The Mask and the Void: Coming Out for Secondary Psychopaths PDF
Preview The Mask and the Void: Coming Out for Secondary Psychopaths
Andre Solnikkar THE MASK AND THE VOID Coming Out for (Secondary) Psychopaths translated by the author Proofreading: Kevin Pinkerton (C) 2015 by Andre Solnikkar Andre Solnikkar Erdbergstr. 51 A-1030 Wien Österreich sodann @ hotmail.com http://www.facebook.com/maskvoid/ The writing of this booklet likely would not have taken place without the help of two special people. I am indebted not only for the long talks, spanning day and night, for their input with clear sighted thoughts, phrases, and insightful wording, but also for the strange, crooked kind of affection that thrives only in hell. Thank you, S. and S. Contents Preface THEORY The Birth of the P Trickster, Mask and Void Quoting Norman Mailer A Glance into the Funhouse Mirror Interposed Question PRACTICE Where do we go from here? The Way of the P Quoting Friedrich Nietzsche Meditations Epilogue Preface “It is clear that the world is purely parodic, in other words, that each thing seen is the parody of another, or is the same thing in a deceptive form.“ (Georges Bataille, The Solar Anus) It is obvious there is a need to provide a self-help booklet for those society has labeled Psychopaths. Who, in the course of their develop- ment, find that fate designed them to be gay, or wearing a differently- colored mask from the majority, will find understanding and a support network ofthose who are similarly affected. The psychopath in the making, however, is completely on his own, and it is ironic that the very one who is habitually accused of lacking empathy will receive no empathy whatsoever. Should his nature be self-reflective, his thoughts will drift into dark rooms, with ropes dangling from the ceiling; other- wise, hunger and hatred will lurk behind the mask, waiting for the first chance to break out – not infrequently surprising the offender himself who might then, in a further irony, end up in one of the institutions which will inevitably exacerbate their psychopathic predispositions. Neither the concerned nor society will be helped by that. However, is the term “psychopath” permissible at all? What’s abbre- viated as “P” in this booklet will refer roughly to what is known, in the terms of the psychoanalytic trade, as “Secondary Psychopathy”: Compared to “primary” psychopaths, “secondary” psy- chopaths have been characterized as having more fear, anxiety, and negative emotions. They are often seen as more impulsive and with more reactive anger and ag- gression. David T. Lykken, using Gray’s biopsycho- logical theory of personality, argued that primary psy- chopaths innately have little fear while secondary psy- chopaths innately have increased sensitivity to rewards. Studies also suggest that secondary psychopaths mani- fest more borderline personality features than do pri- mary psychopaths, and comparable levels of antisocial behavior. There are also different theories as to the predominant causes of either variant. Some researchers, such as Ben- jamin Karpman, believe that primary psychopaths are born with an emotional deficit and that secondary psy- chopaths acquire it through adverse environmental ex- periences, although others, such as Lykken, link both variants to biological predispositions. Some preliminary research suggests that secondary psychopaths may have had a more abusive childhood, a higher risk of future violence, and potentially a better response to treatment. (Wikipedia) However, this concept is far from being uncontested, and books could be written detailing the discussions about the diffuse, frequently rejected term “P” and the attempted demarcation attempts against re- lated symptom bundles like sociopathy, Borderline, Asperger, narcis- sism and so on. But let us not dwell on this. Let us not pretend that objectivity were possible or even desirable. The fiction of a neutral observer is simply too absurd: From the seven deadly sins to Harvey Cleckley’s list of symptoms we can trace the polemic efforts of non- Ps to both designate P as a sick mind, the victim of a psychopatholog- ical disorder, and, at the same time, to condemn him as morally de- praved, as a despicable villain and an archenemy of mankind. One could go megalomaniac with how much one is demonized. In everyday language, P is a monster somewhere between Hannibal Lecter, the Joker from the Batman universe (Heath Ledger memes!), and your boss who calls on you for unpaid overtime: An object of fear, disgust and secret admiration. What makes the P tick, what is it he wants? Is he a predator, a crippled soul, a catalyst of civilization or all of this at once? Is he in league with evil forces or does he come from another planet? And if so, why does he look just like we do, if not better? This much can be said: Ps are the Eternal Heretics. This means, amongst other things, that our main, almost only source of informa- tion about them are their enemies. Imagine that all we knew about hawks would be the results of the searchings of a consortium of squirrels – a panel whose comments will be of very limited value even presupposing their best efforts, as they find it very difficult indeed to overlook the hawks’ total failure to collect the barest minimum num- ber of nuts, not to mention their grievous sin of hunting squirrels. What is one one to do? “Car nos no em del mon nil mon no es de nos”, a Cathar prayer goes: “We are not from this world, and this world is not of our kind.” The results are well-known: “Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius”, abbot Arnaud Amaury is sup- posed to have quipped when the cleansing was about to start: “Kill them all! The Lord will know those which are His own.” By now it should be clear that the goal of this booklet is not, in any way, “serious”, but rather explicitly polemical. If it can serve a puzzled P or an open-minded non-P as an aid to understanding himself, or as food for thought, then its purpose will be achieved. However, I would not be honest, were I not to admit that the reader’s hatred, anger, scorn and even constructive criticism would make my day, too; as this text tells unpleasant things for P and non-P alike, everybody should be vexed. And now, expect a jumbled mess of generals and specifics, serious- ness and irony, sermon, provocation, pseudo-philosophy, not to men- tion pathos and meta-pathos. Let us not pretend that everything is fine. To describe ourselves in sober terms would be merely comical.
The list of books you might like
