The Art of Touchy Reactions
An introduction into the "offended - line"
by Walter Alfred Siebel
It is beautiful to be together with human beings, who we like. Only: otherwise it is also
beautiful. It is not the same of course, whether or how we are together with whom and when, but the requirement for all community - with oneself personally and with others - is the acceptance of the reality , as reality steps into phenomenon - as it actually appears right now.
The German language has available so many plastic associations also for its technical terms, that it is easy for me to
let my thoughts occasionally deviate on the pictures. Here: "Steps into phenomenon" - all that what can come to ones mind and then just also influences the text with elements, which are not at all
meant by the writing person. Therefore may it be allowed to me, in approximation to Heideggers usage of the language to use the so-called auxiliary verb "to be" in a way not conforming to grammar. Then
the first paragraph sounds completely different:
It is beautiful to be together with human beings, who we like. Only: also otherwise it bees beautifully.
It is not the same of course, whether or how we are together with whom and when, but as requirement for all community - with oneself personally and with others - what it is about is the acceptance of the
reality, as it isses actually right now.
This means, it is beautiful that we are here, independently of the way how we are here, even though
it is not all the same how we communicate and behave with each other. Faith
as the feeling saying yes to the humaneness of the human being is falsely understood often as symbiotic bond into a line of ancestors which we have to continue, misunderstood as duty to serve a form of the ancestor worship, the rules of which are more unconscious, since they are trained to us through upbringing. However the yes to the humaneness of the human being without any argumentation of its right of existence isses the challenge, which brings us into our own view self-critically, without despairing however at the consequences, which traumatic experiences as possibilities of behavior have produced and are available to us as spontaneous (unchecked) routines. These acquired, learned, trained constructions can refer reality to us through subconscious associations (through the tendentious apperception), so that we can envision with the help of fake of memory, projections and fictions in us a reality, which nowhere really exists. That is an experience, which all can make, independently of the sex.
Brain-physiological reference: Whatever we "experience" in our brain exists in
our brain, since it is a biochemical reality, even if outside our person there is no analogy for the inside experienced or envisioned (for example at hallucination; see the articles by Freund and Singer in WuL
1994 and the chapters on cerebral physiology in Noosomatics Vol.I, 2nd. ed.).
Also at the experience of ignominy of a woman the concealment of her own existential reality
is the case, not however the suspension of the dignity
of her existentiallity. That means the physiological procedures in such existential crises protect without conscious regulation through the person. The physiological procedures are initiated through our physiological possibilities and help to be able to process also traumatic or traumatizing experiences, otherwise we would not be here anymore. Our physiology has protected us, indeed not without having been
by the outside, since the activities directed against us have not led us ad finem (to the goal? to the end? to the death). As a rule we build from the limitation of the traumatic experiences only a fiction of being spared and sparing, which is mentioned in the technical literature in different manners.
We "learn" these fictions and can variably couple them with the notions out of the "offended - line"
wounded (colloquially also: hurt),
confused (colloquially also: all mixed up).
and according to the mixing proportion emerged thereby, this may occur to us like by chance, some
highly interesting blockages of the reasoning power.
These blockages express themselves physiologically in such a way, that at certain places through
the opposite auto-aggressive suppressions of actually adversive possibilities so much regeneration energy is consumed, that it is missing elsewhere (to the blockages more further below). This means: our whole
internal balance with regard to our position within the befallings of "living" gets mixed up. That happens thereby, that we interrelate with a certain haziness, speak arbitrariness, what logically does not
belong together, the felt is no more sharp then, also can no more - as medicine calls this - be physiologically registered (as a normal, say natural activity of physiology). Our organism must initiate a kind of
emergency state (if necessary a stress-reaction), which can lead then also to actual sicknesses, as it is sufficiently known. Out of a mental tie-in of added thoughts symptoms can emerge therefore in fact.
We all have learned: 1 + 1 = 2, although 1 + 1 presents three (from each other independent)
circumstances. The numbers are substantial, and the "+" puts as the relating element a demand of interaction. They enter a relationship with each other. The relationship is determined by the "+":
a "plus-function", colloquially easily identifiable with something desirable. If there is a substance and the plus-function, there must also be a result. The first 1 is however an other 1 as the second 1,
even though they look alike in print (in the first year at school the different "ones" look very different from one another). Therefore the edges of the respective number-personality must be
"polished", in order to adjust them to each other and therefore be able to add them according to convention. We add "approximately" something with a "approximate" something else.
Another example: When we are looking, even if we look only at a certain place, our eye muscles
remain always in movement. It would really have to emerge a fuzzy copy, however only through the permanent minimal movement of the eye muscles we can observe with a minimum of effort the maximum possible for us. The
external impulses arrive in the corresponding computing centres in the brain, which prepare the pictures.
We can (with the help of settlements and uncertainty principles) adopt a systematic of routine,
which is carried also by our private logic, by our private right, and we feel the world view (Weltanschauung) resulting from it as the possible reality. The every-day reality would really have to correspond to this
In the moments of our touchynesses it is not really quite clear to ourselves, why we feel
"hit" just now and not "insulted", or "very affected" and not "totally hit". This haziness isses something, which we initiate brain-physiologically, in that we tie
circumstances or sets of circumstances with each other in such a way, as if the brain did not do this of itself. We can use the economy of the brain, so that the systemizations of our mental possibilities, which
present biochemical processes, correlate in such a way with each other, that a economization of work is possible. So it can happen, that the lack of use of common sense is misunderstood by the brain as routine
program in particular situations as saving of work.
If we can use therefore the economy of the brain to save our work of thinking, in that we afford
at other places of the brain extra work, then we must really ask why our brain does not react insulted now. Well now, it can not do so, because it has (or is) no own subject. It works as effect of effects. The brain
does the own work simply self-understood and without valuation and transmits informations to rest of the body.
In the subconsciously steered internal orientations the frontal lobe is involved in particular
manner. It is also occasionally called frontal brain or cortex praefrontalis. That is a question of taste and not of precision. It is composed of nervous cells and includes approximately the areae 47 and 11 as they
were numbered by Karl Kleist. These two areae are not especially large and are filled relatively early and turn active soon. The frontal lobe takes up a relatively small space and is composed of nervous cells. There
transmissions can be executed, of what missionary kind so ever, in order to work out possibilities of acting or also just moods as well. Now it is completely sure, that the frontal lobe has been previously informed
of the possibilities to be active. It is however in no situation completely sure, whether a part of the possibilities to turn active is located in the frontal lobe or just somewhere else, possibly in areas of the
cerebral cortex, which are accessible to our conscious influence. Who makes for the offer, that the here or there stored possibilities to turn active are utilized? Not the frontal lobe. Anything else in my
processing of perception does join the activity of the frontal lobe to it, consciously or unconsciously, by routine or not. That means, we must consider not only, that certain behaviors can not at all be available
in the frontal lobe - the aversive behavior we still have learned after the prelogical phase would not fit in altogether into the frontal lobe. This means, there have to be nexus, which are accessible to our
conscious thinking, which are activated by routine, therefore not activated by us in a planned way in so far, which call in the frontal lobe for the assistance of our early childhood processing of experience. This
process is called regression ("we regress") and refers to the first four, five years. Thus seen our age of conduct is occasionally a great deal younger than our actual age.
"In the course of the first five years children develop a picture of themselves and their parents, how they
experience themselves in the interactions with their parents" (Karin Grossmann "Entfremdung, Abhängigkeit und Anhänglichkeit im Lichte der Bindungstheorie" in: "Praxis der Psychotherapie und
Psychosomatik", Vol.35, Sep. 1990, p.235).
"The human being in the first five years develops a lifestyle, one could also say its
character, and attempts its life long to resolve all questions and tasks approaching at it following this pattern" (Gerda Siebenhüner "Lebensstil und Lebensstilanalysen von Ehen und
Partnerschaften" in "Zeitschrift für Individualpsychologie", 14th annual set, 1989, copybook 2, p.112).
We can for example climb a cherry tree and pick cherries without calculating the idea that any wild
animal nearby threatens us. We can however accomplish that equal conduct also with a negative self-assessment: This means we now climb under aggravated conditions and possibly prepare already the crash (see the idea
of the self-fulfilling prophecy by Watzlawik). This means, what so ever we do in a situation, we can always switch something to it, which influences the development of our behavior. Well, that possibly sounds
only still banal, but on the other hand that means also, that, if I be found in one of the catastrophic situations to be presented here ("offended", "insulted", "humbled" etc.), then I
can add laughing and the laugh remains a laugh. Gather, what happens for then now? How can I still be insulted if I suddenly laugh?
Another perspective: it can only come out of our heads what is inside. If now no laugher is
inside, and not at all in a situation in which we notice ourselves as for example insulted? We could intellectually compile ourselves, of course only purely theoretically spoken, with our brain-physiological
knowledge something humorous, put this outside by an activity, our sensory organs take it in again and behold: Then it is inside, can be trained and come out of head. We must only once in a situation of
"insulted" reach back on something which we already know, that is: our muscles of the face in the sense of humour move them accordingly (grimacing) until either our vis-a-vis laughs and incites us, or we
personally suddenly must laugh, and then this laugh comes inside as an acustic happening, because it has come out of our mouth. That could obtain naturally from the vis-a-vis a certain insulted reaction, perhaps he
or she is also offended. Then we can apologize.
Physiologically the meant can be presented by the metapher of a cell membrane, which is essentially
responsible for the exchange from inside to outside and from outside to inside, and just also for the protection of a cell and its nucleus. Our aversive sights and the blockages resulting from it are quite obviously
not permeable for new knowledge and for feelings. They organize in the forefront of new possibilities with the help of deprivation of water, because we feel rigid in the offended-line, a situation which absolutely
needs regeneration. It means that it falls dry, we turn somewhat shrinky and wrinkly, and this not only in our thinking. What do we do now, if we find ourselves there in this shrinky and wrinkly, rigid and
dry, waterless membraneimpermeable condition? The idea of death threaten however, it threatens, that we can not help ourselves any more. So that we can escape of this threat we have learned to collect reserves and
to store them (as there is cholesterol, uric acid, triglycerides). Such parameters can as it is well known be shown in the laboratory. Some people store for example cholesterol and store and store for a possible
time of emergency, in which they then possibly sometime transform the cholesterol into stress hormones to say nothing of female hormones (which are able to accomplish an intelligent performance). Or some store also
the uric acid and store and store and notice one day, that because of this storage the rigor of the immovableness appears, namely in form of gout. We could however also build nuclear acids from the uric acid to
support the bioproteine synthesis and thus regeneration. Blood parameters in their individual observation make clear in addition to the syndromes, how we deal with us and with our fictions, in so far they
discamouflage the fictions, which are subconsciously present as a rule.
Therefore: to feel personally insulted because of the outcome of ones blood parameters follows the fiction never to have
been wounded and therefore (genetically determined?) to do everything right. I am completely enthusiastic always, if such human being appears possible I proceed gladly such a search, to finally find a human
being, who has never made anything wrong, who makes always everything right. From it we could learn finally, to behave in such a way that always all human beings would have to like us - or not? The more I try to
learn about myself personally, the more I learn above all humour, to not be offended, insulted, humbled by my own behavior, when I once again have not met neither my demands nor them of other persons.
Water as a rule calls one’s attention also through a certain organ, that is the kidney. The
kidney has to do also with fear. What has to do now the fear-reaction with the waterless condition? What means the presence of this cognitive feeling in our communicating interaction with us personally? Let
us consider a moment how we have learned fear: as the first cognitive feeling through the patriarchal oriented injuring experiences of the mother, what therefore means, that the grandfather on mother’s side so
to speak is present at a birth.
"Women additionally in the relation with their body functions experience themselves as incompetent ... The feminine
reality becomes . .. through interventions into the natural functions manipulated in such a way, that it corresponds to the norms of gynecology ... / For the women constant conflicts emerge from their own
reality and the prescribed norms" (Ingrid Olbricht "Frauen sind häufiger psychosomatisch krank - warum eigentlich?" in "Praxis der Psychotherapie und Psychosomatik" , Vol.35, copybook 2,
March 1990, p.113 / 116).
"The mother feels uncertain because of her history of childhood" (Karin Grossmann
l.c. pp.235 / 236).
See to it also Siebel "Schmach. Die Schuld eine Frau zu sein..." (especially the
chapter on "fear") and Noosomatics Vol.I, 2nd. ed., the chapters to the sensation of fear and to the theory of denial.
Therefore, it can only come out of the head, what is inside. But we can also again get something into it, if something comes
out, as I said before, and then we could therefore also "water" the numinous sensation called fear, which bothers us so much, we could water it somehow a little bit, dilute it by not anymore drawing us off
At birth the mother is frightened so to speak, it do not come just abruptly the demanded and
expected motherly feelings, and then moreover comes to it the self-image, coupled with worries, perhaps just however not to able to be a good mother. And this addition (negative self-image plus worries) makes fear
at her personally, the first remembered feeling, which we learn very soon after birth and which has learned a mother from her mother because of the patriarchal injury of the mother of mother. How many generations
are present now? Four, us included. This motherly addition, as I want to call it, is really a grandfatherly. We must ascertain therefore, that also the great-grandfather is present at birth. Now we have
understood perhaps, what is meant with the third and fourth generation, until where the crime of the fathers is pursued (2nd chapter of Moses 20,5). So far it can be well surveyed still indeed. Everything going
further becomes problematic then, if we follow up the chain further back: so to speak on a minimal space fear means the storage of the fruit of about 10.000 years of patriarchy. How many cells may this be in the
frontal lobe of our brains? Four? Five? May there be some more, they suffice to express the achievement of 10.000 years of male hardest work.
This reduction of 10.000 years on a couple of cells means however, that these 10.000 years are
reduced on this small moment of the motherly shock at giving birth to a child. That is all which remains in the moment, just at the process of birth. If we look at the reality of a birth process, think at the nine
months before, at this enormous economic event of primary identity leading on to the knocking at the door, wanting to come out and then being here. This happens within a period of 9 months, without guarantee that we
correspond to the ideas of the upbringing persons also. Then this small moment of fear reaction means the heritage of patriarchy, nothing more. This means that our fitting - work exists in the disguise of this
simple set of circumstances and therefore in the development of tactics of confusion. We must invent all the more of theoretical constructions, the simpler discamouflage of truth is. The newer developmental
psychology is also full of enthusiasm concerning early childhood possibilities and the basic outfits, with which we have been born once.
"There can be little doubts at it, that the basic affective patterns belong to the innate equipment of the human
being" (Norbert Hartkamp "Einige Befunde der Säuglingsbeobachtung und der neueren Entwicklungspsychologie" in "Praxis der Kinderpychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie", 39th annual set,
Copybook 4/90, p.122).
"The new-born due to the existing results can no more be considered as an isolated,
passive, subcortical being, but must from birth on be considered as active social being in its respective social context .. / The results of ethology demonstrate, that the infant already from birth on is a
competent, that is a being orientated to the encounter with human beings" (Gerhard Schüssler and Annemarie Bertl-Schüssler, "Psychoanalytische Theorien der frühen Kindheit und Ergebnisse der
Verhaltensforschung: Ist eine Revision notwendig?" in "Praxis der Psychotherapie und Psychosomatik" , Vol.34, copybook 5, Sep 1989, pp.271 / 277).
To whom is due an importance for now really at this process of reduction? Naturally to the human
being who takes over the reduction, we logically suppose, for this human being attains thereby the corresponding (perhaps even desired) importance. A renewed fiction is the connection of importance with motherhood,
since the title of mother is more highly valued than the labeling of a person as woman (to say nothing of the title "miss"). This does not count however for a man, for him the title of father is an
additional qualification, that is an additional importance, and no transformation. Well, the man (in the patriarchal perspective) is really the cause for it, that altogether a child can be born. According to this,
really men are the ones, who get the children.
Interesting are some colloquial idioms to this:
The good comrade to the terrified: "Have you let a child palm off on you?"
The 17 year old perturbedly to his parents: "I have made her a child."
The nobly reserved: "My wife gets a child" .
The friendly neighboress in the so-called German Reich to the other, whose husband also is
in the battle-field: "Have you already picked up a packet for the Fuehrer"?
Apropos "packets" :The word of Conception (in German) is the modified postal
diction for the beginning of a pregnancy.
Well now, the thought, that men bring into the woman the almost completely manufactered
human being was the nomal scientific view anyhow up to the discovery of the oocyte in 1827.
The question who gets confirmation and grants importance can therefore only be answered in this
way: the worship of the ancestors; for the great-grandfather also had ancestors. The first man, who has begun with the construction of the patriarchy, receives the largest importance. He is
celebrated still today as the forebear, without knowing him. We do not know at all, who he is. That somehow does not matter also. Indifference actually is the content, and that makes up for fear. Fear
has indeed no concretizable content, it is numinous, as religious science says, and provokes trembling (tremendum; see especially Rudolf Otto " The Holy etc." ). Then we live with this gap and fill it, by
what so ever.
Back to the membrane: Formally a cell can remain alive even if - with regard to content -
impairments exist with the work of the membrane, since other places in the membrane can be equipped with such receptors, which care for compensation. That means: Cell membranes can have at certain places receiving
stations, which then again introduce that, which at other regions of the membrane lies fallow, to make possible from inside the continuation of supply. Receptorsites can be set free, and they can be occupied also.
This means, according to internal emergency receptors are formed, which aim purely at the survival of a cell. We can imagine, if so and so many cells are bound for survival, that the effect of such a set of cells on
the entire organism must be clearly perceptible and affects also our sensations, our own orientation at the moment. Which survival messures are provided by the cells so ever, this work copies however only again our
survival situation in the injury, appears us therefore even as completely normal. And since we have survived with it at that time (of course under completely other conditions), these activities count as proves and
will be kept without reflection.
If we look at the frontal lobe of the brain under this aspect, we must say that there are cells,
nervous cells, which have foreignly occupied receptors. It deals therefore predominantly with a survival system in order to keep us alive. We have therefore no reason, to be ashamed of the frontal lobe and/or to condemn it. Without this nervally supported survival work we would not have survived until today. Nevertheless the experiences, which are repeated here biochemically, are not older than five or six or seven years. Since we are older, we have developed so to speak past the frontal lobe, without regard to the same. Thoughtlessly we have installed elements in our other parts of the brain, the frontal lobe could never have dreamt off, let alone it would be in the position to deal with them. With this we have worked out for ourselves possibilities to offend the frontal lobe, - it would have sufficiently reason to react as insulted. But exactly it does not do that. The frontal lobe then does, what nervous cells do if no fitting impulse comes, nothing. Nervous cells work according to the all-or-nothing principle. It must come a certain quantity and then they transmit what they are to transmit, and if not, then they do nothing. If at other regions of the brain we do something, for which the frontal lobe has no receptors or any possibilities of co-determination, then it does not bother us at all, besides that it looks after itself. It does not even signal danger.
Danger is signaled, if at an innovation a fiction or the worries, that this or that one could
become problematic, is signaled to the frontal lobe. Then it activates a survival strategy. I can now think at something pleasant, and then I am feeling fine. I can imagine however also, that I was situated in
tropical - swampy area with crocodiles. Already this picture by itself in the brain immediately sets free a survival reaction - and no part of the picture, of the idea is true. But we can fancy that. We can conceive
something, we can pretend, as if this would then actually be so, and at that very moment the biochemical process copies this idea into our brains. And that sets free further biochemical consequences, which provide
flight energies. And there is no reason at all for fleeing. This means: the frontal lobe only becomes active, if the necessary occasion is manufactured to it. Therefore what ever irrational impulses or pictures or
combinations run down, and be it during sleep: Whether day - or night - dreams, they are as always fancies and they do not have anything to do with the reality, in which I find myself just now.
Associations manufacture a nexus between frontal lobe and the remaining possibilities. Therefore
I must first offer in fact something to the frontal lobe. And that leads to it, that our mental (noogenic) protection - coats are suitable to it, to evoke precautions in the frontal lobe. To these noogenic coats
also belong trained routine measures, every day rituals and systematized predeterminations.
The systematic of the notions follows HERE!