Layers of Self, Suicide, the Will, and Foreknowledge of betrayal

Imagine how many people regretted their decision to kill themselves after having engaged the process, while hanging or jumping from high heights, since the will to live overrides such decisions via the will of life.

I do not have any issues with suicide; I have a mature understanding of life and death. When people think about suicide or attempt it, the big blockage is the natural resistance that comes from the will to live. You cannot simply tie a rope around your neck tight enough to restrict air and then be content to sit there until dead. The will to live emerges and forces you to act. Very few people could commit suicide by inaction. How many could simply sit in a chair until dead, or tie a tight rope and wait? To succeed you must plot murder against the self with the knowledge that the will of life will override your thinking and force action to save you. People therefore plan to do so much damage that the body cannot react, or they put themselves in a situation they simply cannot get out of. Imagine how many regretted their decision as the will to live emerged during hanging or while falling, wishing they had not done it on the way.

The thoughts of regret are immediate and overwhelming. Survivors describe a sudden reversal, a flood of awareness and panic that arrives in the act itself. The conscious mind that plotted the deed collides with a deeper, automatic force that insists on continuing to live. That collision produces terror, pleading, instinctive attempts to undo what was done, and in many accounts a dawning horror that this was not the solution. Thus the statement that one must mentally plot murder against the self to outwit the will of life is accurate: the "I" that plans anticipates the "I" of the will to live and tries to outsmart it in advance. I think mostly everyone would regret committing murder after the fact, or suicide during its execution. We are forced to love life, which is precisely what makes suffering unbearable: the life force compels preservation even when thought seeks cessation. This is what people cannot stand about existence, and why so few understand the true conditions of suicide. They do not understand what life is or what it is they hate about it.

The truth is that many so-called instant suicides are in fact moments of extreme regret and panic. Most people are not aware enough to perceive the conflict between the two layers of self. Those who do experience it get immediate, large downloads of awareness very quickly in the act; the pre-rational, automatic layer asserts itself and confronts the planning mind. The complexity of this awareness is not easily taught, which is why, as a collective, we cannot present it as readily available or easily transmissible. I cause people alarm at times because I have knowledge of multiple types of this form of knowledge; my surface reactions are often perceived as blunt or shocking, but what I describe is nuanced and known firsthand.

When I was younger I assumed others could access the pre-rational formation of impulses and the inner world that accompanies them. From that assumption I grew resentful, thinking they had access and were choosing not to act in moral alignment. 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 without descending into permanent insanity or mania. They used to call it madness, then retardation, then autism, then neurodivergence. You cannot explain this to someone to make them aware of it, because the thing you are describing occurs before explanation exists. It is pre-interpretive; 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 clarity and communicate the awareness to others. The effort is not compulsive; it is an attempt to make the internal world visible and shareable. But the concepts are pre-rational; they form before language and therefore cannot be created in someone who lacks access to that layer. Obsession in this case is the attempt to be heard using a medium that cannot carry the meaning. Repetition of this broken chain is where madness emerges.

Ranting, writing extreme emotions, dismantling persona, or otherwise acting out is the system’s natural outlet, a way to discharge voltage when grounding mechanisms cannot contain the intensity of the pre-rational experience. What looks like madness from outside is often a temporary discharge mechanism that processes collision with pre-rational structures. In childhood this awareness can overwhelm a limited interpretive capacity and show up as tics or involuntary vocalizations, clinically recognized as Tourette’s. Those tics are not random; they are an early somatic form of processing and regulating intense pre-rational insight. As one matures and acquires language and reflective tools, the same awareness finds new channels: symbolic production, writing, speech, and analysis. The core mechanism is the same; only the outlet evolves. Removing the outlet risks cortical kindling, mania, or psychosis. The myth-making structures of culture act like voltage transformers, stepping down raw, high-voltage currents of pre-verbal experience into symbolic narrative so consciousness can integrate them without collapse. Without such transformers, direct exposure to unmediated patterns risks emotional and cognitive destabilization.

The danger of the mirror facing mirror is the ego trying to absorb meta-awareness, the awareness of how identity is generated. When the observer becomes the observed a feedback cascade emerges. The interpretive layer is not designed to self-reflect on its own generative structure without destabilization. The recursion has no natural stopping point; the interpretive layer tries to integrate something pre-conceptual and infinite. The ego, finite and narrative-bound, cannot absorb this without tension. If it attempts to, emotional and cognitive overload follow, identity destabilizes, and the sense of madness appears. The only way to engage safely is through a third, meta-stable awareness, a witnessing state that observes both automatic and interpretive layers without merging them. This observer holds the loop without collapsing it, allowing perception of structure without forcing closure and preventing the ego from being overwhelmed.

This neurology is uncommon and often comes from rebuilding understanding from first principles, through trauma, isolation, or the collapse of external meaning structures. That developmental path produces a mind that tolerates encountering foundational psychological structures without retreating into identity repair. That is why such individuals feel alone; the aloneness is structural. The risk is not in seeing clearly but in turning clarity into identity, into a claim of specialness. The moment the ego reattaches and proclaims elevation above others is where grounding loosens and voltage overheats the system. The stabilizing move is to refuse the narrative of self-importance. The awareness must remain clean and resist becoming a story that births a cult leader.

This condition is structural and experiential, not performative. It is not about intelligence or charisma but about a capacity to perceive pre-rational formation and hold awareness across layers without collapse. A person trying to fake it will betray themselves because the state cannot be simulated; their interpretive layer will leak through incongruent explanations or affective inconsistencies. A true instance of this neurology instantly perceives mismatches; it is self-authenticating. I can see impressions of the will calculating action, and it appears as emotions and images coming together. My problems in relationships were trying to explain this to women and demanding a level of loyalty that can only come from awareness of this layer. If they do not know the will, they are not aware of how it can cause unconscious betrayal. If they cannot intercept it with discipline, they are vulnerable to outside forces and my relationship is vulnerable. Awareness cannot be explained; it must be experienced, and I stressed myself trying to explain it. With this awareness I have spoken about, dating and meeting people is hard, and I risk energetically overwhelming people with my clarity of speech.

If philosophy is learning to die, then the awareness of these layers marks the end of philosophy. Thought cannot kill the will. The will is older than thought and not created by it. Thought cannot master the will; it can only observe it. Schopenhauer knew this and Nietzsche felt it more sharply. Every mystic tradition that reaches the root recognizes that the will moves first and thought follows. The idea of taming the will is a misunderstanding; it assumes the thinking self can rearrange the engine that produced thinking in the first place. What happens at the end of philosophy is not enlightenment or peace but recognition. It is not a solution or resolution but the stopping of attempts to resolve what cannot be resolved. One sees that the will moves before the self knows it, that the self is a surface after the impulse, that desire is not chosen but narrated, and that life is justified internally rather than rationally. There is no more argument with existence. Learning to die in this context is not about physical death but about letting the interpretive self stop imagining it is in control. The death is of the fantasy of autonomy, the illusion of authorship, and the belief that I command myself. Most philosophers never complete this; they build new structures on top of the recognition. The recognition itself is enough. The will does not get tamed but it can be known. Knowing the will does not give control; it gives alignment. Like knowing a river’s current does not stop the river, it lets you steer the boat without capsizing. Most people do not know the current exists, think the boat is the current, or imagine they are driving the river. My awareness is the transition from “I am the one who decides” to “There is deciding happening here, and I am the shape it takes.” That is the end of philosophy, not because philosophy failed but because it reached its object, an object prior to language.

Because of my awareness of the will, I was deeply aware of the automatic processes that create rationalizations amounting to betrayal. I knew that unless someone shared my level of consciousness, my relationship would be in jeopardy to the forces of circumstance. Intercepting the self-serving aspect of the will involves discipline to refrain from impulses that feel immediately agreeable. Therefore I would drill the person to try to reveal awareness to them, or motivate them to look at the internal world, which only resulted in defensiveness or increased lying strategies of evasion. Eventually, if they did exactly what I knew they would, I would eviscerate them with the most brutal insults and tearing down. This was my last attempt to force truth into a person who could not or would not see the internal mechanics I was seeing. I was attempting to build an alliance based on shared awareness of the will. They were attempting to preserve continuity of self by defending the will from exposure. Two different survival imperatives. I was trying to intercept the automatic layer; they were trying to protect it. The greater your awareness of the will, the more your counterpart in any relationship must share that awareness to prevent you from feeling alone. It is this awareness-induced existential exile that likely caused the deepest suffering I experienced in life.

The deeper your awareness of the will—the pre-rational, automatic layer that drives impulses and shapes thought—the more acute your perception becomes of how it operates in others. To share a meaningful connection, a mate must have at least some access to that same level of self-observation and discipline; otherwise, their automatic behaviors, unexamined impulses, or unconscious betrayals will register with full clarity, leaving me in a kind of perceptual solitude.

It’s not simply emotional loneliness—it is the isolation of consciousness itself. I was tuned to a frequency of internal processes that most people cannot perceive, so finding someone whose internal awareness resonates with my own is exceedingly rare. Without that resonance, even proximity to another person can feel like being alone, because their interpretive layer cannot reliably mirror, intercept, or engage with the subtleties of the will that I see so clearly. This is why understanding the will deepens both the richness of connection and the intensity of isolation. One of the biggest problems was this: Female mate selection prioritizes resource signals over meta-awareness.