the authenticity of virtuosity

 

My interpretation of '?' is someone else's interpretation of me. Everything stems rooted from a personal level. On a psychological level: the narcissist in me knows that if person x, y or z is treating me indifferently. The question becomes a matter of principle. That if a narcissist doesn't care - not caring into how they treat other people (or to that effect). This can only mean the intention of what I think of as psychological will never meet my personal understanding.

Autonomy speaking, this approach is about one's mastery over virtue. And the virtue you seek in yourself is about authentically renewing your mind's intention. It is an instinctive element of how one puts moral devices into action.

The narcissist implicates this. A narcissistic personality will remove themselves from the same idea another person has of themselves - as if that were only true of one version or what I call a self-righteous stereotypically detailed method. This idea is about the narcissist trying to get something they want. What they want no matter the cost to someone else's psychology. (i.e. 'feelings')

My reasons are simply put (to me) because I have been accused of being a narcissist. So to face this, as I had to.

I decided to take inventory of my moral agency toward other people.

What I find is by definition, I am selfish in my conduct. I am not, however, is selfish in conducting myself as if I am better than other people. Therein is the lack of proof that if I were an exhibitionist in trying to allure myself out of a stereotype. If I were a man that did not withhold my feelings for others in a manner that was deceptive, how would anyone else know? (This is chaotic of me to say; because interpretation is subjective, and subjectivity is language that translates into superstition.) Superstition is why Wittgenstein embodied a philosophy meant to betray our sensory experience into one of cognitive dissonance.

Why I do philosophy is to help myself see the world through the eyes and ears of god, that if god told me to do something, the same question I would impose onto god. For example: why would god ask me to provide him with any type of convenience, out of one's grievance toward that end. So if I asked god if he would help me be a writer, then why would I need this audience or even a reader per se. The audience I have is in gods eyes. Which is my point here: because I can never write (to think) that something somewhere is telling my reader what to understand. Language has its silence if you are capable enough to interpret sensory experience.

What this comes back to is how deceptive a narcissist is. That one's command of a language if only meant to limit the opposite force. That force caused BY THE NARCISSIST - but not, however, the use of language they aim to satisfy their irrational needs.

The work of a writer examines thoughts that transfer an empirical level into what the reader wants. The reader likes specific answers. But the real metaphor is in the deception. The readers reward comes from their own lack of comprehension.