Life in the Other

The (unfulfilled) lover realizes the disposals of the loved subject. He pursues rare thoughts in search of salvation. He realizes the longing of the unloved being to be able to feel something. He accepts the notorious gestures and attitudes of the beloved subject in order to give her a dwelling in himself (in the dream image, in the imagination). In doing so, he imagines that his beloved subject in him is by his side (if she wants to be) and tries to construct a copy in his imagination that is as close to reality as possible. This also means that this imaginary copy of the beloved subject must be as stubborn as the original. Here he divides his thinking in a delicate way into a parallel plane which is busy to adjust that the imaginary beloved subject in him reacts adequately to the situations. He feels a feeling of security, home and being loved when he feels strong feelings knowing that the loved subject is with him and can sympathize with this, for example when he starts to cry through media consumption (touching music, dramatic films) or triggers some strong feelings in him. The beloved subject as an “unloved being”, which due to many disappointments is at home in emptiness (emotionlessness), thus receives (from his point of view) through him the possibility to feel and feel emotions through him. Of course he still feels final disappointments, because the imagination gets breaks again and again when he realizes about reality (it happens in his imagination).

He gives his explicit permission for this process. This process is depicted in the film “Psycho”, for example, in the situation in which Norman Bates re-enacts his deceased mother in himself (imagination). Also in the series “Twin Peaks” one of the central goals of the antagonists (magicians) is the life or takeover of Laura Palmer by such a psychological cast. In the film “Possession”, the two protagonists each construct a perfect (optimized) image of the other in their dream world (as they imagine the other so that the relationship can finally function). It’s like that typical Christmas story, where each gives the other what he thinks the other wants; in the end, both have received an inappropriate gift (just as they imagined the other would like). In the film “Possession”, however, everyone constructs their ideal partner. The man wishes his wife to be more sociable, more responsive to his wishes (weak, subordinate in the sense of him). The wife wishes her husband more impulsive, not so tearful (strong, in the sense of her deservedly superior). It reminds of the Anna Karenina principle and this theme. The film ends with the situation where the two imaginations are about to meet. In this text here, however, it is not about the construction of the desired partner, because the lover here (in this example) wants to depict the beloved being (with its idiosyncrasy), as realistically as possible (even if he was rejected and will continue to be rejected). This is an unusual activity, which in itself is pathologised by society anyway. If he tells this to another person, he is sure to be rejected. He will be judged as sick or possessed (the unfortunate, the hopeless case), but in any case his subject matter will be judged completely irrelevant to any discourse. In our world of technology, of processes, of natural sciences, it seems to many people as completely obscure to deal with such topics at all. The unusual is always first pathologized by the norm, but in this case it is simply completely ignored. There is no “school of enlightenment” or similar that deals with this topic in a positive and constructive way, because there are no (or hardly any interested parties) who would like to discuss this topic (Roland Barthes left out as an exception). We will hardly find two people who have such an imagination and exchange ideas about it, for example in a forum (hence my statement that the topic has no discourse). In art and music, however, this is certainly very present. Especially the young internet generation receives a lot of templates that deal with it in an artistic way (the music video “Hostage” by Billie Eilish would be similar). But further in the context: it is also important to keep in mind that the real beloved subject meets the lover with aversion, fear and incomprehension when this (strange) behaviour becomes obvious. In this respect, there is also a risk or a tension involved, because the lover feels the dissonance that his dream image might meet with strong aversion from his beloved subject (which is completely understandable). Or else, the sadness that he has interacted with a shadow and that his madness becomes obvious in his own eyes, too. He realizes that he is compensating in himself for what he cannot access in the real world. The dream image makes the lover become blunt towards the contact with other people, if he does not want to let go of it. Without realizing it, he will settle down in his own home and shy away from contact with those people who would discourage him from letting go of the dream image.

The final guilt situation is faded out by him in the best possible way, because it is traumatic for him. The traumatizing thing is that in real life he abandons the loved one.

The exuberant imagination is strong enough to determine the actions of the lover himself at some point. In psychology, for example, this is called “false self”. In the novel “Souls (Stephenie Meyer)” there is an entertaining example of how two beings negotiate and interact in the imagination to control the body.

Also relevant here is “trauma bonding” (as with “false self”, a term from the relevant field of personality disorders), which creates the basis for such a situation to occur. Trauma bonding in this sense, means that traumatic situations with the loved one lay the basis for this imagination, because painful experiences are in some way better stored by the memory. Painful experiences are important and are imprinted in the memory and are therefore better prepared to be recalled for the construction of the imagination. This trauma bonding can even cause the lover to negate or actively abandon his or her own expressions (self-defeating behavior) because he or she wants to do justice to the imagination of the loved subject in his or her imagination. In the absence of the beloved subject, it becomes increasingly apparent when no proper conclusion could be found due to a strong insult or similar situation.

However, the aspect of individuation is also important here. The lover obviously has an unopened potential (anima), which receives a reality (inflammation) through this encounter. That which is otherwise inaccessible to him (for example the female side for a man who strongly represses it) can build up an inner dialogue within him through this kind of obsession and enable him to bring repressed things to light. That which would otherwise make no sense (the talking, or the confrontation with a dream figure) only receives a reality (a possibility of meaning) in real life through the encounter with the beloved subject. The lover will feel shame or self-hatred when he realizes that the Loved Being is in some way a “proxy” (a bridge) for him or her to be able to come into contact with what he or she is repressing within him or herself or to whom he or she gives no place in his or her life (see also: what is said and written about “Lilith” and shadow work in the esoteric realm. For example by the Tarot expert “Akron”). It becomes quite interesting when he also carries another “False Self” in himself. The special situation here would then be that he completely fades out and hopes that the two False Self (him as False Self and his imaginary beloved subject as counterpart) will be happy together in the imagination. It feels good for him, but in itself moves away from a real healthy contact with the real loved one in the real world, that it leaves him standing between two chairs (between the two safe havens, right in the unknown, lonely). Paradoxically, it is precisely in this situation that he feels reconnected with the real loved subject, since this is precisely what characterizes the unloved situation (“I feel similar to you, I may learn through the pain not to put you in this situation, not to do it wrong anymore”).

It is similar to the internal mother/father representation. Everybody knows this imagination, because it is known that even later in adulthood you still have your parents in your mind. In critical situations one hears in oneself e.g. the typical sentences said by father or mother when they gave the child advice earlier on how to behave correctly to master situations. Trauma bonding” with a loved one can challenge this situation and is then perceived as threatening by people who are especially strongly influenced by the contact with the parents, or as helpful because it has a “purging” effect, which offers a possibility to expand the internal cosmos that can hardly be opened (people with such parental contacts are often not able to enter into love relationships elsewhere, because this stands in the way). The reader can then consider whether it is still funny when one suddenly has several internal imaginations that are in dialogue with each other. Since as a “host” one is then rather outside and in the “host” position, so to speak, it is in itself already clear, I think. At best then like a funny anime, in which a boy wakes up in a house full of girls and then gets involved there. or is patronized and dragged along everywhere, into the capers of the different girls (Love Hina).

Relevant to this text here is also the rescue/unloved dynamics described in the emotion fields (chapter “Origin” at the top of the menu).

The contact as such can be pathologized and viewed with the usual terms (borderline, NPD, …) of pathology, but here the value is given especially on the transformative aspect, which can also cause something shamanic or disruptive, which brings stalemate states to sway. For an alternative view, see, for example, the book “Robert Pfaller – Das schmutzige Heilige und die reine Vernunft” (Robert Pfaller – The Dirty Holy and Pure Reason) which also highlights how the sacred is increasingly devalued and pathologized in our modern world. The gaze of reason wants to disenchant, but here it loses sight of the whole. For in a world that is sick in itself (our world is sick, in many places. Be it in our unnatural working life as well as in our dealings with the environment or our fellow men), disruptive forces are closer to the actually healthy (seeking recovery) than the normative (which has established itself in the sick). It is ultimately a matter of definition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *