with psychological illness can not be highly creative, this is important to underline," he said.
From the same link.
I can't believe using all the brain could cause what you described above. We have the brain for a reason, it is
my belief that as we evolve we will learn to use more and more of our brains. It seems the possibilities are beyond what we know and understand.
Can you imagine someone in kindergarten doing advanced calculus?
If you only evaluate input data using the same sets of programs and habits and mental models you've created for yourself over time, then you are using less of your brains potential than if you are able to evaluate input data using many different mental models at the same time and still reach a useful conclusion. Without going crazy, or falling into a useless mush of indecision.
So I don't think it is how many neurons you have or use, but the connections you create and maintain between them.
What do you mean by "using all the brain" Charlie?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on August 04, 2010, 04:52:27 AM
If you only evaluate input data using the same sets of programs and habits and mental models you've created for yourself over time, then you are using less of your brains potential than if you are able to evaluate input data using many different mental models at the same time and still reach a useful conclusion. Without going crazy, or falling into a useless mush of indecision.
So I don't think it is how many neurons you have or use, but the connections you create and maintain between them.
What do you mean by "using all the brain" Charlie?
Imagine being able to answer the question "Is the universe infinite?"
Basically I mean being able to connect ALL the dots, not just the part we now consider 'known'. Take an example of only using less than half of the available power of your computer as compared to being able to take the same computer, add a supercomputer to it and being able to use every ounce of it's power to focus on a single issue at one time.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 04:32:28 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 04, 2010, 04:30:20 AM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NinetyPercentOfYourBrain
I find the source of your link questionable.
'kay. I just posted that particular link because TvTropes generally does a reasonable job of making stuff entertaining and readable.
TL;DR: the "we only use 10% of our brain" myth is bull. Every neuron in your brain is used for something; the connections that stop being used are pruned / recycled. The brain uses so much energy (~10-20% of the human energy budget) that it can't afford to waste any on brain parts that don't do anything. Huge heads kill babies and mothers; if the brain could be easily shrunk without losing functionality evolutionary pressures would have caused it to happen long ago. Diagrams of the brain with the various lobes labeled don't have 90% of the brain labeled "Does Nothing." In fact, we have pretty good idea about what specifically most parts of the brain do. Humans use 100% of their brain. If all of your neurons fired at once, the seizure would probably kill you by literally frying your brain.
While I agree with the 'we only use 10%' is myth can you agree we don't use our brains as we should or could?
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 04:56:55 AM
Imagine being able to answer the question "Is the universe infinite?"
Basically I mean being able to connect ALL the dots, not just the part we now consider 'known'. Take an example of only using less than half of the available power of your computer as compared to being able to take the same computer, add a supercomputer to it and being able to use every ounce of it's power to focus on a single issue at one time.
Forgive me if I'm being too literal, but isn't that kind of what we do here? As in, our computers run programs which we know doesn't fully utilise the capacity of the hardware. So we test out new programs, tweak and debug, until we find something which provides better results. Either by invalidating previous data or by creating a pattern which fits into the group narrative, and produces something which the group decides is valuable on aesthetic and/or functional grounds.
I'd say this is happening right now with the lesswrong wiki - it contains many programs, and some of them distill the essence of stuff we already believe in clumsy language into something which we can communicate amongst ourselves and benefit from.
Thinking further.
And I might be getting too far into this, but doesn't clearing out a dependence on old buggy programs help us think further and faster? Isn't that likely to be a process which feeds back into itself, self-correcting? Does "using our brain more effectively", such that as little time as possible is wasted thinking junk, get us closer to connecting ALL the dots?
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 04:35:47 AM
The study, penned by Ullén and Örjan de Manzano, and entitled Thinking Outside a Less Intact Box, indicates that certain characteristics, such as being able to make bizarre and unusual associations are common to both schizophrenics and healthy highly creative people.
From the same link as above. I find this supports my original supposition.
My theory (which might be completely wrong):
Real creativity requires both the ability to create new, bizarre, or unusual associations and the ability to judge those associations. If you have every possible idea, but can't tell which ones are the good ideas, you have to act randomly, because you have no rational way of choosing which idea to act upon. Then you get word salad, delusions, etc.
That definition works for me.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 04:56:55 AM
Imagine being able to answer the question "Is the universe infinite?"
The observable universe is finite, with a radius of (speed of information) * (age of universe).
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 04:56:55 AM
Basically I mean being able to connect ALL the dots, not just the part we now consider 'known'. Take an example of only using less than half of the available power of your computer as compared to being able to take the same computer, add a supercomputer to it and being able to use every ounce of it's power to focus on a single issue at one time.
I heartily recommend two science fiction books,
A Deepness in the Sky and
A Fire Upon the Deep, both by Vernor Vinge. Both play with really interesting ideas regarding alien intelligences. The first has (among other things) a human civilization which has developed the ability to induce an autism-like condition, IIRC called "Focusing", which focuses the subject on a single field (from linguistics to menial labor) to the extent that they devote all of their time and energy to that field, becoming useless in every other area. The second has (among a whole panoply of strong AI and really alien intelligences) a species with modular brains. That is, each individual is composed of 3-6 animals who brains are linked together. So an individual can change by replacing one constituent animal at a time, or even create planned individuals by forcing a selected group of animals together. Both are very well thought out, especially with regards to intriguing alien cultures, and have engaging plots and characters.
(Oh, and computers generally do focus all of their power on a single issue. Modern computer processors use techniques to maximize the number of operations that are being carried out simultaneously. Incidentally, the main power cost in server farms and supercomputer clusters comes not from powering the computers, but from keeping them cool so they don't fry with the heat of trillions of calculations per second.)
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 04, 2010, 05:46:02 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 04:56:55 AM
Imagine being able to answer the question "Is the universe infinite?"
The observable universe is finite, with a radius of (speed of information) * (age of universe).
How do you square this with Bucky's "Universe is non-simultaneously apprehended," which has ramifications for any single viewpoint, as well as the quality of the multiplicity-of-viewpoints the statement requires?
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 04:32:28 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 04, 2010, 04:30:20 AM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NinetyPercentOfYourBrain
I find the source of your link questionable.
Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth
I wasn't assuming you were talking about this, btw.
The basic gist is that we only use (about) 10% of the brain
at once, in the sense that it is active. But that 10% is not always the same 10%.
Maybe we're still not using our brains to our full capacity, though. I can't really say. But if it were the case, it would probably be more like how we also don't use our full running capacity all the time. If there are large gains in capacity to be made, I think they'd get you real tired, confused or burnt out, real quick.
This was said above, but I just wanted to add my take on it.
"Genius" as I think it's being used here, is (to be very broad and general) a deliberate act of cognitive dissonance, to shove two opposite or conflicting ideas together until something new pops out.
"Insanity" as I think it's being used here, is (to be very broad and general) an involuntary act of cognitive dissonance.
Another way to put it is that in genius, the end result of the dissonance is recognized as an idea or a new perspective, but in insanity, the dissonance is recognized as reality itself.
THIS SENTENCE IS A DISCLAIMER AND AN APOLOGY TO THOSE ON THIS BOARD WHO MAY BE SUFFERING FROM POSSIBLE PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSES THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS "ABNORMAL" AND ARE OFFENDED BY MY USE OF THE WORD "INSANITY".
Quote from: Telarus on August 04, 2010, 07:22:02 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 04, 2010, 05:46:02 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 04:56:55 AM
Imagine being able to answer the question "Is the universe infinite?"
The observable universe is finite, with a radius of (speed of information) * (age of universe).
How do you square this with Bucky's "Universe is non-simultaneously apprehended," which has ramifications for any single viewpoint, as well as the quality of the multiplicity-of-viewpoints the statement requires?
I'm not sure what Fuller meant with that statement, but I think I can answer the multiplicity-of-viewpoints part. The observable universe has a radius of (speed of information) * (age of universe), centered on any point you choose. So two observers in different locations and/or traveling at different velocities physically live in two different observable universes. (Weirdly, if person A attempts to communicate this to person B, then when B receives the message the observable universe centered on B will encompass the universe that was around A when he sent the message.)
I'm being far to literal, aren't I?
Quote from: Telarus on August 04, 2010, 07:22:02 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on August 04, 2010, 05:46:02 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 04:56:55 AM
Imagine being able to answer the question "Is the universe infinite?"
The observable universe is finite, with a radius of (speed of information) * (age of universe).
How do you square this with Bucky's "Universe is non-simultaneously apprehended,"...
"Universe is non-simultaneously apprehended"
2Like that....
Or, "Bucky was full of shit."
I mean, it's a possibility...
Ok, Any other ideas why the line between genius and insanity is so fine?
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 04, 2010, 01:17:44 PM
"Insanity" as I think it's being used here, is (to be very broad and general) an involuntary act of cognitive dissonance.
except when you're P3NT4GR4M, I guess :-P
QuoteTHIS SENTENCE IS A DISCLAIMER AND AN APOLOGY TO THOSE ON THIS BOARD WHO MAY BE SUFFERING FROM POSSIBLE PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSES THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS "ABNORMAL" AND ARE OFFENDED BY MY USE OF THE WORD "INSANITY".
FUCK YOU I AM SUFFERING FROM GENIUS
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Ok, Any other ideas why the line between genius and insanity is so fine?
Because the action is similar, but the intent is not?
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 04, 2010, 03:15:44 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Ok, Any other ideas why the line between genius and insanity is so fine?
Because the action is similar, but the intent is not?
It is previously known that highly creative abilities are somewhat more common in people who have familial history of mental illness and thus carry a greater risk of both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
So we add genes into the mix as well.
"A lower reading, common to both highly creative people and schizophrenics, may afford a greater richness of thought, less filtering of information and thus the ability to make more associations, in more ways. Thinking outside the box might be facilitated by having a somewhat less intact box."
This seems to back up what you are saying.
this sounds like.....conceptual thinking...letting the mind wander, instead of focusing it.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 04, 2010, 03:15:44 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Ok, Any other ideas why the line between genius and insanity is so fine?
Because the action is similar, but the intent is not?
I think the word "intent" isn't quite right. More like, some people can control, or understand, or separate, or meta-think it, and some people can't, for whatever reason.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 04, 2010, 03:40:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 04, 2010, 03:15:44 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 04, 2010, 03:02:26 PM
Ok, Any other ideas why the line between genius and insanity is so fine?
Because the action is similar, but the intent is not?
I think the word "intent" isn't quite right. More like, some people can control, or understand, or separate, or meta-think it, and some people can't, for whatever reason.
I understood where you were going with it.
So schizophrenics are understood possibly to have uncontrolled conceptual thinking, in turn could autism be the result of uncontrolled linear thinking?
I'd be wary of parallels like that; then again, I don't really know enough about autism. I've had some experience with schizophrenia though (though not personally).
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 04, 2010, 03:56:24 PM
I'd be wary of parallels like that; then again, I don't really know enough about autism. I've had some experience with schizophrenia though (though not personally).
Oh, I am not positing it as fact, merely a possibility. I am still trying to sort through a mountain of information on the subject.
There is a bit in the Illuminatus trilogy about this subject, as I recall, Carl Jung states that the difference between genius and insanity is comparable to the difference between swimming and drowning.
Sorry, didn't mean to drift the topic. I like Alphapance and eighteen buddha strike's take.
Antero Alli says that on any of the 'circuits' you're operating on, there are cycles of "receive information, internalize information, transmit information".
I think the line between insanity/creative-genius lies in something going wrong in one of those stages (depends on the insanity, but the one that causes the most psychological problems in Antero's model is internalizing the information). Keep in mind that you can receive/transmit information to yourself (we all carry around feedback loops).
Quote from: Telarus on August 04, 2010, 08:52:14 PM
Sorry, didn't mean to drift the topic. I like Alphapance and eighteen buddha strike's take.
Antero Alli says that on any of the 'circuits' you're operating on, there are cycles of "receive information, internalize information, transmit information".
I think the line between insanity/creative-genius lies in something going wrong in one of those stages (depends on the insanity, but the one that causes the most psychological problems in Antero's model is internalizing the information). Keep in mind that you can receive/transmit information to yourself (we all carry around feedback loops).
Honestly, I don't see how a topic like this can drift. I appreciate your input.
There is so much information out there trying to pick through it is almost overwhelming.
I always figured that those with more complicated motivations end up taking many varied approaches at exploring a subject.
First, affirmative to the 10% myth. We use all of our active neurons. The rest must function as required support and nutrition supplying cells. The ratio comes out to be around 9:1, but that doesn't mean we have these secret untapped neurons and we would all be superhuman geniuses if we could only turn them on.
Genius has been defined variously as the ability to achieve and grasp insight, among others. It is a function of intelligence (cf Angel Tech - Antero Ali for my definition).
The difference between genius and insanity...well, how are they similar? Both seem to find previously unexamined connections (under some definitions of insanity)
However,
Whereas a genius can control (or at least guide) this process to ordered output and utilize this output,
an insane person has essentially no control or ability to guide the process, making the result more random (eg. word salad).
As in all priors, the usefulness is in predictivity of reality. Geniuses have higher (80%?) rates of predicting reality, whereas a insane person probably comes down to a coin toss (<50%), which is akin to the pattern in random static.
Incidentally, there's been some articles on Less Wrong recently about the Wei Dai Master/slave model of psychology. Under this model, a genius would be someone whose normally slavish conscious part of mind would have largely revolted against the Master unconscious fitness optimized mind. An insane person, on the other hand....But then, the OP never defined the terms "genius" and "insanity" so I can't really infer what we are talking about there.
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 05:24:28 AM
First, affirmative to the 10% myth. We use all of our active neurons. The rest must function as required support and nutrition supplying cells. The ratio comes out to be around 9:1, but that doesn't mean we have these secret untapped neurons and we would all be superhuman geniuses if we could only turn them on.
Genius has been defined variously as the ability to achieve and grasp insight, among others. It is a function of intelligence (cf Angel Tech - Antero Ali for my definition).
The difference between genius and insanity...well, how are they similar? Both seem to find previously unexamined connections (under some definitions of insanity)
However,
Whereas a genius can control (or at least guide) this process to ordered output and utilize this output,
an insane person has essentially no control or ability to guide the process, making the result more random (eg. word salad).
As in all priors, the usefulness is in predictivity of reality. Geniuses have higher (80%?) rates of predicting reality, whereas a insane person probably comes down to a coin toss (<50%), which is akin to the pattern in random static.
Incidentally, there's been some articles on Less Wrong recently about the Wei Dai Master/slave model of psychology. Under this model, a genius would be someone whose normally slavish conscious part of mind would have largely revolted against the Master unconscious fitness optimized mind. An insane person, on the other hand....But then, the OP never defined the terms "genius" and "insanity" so I can't really infer what we are talking about there.
I am not sure it can be defined, please continue.
I'm concerned that, without coming to terms, our discussion will be about definitions.
Then what terms would you suggest?
I just found a topic on lesswrong which I assume is the one you are talking about (http://lesswrong.com/lw/1l4/a_masterslave_model_of_human_preferences/)? My understanding is, that if as you say - genius lies the slaves rebellion (learning to recognise and throttle ability of the master to control events by setting long-term goals?), then insanity would be more like the master trying to function without the slaves input - the instilled-from-birth day-to-day interactions and niceties which are the established currency of human interaction.
Whereas the slave is a fairly smart auto-pilot, the master gets distracted easily and can't focus upon a single goal in the presence of the sensory overload presented by the physical world. Similar to the way even the slave can't concentrate given too much stimulation. So then does the slave act like a sort of cognitive shield which allows the master to formulate the terminal values for the slave?
If so, you might like this poem (http://wicca.com/forums/index.php?topic=3354.msg96419).
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 02:09:44 PM
I'm concerned that, without coming to terms, our discussion will be about definitions.
I'm pretty much coming from the perspective that this is an elaborate metaphor, so the definitions will of course be somewhat flexible and mutable.
I'll go one better than first hand, I'll give you first person. When I'm at my most creative it feels no different from when I was clinically batshit. That's the reason I can't bring myself to stay in that place for too long at a time. It's the fear I'll pass the point of no return.
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on August 05, 2010, 03:22:46 PM
I'll go one better than first hand, I'll give you first person. When I'm at my most creative it feels no different from when I was clinically batshit. That's the reason I can't bring myself to stay in that place for too long at a time. It's the fear I'll pass the point of no return.
Can you enter and leave what you describe as 'that place' at will, or does something have to drive it?
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 05, 2010, 02:51:49 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 05, 2010, 02:09:44 PM
I'm concerned that, without coming to terms, our discussion will be about definitions.
I'm pretty much coming from the perspective that this is an elaborate metaphor, so the definitions will of course be somewhat flexible and mutable.
Pretty much.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 05, 2010, 04:21:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on August 05, 2010, 03:22:46 PM
I'll go one better than first hand, I'll give you first person. When I'm at my most creative it feels no different from when I was clinically batshit. That's the reason I can't bring myself to stay in that place for too long at a time. It's the fear I'll pass the point of no return.
Can you enter and leave what you describe as 'that place' at will, or does something have to drive it?
Haha! I dunno if I'd describe it as "will" it's more like a mood that comes along. When I feel myself going into it I can either go with it or fight it - that's the "will element" but as to actually summoning it in the first place, no. I think maybe I could but I never really tried. Eventually I have to fight it tho or I'd be right back in hell.
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on August 05, 2010, 04:36:48 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 05, 2010, 04:21:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on August 05, 2010, 03:22:46 PM
I'll go one better than first hand, I'll give you first person. When I'm at my most creative it feels no different from when I was clinically batshit. That's the reason I can't bring myself to stay in that place for too long at a time. It's the fear I'll pass the point of no return.
Can you enter and leave what you describe as 'that place' at will, or does something have to drive it?
Haha! I dunno if I'd describe it as "will" it's more like a mood that comes along. When I feel myself going into it I can either go with it or fight it - that's the "will element" but as to actually summoning it in the first place, no. I think maybe I could but I never really tried. Eventually I have to fight it tho or I'd be right back in hell.
Does it anger you that when you are at your best is when you can least enjoy it because you have to keep your guard up all the time?
If you don't want to answer my questions I understand.
Personally, when I'm at my creative best it's not what I'd call my "best", especially in terms of not giving as much attention to loved ones around me.
Just FYI, people can be both genius's and dumb fucks at the same time
-
examples -http://www.cracked.com/article_18638_4-nobel-prize-winners-who-were-clearly-insane.html
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 05, 2010, 04:40:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on August 05, 2010, 04:36:48 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 05, 2010, 04:21:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on August 05, 2010, 03:22:46 PM
I'll go one better than first hand, I'll give you first person. When I'm at my most creative it feels no different from when I was clinically batshit. That's the reason I can't bring myself to stay in that place for too long at a time. It's the fear I'll pass the point of no return.
Can you enter and leave what you describe as 'that place' at will, or does something have to drive it?
Haha! I dunno if I'd describe it as "will" it's more like a mood that comes along. When I feel myself going into it I can either go with it or fight it - that's the "will element" but as to actually summoning it in the first place, no. I think maybe I could but I never really tried. Eventually I have to fight it tho or I'd be right back in hell.
Does it anger you that when you are at your best is when you can least enjoy it because you have to keep your guard up all the time?
If you don't want to answer my questions I understand.
Whether I'm at my best or not my guard is up. What's happened in the past prevents me from ever letting it down. Doesn't make me angry, it's just the way it is. Being in control is much preferable to the alternative but that's a conscious decision I've made. Would be a bit dumb to get angry about my own choices, no?
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on August 05, 2010, 05:12:38 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 05, 2010, 04:40:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on August 05, 2010, 04:36:48 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 05, 2010, 04:21:26 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on August 05, 2010, 03:22:46 PM
I'll go one better than first hand, I'll give you first person. When I'm at my most creative it feels no different from when I was clinically batshit. That's the reason I can't bring myself to stay in that place for too long at a time. It's the fear I'll pass the point of no return.
Can you enter and leave what you describe as 'that place' at will, or does something have to drive it?
Haha! I dunno if I'd describe it as "will" it's more like a mood that comes along. When I feel myself going into it I can either go with it or fight it - that's the "will element" but as to actually summoning it in the first place, no. I think maybe I could but I never really tried. Eventually I have to fight it tho or I'd be right back in hell.
Does it anger you that when you are at your best is when you can least enjoy it because you have to keep your guard up all the time?
If you don't want to answer my questions I understand.
Whether I'm at my best or not my guard is up. What's happened in the past prevents me from ever letting it down. Doesn't make me angry, it's just the way it is. Being in control is much preferable to the alternative but that's a conscious decision I've made. Would be a bit dumb to get angry about my own choices, no?
Makes a lot of sense. Do you drink or get high?
Yup! Not on school nights, tho. There's not much difference between booze and insanity for me - both should only be binged in moderation :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on August 05, 2010, 05:27:59 PM
Yup! Not on school nights, tho. There's not much difference between booze and insanity for me - both should only be binged in moderation :lulz:
:lulz: