split

"According to Seinfeld, schizoid individuals frequently act out with substance and alcohol abuse and other addictions which serve as substitutes for human relationships. The substitute of a nonhuman for a human object serves as a schizoid defense. Providing examples of how the schizoid individual creates a personal relation with the drug, Seinfeld tells how "one addict called heroin his 'soothing white pet.' Another referred to crack as his 'bad mama.' I knew a female addict who termed crack her 'boyfriend.' Not all addicts name their drug, but there often is the trace of a personal feeling about the relationship." The object relations view emphasizes that the drug use and alcoholism reinforce the fantasy of union with an internal object, while enabling the addict to be indifferent to the external object world. Addiction is therefore viewed as a schizoid and symbiotic defense.

S. C. Ekleberry suggests that marijuana "may be the single most egosyntonic drug for individuals with SPD because it allows a detached state of fantasy and distance from others, provides a richer internal experience than these individuals can normally create, and reduces an internal sense of emptiness and failure to participate in life. Also, alcohol, readily available and safe to obtain, is another obvious drug of choice for these individuals. Some will use both marijuana and alcohol and see little point in giving up either. They are likely to use in isolation for the effect on internal processes."

According to Gunderson, people with SPD "feel lost" without the people they are normally around because they require a sense of security and stability. However, when the patient's personal space is violated, they feel suffocated and feel the need to free themselves and be independent. People who have SPD tend to be happiest when they are in a relationship in which the partner places few emotional or intimate demands on them; it is not people as such that they want to avoid, but both negative and positive emotions, emotional intimacy, and self disclosure.

It is possible for schizoid individuals to form relationships with others based on intellectual, physical, familial, occupational, or recreational activities as long as these modes of relating do not require or force the need for emotional intimacy, which the affected individual will reject.

Donald Winnicott summarizes the schizoid need to modulate emotional interaction with others with his comment that schizoid individuals "prefer to make relationships on their own terms and not in terms of the impulses of other people," and failing to attain that, they prefer isolation."

elsewhere

one day, will wild earth be a fable? will bits of it be roped off for observation and visiting hours? will it be wild if we know where it is, if we know what it looks like, if we charge admission? even if we move to a "resource-based economy", where money does not exist, can we eradicate human nature? are all of our grand plans at odds with who we really are and what we really want? how can we save ourselves and stop destroying our planet without losing individuality? what makes anyone believe we can outsmart our own inextricable dark side that got us here in the first place?

is sustainability at odds with the necessity of destructive cycles? is it our fate to eventually be peeled away from our little planet and returned to the dust that we came from? is it a collective naiivete or natural drive that makes us think we can and should reverse this fate?

best case scenario: if we were all to become equal, united, striving for a utopian society where sickness, filth, and greed are obsolete, what on earth would we talk about? how can we cure our addiction to drama, to competition, to solitude? a utopian society is an open one, where privacy is also obsolete because what, in a perfect society, would anyone have to hide?

and what would we wear? without class stratification and with advertisements, department stores, credit cards and cosmetics relegated to the ash heap of history, will we have any reason or right to care how we look? we are no longer competing for resources, so how will we compete for optimal mates? how can we outwardly distinguish ourselves from all of the other mating options if wealth is no longer a substitute for biological disadvantage? when sexy is no longer tied to wealthy, and no single occupation or person holds more power than another, what will the new biological/reproductive competitive edge be?

are people afraid of this type of society because who you are will matter more than what you have or do? are people afraid that they can't change who they are, but they can change their status or appearance or monetary value with enough determination in a money = value society? if, in this new world, money = nothing, and you have a lot of money, you have a lot of nothing. if who you are as a person--your values, morals, charisma, intelligence, kindness, curiosity, brilliance and vices--determines your value to society where collective survival trumps individual greed--there is a possibility for people to be inherently valuable or disposable to society at large. that must be a frightening proposition. no amount of scheming, plotting, or conspiracy can alter individual, in-born nature and aptitude. an artificial invention like money makes it possible for most people to avoid asking themselves or proving to others their fundamental value to society. moreover,there seems to be a negative correlation between individual (and "corporations" as individuals) wealth and the health of the earth which is directly linked to human survival. so when the tides turn and humans are finally faced with the imminent possibility of extinction, survival will take the place of money to create a survival = value society. and perhaps the reason why those who were good at being valuable in the old system (our current system) resist the idea of this new system because they're afraid of discovering that they offer zero value to society or worse, are deemed destructive. maybe there are people who genuinely do not wish to be a truly valuable member of society, when broader social values don't match their personal values. what will we do with these people in the new world? exile them to an industrial, polluted, greed-ridden island/planet/outpost of isolated moral depravity? will that become the new prison system?

when all of this happens, will we know what to do with ourselves and the part of us that still longs for tradition and simplicity? will people still paint, dance, or open galleries? will we go to church if we've found a way to synthesize our own salvation? will MBA programs disappear? will universities disappear? will we scrap entire cities for materials to build new ones? will human culture become totally homogenized as we melt the past in order to forge a future?

isn't this ultimately what the greenpeacers, occupiers, dreamers and idealists want? a new society that centers on equality, sustainability, and a more humane application of technology? do they realize that it may mean taming every vestige of wilderness on earth--when resources become the new global currency that belongs, in principle, to all humans who live here? every bit of it will become inventory, controlled and distributed by a computerized, algorithmic and egalitarian government. it will be sustainable, green, and earth-friendly. but will we feel at home on our own planet? what parts of ourselves will we lose in order to survive? and how will that change the definition or motivation for survival?



in this new world, what would you live for? what would you die for? what would you kill for?

grace

grace.
an om on the pathway to a public promise.
when i was seven
on tiptoe
through a marble maze.
a gothic castle, i dropped a lily on the runway
we took off for a new place
spice, india love melody, divine rubies.
my very own elephant, high on a hill.
two brass doors, the last supper gleaming in city sun.
rings on my fingers, bells on my toes.
do you want to go to the seaside?
a mark of permanence, prominence, forever exalted.
revisiting the rose of my beginning
where i learned who i was + scattered scarlet petals,
before i handed it over, my pearl,
like a purse full of lottery tickets.
one structure
thousands of mirrors
a monument to determination
a shrine to opulence
a tomb for Then.

grace: my dear, i am unbroken.
cracking bones, we are just dust.
i let you shatter my palace
but i sleep in the pieces of your small.
i dream in the wake of your design.