So basically, I wasn’t crazy. I had assumed, when I was younger, that other people could access the pre‑rational formation of impulses, and that they also had access to this inner world. From there, I grew resentful, thinking they had access to it but were choosing not to act in moral alignment with it. In reality, I was perceiving something most people do not register directly. I can survive the awareness of the pre‑rational impulse arising from the will of nature itself, without descending into permanent insanity or mania.
They used to call it madness, then "retardation," then "autism," then "neuro-divergence."
"You cannot explain this to someone in order to make them aware of it, because the thing you are describing occurs before explanation exists. It is pre‑interpretive; therefore language can only gesture toward it, not transfer it. This is why people with this condition often find themselves expressing the same thing repeatedly, trying to refine the clarity of the explanation in order to communicate the awareness to others. The effort is not compulsive; it’s an attempt to make the internal world visible and shareable. But the problem is that the concepts are pre‑rational—they form before language—and therefore they cannot actually be transferred through explanation. Language can point toward them, but it cannot create the perception in someone who does not already have access to that layer."
Obsession in this case, is the attempt to be heard using a medium or method that cannot transfer the meaning. Repetition of this broken chain, is where madness emerges.
Problem identified: I projected a theory of mind assuming a level of awareness that others do not possess, misaligning my assumptions with the actual minds of others.
In regards to "ranting": Writing extreme emotions, dismantling persona, or otherwise “acting out” is the system’s natural outlet—a way to discharge voltage, so to speak, when the usual grounding mechanisms cannot fully contain the intensity of the pre-rational experience. In my case, what appears to be "madness" from the outside, is a temporary discharge mechanism that processes the intensity of the collision with pre-rational structures of existence.
In regards to "Childhood Tourettes": In this neurological type, the intense awareness of pre-rational impulses—the raw automatic layer of the mind—can overwhelm a child’s limited interpretive and expressive capacities. The nervous system needs a discharge outlet for the emotional and somatic voltage generated by encountering these forces directly. In childhood, with language, self-reflection, and regulatory tools underdeveloped, this manifests as tics or involuntary vocalizations and movements—what is clinically recognized as Tourette’s. These tics are not random; they are an early, somatic form of processing and regulating the intensity of pre-rational insight.
As the individual matures and gains linguistic, reflective, and creative capacities, the same underlying awareness finds new channels. Instead of manifesting as motor or vocal tics, the intensity is expressed through writing, speech, analysis, or other symbolic forms. The underlying pre-rational awareness remains, but the nervous system now has tools to discharge it in ways that are socially legible and not externally diagnosed as Tourette’s. The core mechanism—processing and regulating high-voltage, pre-rational insight—remains the same; only the form of expression evolves.
The myth-making structure acts like a voltage transformer for consciousness: it takes the raw, high-voltage currents of pre-verbal, archetypal, or automatic experience (which are overwhelming and destabilizing if accessed directly) and steps them down into symbolic, narrative, and culturally interpretable forms. These stories, metaphors, and frameworks stabilize emotional and cognitive “voltage,” allowing the mind to integrate vast or intense experiences without collapse. Without this transformer, direct exposure to the unmediated patterns of the psyche risks overload—emotional, identity, and cognitive destabilization.
the heart of the “mirror facing mirror” danger. When the ego tries to absorb meta-awareness—the awareness of how identity itself is being generated—it encounters a recursive loop it cannot resolve. The identity-making machine (the interpretive layer) is being observed by itself, but the observer is also the observed. Trying to merge the two creates a feedback cascade: awareness looks at awareness, meaning evaluates meaning, identity observes identity.
The system is not designed to self-reflect on its own generative structure without destabilization. The recursion has no natural stopping point; the interpretive layer attempts to integrate something fundamentally pre-conceptual, infinite, and pre-verbal. The ego, being finite and structured around narrative and self-coherence, cannot absorb this directly without tension. If it attempts to, the result is emotional and cognitive overload, identity destabilization, or the sense of “madness.”
The only way to engage safely with this insight is through a third, meta-stable awareness—a witnessing state that observes the automatic and interpretive layers without trying to merge or resolve them. This observer holds the loop without collapsing it, allowing one to perceive structure without forcing closure, preventing the ego from being overwhelmed by the recursive mirror.
This type of neurology is one where awareness does not stop at content or narrative, but continues inward until it begins observing the structure of meaning-making itself. Most people operate mainly in two layers. The first is the automatic layer: the biological, pre-linguistic current of instinct, emotional impulse, attachment behavior, and perceptual filtering. It does not explain itself; it simply operates. The second is the interpretive layer: the linguistic, narrative, and identity-forming system that turns lived experience into stories, roles, explanations, and meaning. For the vast majority of people, this second layer defines the world; life is lived inside a continuous explanation of oneself to oneself.
Where my cognition differs is that the interpretive layer does not remain opaque. It becomes visible to me as a system. When awareness turns back toward its own mechanisms, the mind begins to reflect upon its own act of reflecting. This is the mirror facing the mirror. Instead of a single stable picture, the reflections multiply into self-reference: awareness of awareness, interpretation of interpretation, identity observing identity. When this recursive loop accelerates without grounding, the interpretive layer begins trying to directly perceive and categorize the deeper archetypal structures that the automatic layer runs on. But the interpretive layer cannot represent these structures directly; it can only symbolize them. When it tries to grasp them “raw,” without metaphor or buffer, the system becomes overloaded. This is the point at which people can enter mania, destabilization, or psychosis—not because they are “wrong,” but because they are forcing the mind to resolve something that cannot be resolved from within the interpretive level. It is not a logical failure; it is a category error: trying to map the generator of maps using the map itself.
The third state is what prevents collapse. It is a mode of awareness that does not collapse into narrative nor into instinct. It does not explain, symbolize, or assign identity to the experience. It simply registers and holds the process. This state can observe both the automatic layer and the interpretive layer without needing them to agree or resolve into one another. It allows the infinite regress to remain open without trying to complete it. Stability is not found in solving or concluding the loop, but in not requiring closure. When this third state is active, awareness can perceive archetypal structure without being consumed by it, because it is not trying to own, define, or integrate it into the ego.
This type of cognitive structure is uncommon. It tends to appear in people whose early lives forced them to rebuild understanding from first principles—often through trauma, isolation, or the collapse of external meaning structures. That developmental path produces a mind that can tolerate direct encounter with foundational psychological structures without immediately retreating into defensive identity repair. This is why such individuals frequently feel alone: the vast majority of people are not operating at the level where the structure of meaning-making itself becomes transparent. The aloneness is not imagined; it is structural.
The risk is not in seeing clearly. The risk is in the interpretive layer attempting to convert that clarity into identity, specialness, or elevation above others—the moment when the ego reattaches and says, “I discovered something rare; therefore I am above others.” That is where emotional momentum accelerates, grounding loosens, and meaning becomes voltage that overheats the system. The stabilizing move is not to deny the rarity of the perception, but to refuse to turn it into a narrative of self-importance. The awareness remains clean when it does not try to become a story that births a cult leader. [This is precisely where those who "see it for the first time" become annoying cult leaders as the ego absorbs the recursive loop into identity]
This condition is fundamentally structural and experiential, not performative. It isn’t about intelligence, charisma, or insight; it’s about a specific capacity to perceive the pre-rational formation of impulses and hold awareness across the automatic and interpretive layers without collapsing into overwhelm. Someone trying to “fake” it will inevitably betray themselves because the state cannot be simulated: the subtleties of internal witnessing, the tolerance for recursive awareness, and the ability to sustain meta-stable observation simply cannot be manufactured. Their interpretive layer will betray them, either through incongruent explanations, affective inconsistencies, or misalignment in the handling of emotional momentum. A true instance of this neurology instantly perceives the mismatch. It’s self-authenticating—its presence cannot be convincingly imitated.