Delving deep into the ‘grapes are sour’ attitude

What is the deeper reason behind the ‘grapes are sour’ attitude?
What is the payoff of seeing something as desirable or undesirable?
What is possible to get and what is impossible to get?
Generally, we’d like to see what is ‘possible to get’ as desirable,
And what is ‘impossible to get’ as undesirable.
That way, the psyche remains stable, and its efforts bring continual fruits,
Without wasting effort on what is impossible.

I am going to look at the ‘grapes are sour’ attitude in the context of relationships.
Generally to bond with someone, you idealize them,
Which is the basis of the whole romantic fantasy.
That they are good for you, best for you, the perfect match, that they will raise you higher and so on.
Idealization is the process of desiring itself.
That is what motivates you to seek anyone i.e. to seek to include them as a part of yourself.
The whole life of the ego is the Kohut’s tension arc,
Driving between where you are now and the image of your ideal.

On the other hand,
Devaluation is the process of avoiding/fearing (vs. idealizing/desiring).

As an ego, one would idealize that which is in one’s interest, and devalue that which is not in one’s interest.
What serves one —-vs—- What does not serve one.
What is life positive —-vs—- What is life negative.

However this does not explain the ‘death drive’.
What causes a person to consume poisons? severely deprive themselves? self torture? and actively seek death and self-destruction?

The child idealizes the caregiver to bond with them.
Esp. the infant idealizes the mother,
Because the mother is the source of life and protection for its initial years.
So this is where the primary attachment is created.
A certain primary relational structure gets formed in those years.
If the mother herself is lost, and the birth was from unconscious compulsion,
And if the mother is severely misattuned to the child’s needs,
Then the child’s needs go severely unmet.

If its needs are met highly randomly and inconsistently,
Then it will develop disorganized attachment

(that includes anxious-preoccupied and fearful- avoidant attachment patterns).
If its needs are met consistently,
Then it will develop secure attachment.
If its needs are not met at all, even once,
Then it will become a dismissive-avoidant.

Basically for a dismissive-avoidant,
Opening up to an other fully is anathema to them.
It is as good as committing suicide,
It will de-structure the entire psyche they have built.
They live only relying on themselves for almost everything.
Now this naturally idealizes self-reliance,
While decrying dependence of any sort.
The world-view formed by a person with this attachment style,
Precisely mirrors his interaction with his caregivers.
The image could be something like:
“Everyone is selfish and serving their own interests.
So I too will do the same.
Nobody cares about me unless it benefits them.
I must avoid dependence at all costs.”
Something like that,
And there are many layers to this.
There is grief/sadness and great anger towards others.
Even ignoring something is a form of hostility.
The dismissive-avoidant may ignore others with such intensity.
In the deeper psyche, it is a form of punishing them for what they did.
Giving them a taste of their own medicine, what they did to him.
RULE: “We do onto others, what others did onto us.”
So their treatment of others is a reflection and it mirrors how they were treated in their formative years.
What matters here is “FORMATIVE” years.
Because that is the time the ‘Self structure’ is formed.
Thereafter the entire experience of the world is in relation to that structure.
So for the dismissive avoidant, there is no alternation between grapes are good and grapes are sour.
They don’t even talk about it, in fact they don’t talk about anything related to their needs for relationship. It stays preserved in their own unconscious darkness .
It is just stuck on “Grapes are sour”, the idealization part has been repressed and buried into their unconscious.
Because if that is brought out, it will dismantle their entire independence idealizing structures.
The irony is, it is traumatic for them to see the world as good.

It is much easier to see the world as terrible and keep finding more proof for that.
Because that would justify their position right, of being to themselves and independent like an island.
They believe they have separated themselves from the morass of an ugly uncaring hostile humanity.

Generally the ‘grapes are sour’ experience applies to people who go through its opposite too of ‘grapes are wonderful’.
It is the alternation between the 2 that gives the strong experience in either direction.
Since in their formative years, their needs were intermittently met, followed by long periods of the opposite, it is a torturous confusion.
It is like living in a place where a gale, hurricane, flood, earthquake and other natural calamities keep striking your house again and again, causing you to somehow survive that and build your house once again from scratch maybe in a different area, only for that to happen again, and only for you to once again build a new house, and so on.
It becomes like an eternal improvisation exercise,
Where all relations are nulled, and where you try all over again and again.
This is basically a situation of high insecurity.
Where all “basis, rooting, hinging, foundation” is lost on a dime again and again.

This can be quite maddening for them.
Why? Because the projections wildly alternate,
Swinging from one extreme to another extreme,
Canceling everything out as they move from extreme to extreme.

For instance, suppose someone does not like me,
Then I will tend to try to see them as undesirable/terrible, 
Because only then can them not liking me, become a kind of ‘good riddance’, i.e. a good thing.
Else, if I see them as good/desirable, 
Then that means I am not getting access to something good,
And that will entangle my energies where I keep making efforts to try to get them to like me.

So it is better to tune perception to see them as undesirable or poisonous, 
Then them not liking me back will be good and alright, 
Because that would only prove I am good and they are bad.
Else it would turn into, I am bad and they are good, 
And that I have to be the sorry one to change and please them enough for them to accept me.

This is precisely the harrowing attachment struggle.
Preparing the body to bond OR to be alone.
Essentially, for the secure attachment people, the aloneness gets repressed in the unconscious.
For the dismissive-avoidant, the bonding part of them gets repressed in the unconscious.
They both appear to be stable, because of achieving successful repression from moving from chakra 2 to chakra 3.
Whereas, when repression cannot happen easily, because of conflicting caregiver’s attitude and behavior, then it results in the anxious-preoccupied or fearful avoidant,
Depending upon which side the scale veers to.
# If it comes closer to the secure side, then it has greater hope “If I can just try harder this time, I will make it to secure attachment”.
# If it comes closer to the avoidant side, then the hope is towards the opposite “If I can just become independent, then I can get rid of this painful need for others”.

So the scale is:
Dismissive avoidant —- Fearful avoidant –|– Anxious-Preoccupied —– Secure attachment.
This inner drama play between ‘he loves me’ and ‘he loves me not’, happens only with the middle 2. Because it is the middle 2 that are the realm of insecurity.
The dismissive avoidant is sure ‘he loves me not’.
The secure attachment person is sure ‘he loves me’.
So they both are somewhat settled in their lifestyles.

The observer and the observed world

You see the world not as it is (idea of 1 objective world),
But as you are (idea of observer-observed relationality).
The world appears to you in the way you are.
The world changing is you changing.
You changing is the world changing.
There is perfect correspondence.
The self-world pair appear together as one process,
And they also vanish together in the same process.

Generally if the self is relatively more stable than the world it is in relation to,
Then, you feel like a stable person with a stable view of a fast moving world.
On the other hand, if the self is rapidly changing compared to the world it is in relation to,
Then, you feel like the very viewpoint is shifting and experience of the world becomes more like a dream.

When you open up, the world (as you perceive) opens up.
When you close down, the world closes down.
The violence within you is the violence in the world.
The peace within you is the peace in the world.
When you are unstable, the view of the world is unstable.
When you are stable, the view of the world is stable.
The true objective nature of the world is Shunya/Indeterminate.

The body-world appears like a hologram.
Like how every drop of the ocean is the ocean contained in the drop.
Both the body and mind are actually external to your real nature.
When both the body and mind are witnessed as objects,
Then you realize the transcendent space.

The inside-out life expression

I’m looking at the perspective of how life expresses itself from inside out.
The something that seems to come from nothing…
The potentialities/fires that seem to arise in the inner space…
It starts off from the pure desires/abstract feelings,
And then projects and focuses itself into the outer realm.
I feel the very act of being alive is the burning of these inner fires.

Using 2nd person perspective narration:
Your life in the world,
Is like the sex between your inner fires with the world.
You are always in the state of sex (as a verb).
Your inner fires are penetrating into the world and that is what allows you to see it.
In fact whatever you see is what your inner fires are sex-ing with.
So you could say, you are always in relationship, and relating.
All experience is from relating.
This act of relate-ing, sex-ing, is going on and on, and is content agnostic.
It is like how when your eyes are open, you simply keep seeing, no matter what is in front of you.
That faculty is simply shining its light unconditionally on whatever is outside.
Similarly your life energies are simply in a state of relating and sex, being content agnostic.
This is where I think the sayings that ‘we are love itself’ come from.
Because all that you experience, is from this unconditional perfusion into the world, propelled by this longing force we call love.

The fire within burns unconditionally,
And unconditionally burns all that it touches,
And unconditionally lights up everything around it.
This is true for all of life i.e. the non-physical fire that animates.
All life is this unconditional fire.
This burning, and lighting up, is a kind of touch.

Even light falling on something is like the subtlest touch.
‘The burning’ is a more intense penetrative touch.
Even to simply just see something, is to relate with it.

You are Shiva, the fire(energy),
Penetrating into Prakriti(matter),

In a state of unconditional total relating/sex-ing.
ALL relating is sex at various levels – from the lightest touch to the most intense.
What we generally call sex in essence I think is the most intense form of relating.
To be in contact with the fire itself vs. being in its light sphere or heat sphere.
Ultimate sex is the ultimate union.
From this perspective/context: Sex = Yoga = Union.

One’s Personality = One’s Subtle Body.
Personality = Likes and Dislikes,
Forming the 0s and 1s of reality perception (tapestry).
There is a vision/awareness and then there is relationship (1,0) (like, dislike).
# When you like something, you strive to see it more, bring it more into your awareness.
# When you dislike something, you strive to see it less, push away that from your awareness.
So avoidance is a manifestation of dislike,
And approach is a manifestation of like.
Push = Avoidance —vs—– Pull = Approach.
That is the dance of Push-Pull, Attraction-Aversion, Like-Dislike.


The world is a fractal and holographic.
…To Zoom out —— To Zoom in…
In both cases you get infinity.
The more you see in one thing, the more you see everything.
The more you see everything, the more you see in one thing.
The intensity of seeing is independent of the content of seeing.
When we like, we open up the full intensity (towards 1).
When we dislike, we try to close down the intensity (towards 0).
And there are all the inbetween mixtures.
The intensity of this seeing depends on the vibrance of life energies within.
All liberation is about unconditionality, to become unconditional,
To just be full on and on, for its own sake.

The negative, balanced, and positive

Negative |||||| (fighting to survive) |||||| –Balanced/0– |||||| (enhancing self) |||||| Positive.
The self is a structure.
The world is a structure.
The [changing structure of the self] is in a [changing relationship] with the [changing structure of the world].
The 3 happen together and play out as a singular dream of experience.
It is not that any of them is causing the other to happen, though it may appear to be.

# When the world appears to not only maintain the self but also enhance it, there is the experience of nurture, pleasure, and the positive.
# When the world appears to not only not enhance, but also actively violate and attack the self structure, there is the experience of fighting/adapting/resisting to survive, felt as war, pain, and the negative.
# When the world appears to simply maintain you in a kind of zero gain arrangement, it is felt as balance, where there is neither enhancement nor depreciation and things just go on cyclically with no net change.

Completing and freeing the dependence on relationships

All relationships are with parts of ourselves projected out to and as others.
The other is that part of ourselves we have projected out “as” the other.
Thus when we reclaim and own that projected part/aspect,
We neutralize the attraction, and free ourselves.

To give an analogy,
Say you have a backpack full of 100s of smartphones.
But say, you only keep 2 of those phones in your pocket,
And you have no active memory of the backpack’s existence.
Now when you see your friend showing you his phone,
You’ll recognize it, it will look familiar,
You’ll feel attracted towards it, and want to possess it.
But if you realize you are carrying a backpack full of them,
And look inside it,
You’d find that you own that exact same model.
Then there is no longer an attraction to the other’s phone,
But rather, you can enjoy exploring the phone’s features together.
Because now there is a commonality and you also own that same model.

The very act of relating is like a play or dance.
The question is then whether it is conscious or unconscious.
A conscious relationship is like a conscious dance done willingly from both sides,
(i.e. conscious projection and introjection),
While an unconscious relationship is like an unconscious dance happening compulsively from both sides,
(i.e. unconscious projection and introjection).

Once you own all aspects of yourself, you become whole,
And realize that all the others are representative of potentials of your own consciousness.
Then there is nothing that you lack, that can only be got from the other.
Rather, whatever you experience as the other, is instantly owned.

The same would apply to ‘aversion to others’ too.
It is the aversion of the projected aspect of ourselves that we believe we are.
So there can be 2 steps:
First the delusion (false Introjection), and then Projection.
To free the identity from all these introjections,
Is to contemplate and realize our essence is beyond all of this,
And is transcendent of all of these appearances,
Which are all but only one of the possibilities of our infinite nature.

The whole idea of romantic relations may be a social construct

I had this wacky train of thought come to me.
Hope viewers of this post find it entertaining/interesting.

The whole idea of romantic relationship is a societal/cultural/civilizational/human-organization based construct.
If all humans just lived wild,
Males would randomly have sex with 100s of women, and probably have 30-40 children each or more.
The male would not know who his child is.
Also, there seems to be no easily observable causality linking the sexual act to the consequence of pregnancy, and the consequent children that come from that.

There is just a wild instinctual desire for the male.
Similarly women too feel this same wild desire, in certain time periods, and depending on their mood they may run away, resist, or allow the sex to happen.
The man in his prime years would probably be more motivated, since he can easily manage to do 1 or 2 every day without any time-off periods.

The things is, after the sex, the woman too may not be able to causally connect the act of sex to the pregnancy that happens after.
Could she not take it as something that just naturally happened from God?
So the causality is not known from either side, male or female.

The female would bond with the child from the oxytocin and breastfeeding period, and that bond may result in the child and mother recognizing each other.
But there is no way the child will know the father, and neither will the father know.
It could be anybody.
If the woman has had sex with 5 men in a day, and gets pregnant, how would she have any idea who caused the child OR if the 5 acts had anything to do with the child at all?
The first symptoms of pregnancy after all come much later, probably a fortnight later at least, right?

Another aspect is that, if the child grows up away from the mother from a young age, it is doubtful if the mother can recognize the child.
The child may recognize the mother, because her age may not change her appearance as much in the 15-45 zone, but even that may not be easy.

So it seems like the entire notion of civilization/society is to regulate birth and to ensure the spread of resources to everyone.
By putting the responsibility on the father, the father is deterred from following his raw instinct and seeking new mates.
Similarly, a responsibility is also put on the mother, to take care of the child for much longer than she might have otherwise done.
The socialization/enculturation/civilization process is to suppress the sex instinct’s wildness, and instead redirect it into the structures of society, that is, to gain status/position/rank and then seek out the opp-sex of similar status/position/rank etc.
This I guess spawns the whole matrix of mating/romantic fantasy and social status/rank/position/specialness.
The fantasy of being the elite and mating with other elite,
Like the notion of kings/queens, emperors/empresses, prince/princesses and so on.

Names are used in societal organization to TAG the person.
It is an identifier similar to your debit card number, social security number and so on.
Similarly even the roles of mother/father are tags society puts on folk.
Like XXX is the mother of XXXX —–OR—— XXXX is the father of XXXX.
Also the agreement of marriage itself, is really a contract/agreement that serves the children who will be born from the mating of the 2.

Marriage was essentially a system created for the bringing up of children.
Nowadays people use it for companionship, but that is a conscious contract of sort, and it does not have much binding, since both the parties are independent.
It is only the child that is born helpless, and needs a lot of nurture at least till the age of 10.

There seems to big rift in the way “natural biology drives/impulses/instincts” operate and in the way we view everything from the “societal/cultural/civilizational lens”.
The former is generally subsumed into the latter in the process of socialization.
I guess, based on seeing the consequences, ramifications, and aftermath, birth causation etc. – Wise people with vision created systems such as culture/society/civilization to organize and regulate the different drives so that the system could serve in the longer term as a win-win for everyone.
Society/Culture then seems like a long distance vision of how people can live together and mutually fulfill all their needs .
As more needs get satisfied, people may become conscious of finer and subtler needs, which would gradually make their way into modifying society’s formal or informal structures.

The root of addiction is from deprivation, not excesses

Generally it is thought a person is addicted because of an excess of something.
But on closer examination I see the excesses are only because the thing promises fulfillment but does not deliver much.
RULE: ‘The less fulfilling something is, the more addictive it is.’
The hallmark feature of addictive things is their promise, inconsistency, and fleetingness.

For instance,
People get addicted to relationships because they probably had an inconsistent relationship with their primary caregiver in childhood.
People suffering from ADHD are unable to find enough engagement, stimulation, and fulfillment from anything, so they keep shifting.

A thing that fulfills you, allows you to be free of itself.
Fulfillment is then kind of the opposite of addiction.

Everything goes around

Whatever you give out,
Gets stored in the other.
In your every action of relating,
You are passing on that energy to the other.
They then store it and manifest that same energy you gave,
To someone else, sometime or the other.

It is a grand game of passing the parcel.
Whatever a mother gives a child, the child will then store that, and then manifest that in the world.
Whatever a spouse gives the other spouse, the other stores that, and then manifests that to the world, sometime later.
Everything goes round and round.

So by relating well with the other,
You are actually planting those seeds in the other.
Your deep intention etc is stored in them,
And they may manifest that same energy much later,
To some other person, in some other place and time.

Not all causation is from what you see.
These hidden unseen causes may have passed on the real seeds.

Representation, Recognition, and Essence

Essence is from the non-local qualitative space,
Something similar to the 5th dimension ‘Plato’s world of forms’.
From where we are, we connect to these essences and experience them.
We connect to these essences through representations.
All sensory and mental objects are not the thing in itself,
But are all representations of the thing.
The thing itself exists in a transcendent form we connect/access and experience.

When we lose connection to this higher world of essences,
Which all of our representations basically cue to,
We get depressed.
So depression I feel is fundamentally from this disconnection.
Even if you logically lay it out in language,
Like:
“I have xxx bank balance,
I have all these xxx items with me,
These great xxx relationships,
etc.”
If you cannot connect to the higher world of essences,
You would feel depressed.

On the other hand, if you do connect to this higher world of essences,
You would experience great joy/riches/bliss.

This connection is entirely invisible and cannot be directly seen,
But rather it can only be felt and experienced.
Only representations can be studied and seen.
And all of the objects in the sensory and mental worlds are representations.
They all cue/point to these higher world essences.

This connection is quite a bit independent from the circumstances of life,
Apart from fulfillment of all the usual basic needs.
That is why it is difficult to see any direct correlation,
Between a person’s circumstances and his/her level of happiness.

This may explain how some of the pioneers of the LSD experience,
Described their experience in terms like: ‘seeing the whole world in a grain of sand’ etc.
Logically you might think, ‘pff, that makes no sense, how can a sand grain be the world?!, nonsense etc.’
But on deeper inspection, I see that the grain of sand is only a representation,
And it is cue-ing/pointing to the higher object which is the “5th dimensional numinous essence of the world itself”.

There are many games right, where a portion of an animal is shown to you,
And you’d have to guess the animal.
The picture that is shown, (say of the animal’s eye alone) is not the animal right?
The animal that you guess it represents (say correctly) is because you mapped that picture to your mental object.
So the animal really exists only in your mental space as a representation.
And even the picture shown to you is also a fractional representation of it.
But however neither of these 2 things can give us the real connection we desire.
Because both are only representations at some level.
The true connection is to connect everything to god (in religious terms),
Or in philosophical terms I could say, it is to connect the representational forms to their essences.

It could be speculated that this ‘world of essences’ really exists, like Plato speculated.
But the real nature of it, I feel, is entirely mysterious.
All we know is when we connect to it through our representation,
We experience all the sought after feelings of wonder/comprehension/profound understanding/knowing and so on.
It is this recognition I long for,
I wish I could connect through everything to their higher essences.