As I've written in a previous article on psychological emancipation, anti-social archetypes attempt (and fail to) deny society, but clearly there is something else left to deny: ourselves. And this denial also has authentic and inauthentic forms: but the inauthentic ones aren't that interesting at the moment.
So, what is authentic self-denial? Definitely not immediate self-destruction. It is, again, a thought Process, a journey of discovery very similar to philosophy and science, except utterly solitary and inwards-oriented. To invoke the paragraph on animal suffering from the previous article, it must be realized that our own psychological mechanisms--our human nature--was imposed upon us, and that the very concept of self has been as well. Our higher cognitive capacities were paid for not only by social behavior, but by the interconnect between linguistic capabilities and a sense of wholeness: internal monologue, a central component of the "ego".
But what does the internal monologue, which expresses its utter assurance in its unity and freedom, do when confronted with the fact that it is not the only component of the ego, that it does not exist for itself nor from itself, and that it is in fact definitely conditioned and thus in a state of utter non-freedom? But, what ends when other components of the ego shatter?
Again, the initial result is first and foremost an escape from neurotypicality, and into, colloquially, minor depression / psychosis. What happens next is ego-deconstruction and so on. After internalizing the above, how does one, in a trivial, linguistic sense, even conceive of "self"? After this destruction, something must be either reconstructed or 'moved' into another place. We must be emancipated from ourselves, in other words.
A Map of an Ego
In order to clarify the ontological model used in this article, I will provide a short analysis of an "ego", i.e. a feeling, thinking, acting, and interacting human; and explain how the components which create it interact between themselves. This section trivializes psychology as a science, and if I had a better academic background, it would most likely be much more correct and accurate, scientifically speaking. However, facticity is not a primary concern, the point of this section, and in fact a large part of the article, is ego-deconstruction--elimination of the illusion that we are singular self-beings--and as such can be interpreted metaphorically.
The mechanism that feeds the ego from beyond the sensory barrier (including inside our bodies, this is not a spacial division, but a conceptual one). For example, the writing of this article gives me a sense of satisfaction and self-actualization. There is a very obvious interaction between the components here, elaborated in the next section.
The Internal Monologue
A product of our brain's memetic and creative machinery.
A linguistic deception created by the internal monologue, our response, our reaction to ourselves and our surroundings.
Patterns inside the internal monologue arising from cultural transfer, observation, and introspection. Mechanistically similar to The Self but The Internal Monologue separates them conceptually.
Our "output" to society, a way in which we ground and conceive of ourselves. Another obvious interaction is the inversion of this output, a sort of a cycle. Identity includes behavior.
Interactions Between the Components
An ontology in which the interaction between components of the model is not explained is pretty much useless, the useful content lies not only in analysis, but in the synthesis of the model.
It's important to note that we are dealing not with a simple division between components such as a hierarchy, but a complex network of interactions--a machine. I will touch upon two of those interactions just to provide content e.g.
The Irrational and The Internal Monologue
This is the most obvious connection which arises from our inherent biological machinery: The Internal Monologue is fed through The Irrational and reacts to it, forming our thoughts in the process.
The Internal Monologue and The Self
This is probably the most interesting of interactions, exactly because it is the hardest to let go of, to negate, internalize as something imposed. Verbal thoughts need to be grounded in a subject, and as such, they must themselves generate it. There is no inverse relationship here.
The Two Barriers
The Irrational and The Identity are both integral parts of an Ego, but they are also it's connection to the outside world. As such, they both inject information into the ego, and are morphed by outer (The Identity) or inner (The Irrational) feedback.
As I said, there are many psychological mechanisms to be discussed, but they are secondary to the topic here. For example, The Irrational is a combination of raw input and our interpretation of it, and this interpretation is extremely interesting but beyond the point.
A Solitary Ego
Imagine being the only mind in the visible universe. This Process of analysis would almost certainly result in self-negation, and suicide or at least active but uncontrollable and total degradation towards the id (less likely). The same mechanism which gave rise to life--competition--would also take it away in its absence. The Only Mind is no longer an ego, a "self", as it has nothing else reactive against which it could, conditionally speaking, compete and struggle, nothing else against which it could ground itself.
Emancipation From the Ego
I Cannot Tell
They are taking me back
And the duality is killing me
And I want to be no one
But they are forcing me
From myself and to myself
But I don't want to be
Who wants to know what I want
Well, certainly, I do not
Who will I become the next day
I'm afraid of falling asleep
Waking up in a better state
Oh the horror let me lose control
Run from the cure as it is disease
Run from the comfort as it is life again
Can we just create and destroy ourselves
There is no purpose but there is truth
It is hard, but for authenticity's sake necessary, to go through self-denial. First off, some may ask why I blabber on about authenticity and ask me to define and justify the term as used in the context of this series. Well, it is also defined as a negative: authenticity means justification for life and its Processes.
So how do we, and do we even, reconstruct ourselves? We don't. We have to reconstruct the mechanism which defined us in the first place: reactivity, competition--our relationship towards other beings. Our thoughts don't define us, nothing ours defines us, but only that which is beyond the sensory barrier, some ever-changing anchor attached to meaninglessness. People are merely the most reactive elements of this anchor, but culture and society act as elements as well.
If depression is a state of disinterest in society, then psychosis is a state of disinterest in other beings and their activities. A self-aware but solitary machine becomes self-destructive, however this is still a part of the Process: realization of this self-destructive fact necessitates a reconnection to other beings, and as such, an escape from the Ego Jail: a psychological emancipation.