#circular thinking

Because they did. Witnesses who were there said they did and went to the trouble of showing us why.

Okay so we see Jimin and Jungkook together, Hobi behind and Tae up ahead.

That dude has Taehyung’s jacket.

So Jimin and Jungkook are shown getting into the same car.

Jungkook in the car, Jimin getting into the car, staff carrying Tae’s jacket ahead to give it to Tae who is waiting for it.

Then Tae in the car on the left. Jimin and Jungkook already in their car. So someone was like “so Tae wasn’t with them” and OP said

But the thing is, anon, I thought y’all had been saying for YEARS that sharing a car didn’t mean anything.

Why are you so pressed about it all of a sudden? Why the need to alter reality if it isn’t a big deal in the first place?

Look, Taekook as a friendship is amazing and we love to see it. That lapsit was adorable

But both Tae and Jungkook have told y’all the truth multiple times. Tae straight up told you to step off. JeiKei literally said out loud to die mad, he’s gonna keep holding Jiminie. And he did.

All the way to the car they shared.

I mean you have two choices at this point. Chill out and love ALL of them and accept that grown men get to make choices about who they love; or maintain your circular conspiracy theory mindset and be mad a lot when these men don’t act like your personal Barbie dolls.

Sometimes, Sanders Sides really gets me into a cyclical thought loop like no other media that I consume (cue the “so im stuck in a loop?” “you could say that again” gif). Anyone else? Lemme explain:

I really like to think sometimes about Sanders Sides as the meta-textual analogy it’s meant to represent. I mean, I love to think of the Sides as characters (because they are) that are somewhat independent from Character!Thomas (but obviously still connected). But sometimes, I like to do some analysis thinking specifically within the context of Sides-as-functions-that-are-part-of-Thomas’s-whole, because that’s what the show is. That’s how the creative team has explained their approach with episodes. Conversations in Thomas’s living room are meant to represent the inner thought-and-emotional process a person goes through, or might go through, when confronted with certain dilemmas. 

But sometimes it gets me caught in this loop of thought. Because I’ll be like “this Side did this” and my brain’s response is “but that’s because Thomas did that” to which the response is usually “yes but they are the part of Thomas that did that” followed by “but they only did that because Thomas willed them to do it on some level”. Round and around and around. 

More specifically, I’ve been thinking about Janus’s reveal in the “Can Lying Be Good??” video. I generally abide by the notion that Janus decided to disguise himself as Patton, yeah? But then I had the thought that it would be a little funny if Janus just. Woke up looking like Patton that day and was like “I guess Thomas wants to lie to himself about something related to morality today”. But then the other part of my brain was like “wouldn’t that desire on Thomas’s part still be a byproduct of Janus’s function?” and thus the thought loop started running its circles.

Oof, I’m working on a first draft of a rec letter for myself and need a break because this stuff is exhausting.  Different fields do it differently but in public health it’s common for someone to supply a draft rec letter to their recommenders that the recommenders can modify as they see fit.  (I’ve actually only heard of this not being the case in the humanities, or if someone knows you really well and is really gung-ho to write a rec for you).  Besides working on this letter draft, I applied for a research associate job today and read articles for adapting my paper on the mental health effects of neighborhood policing to a sociology journal.  So, it’s been a productive day I have to remind myself that a little break is OK.  

Break time reflection:  

My therapist thinks that parts are acting more through passive influence right now than through overt switching.  I’m not sure what I think about this.  Passive influence implies that they have an agenda of their own and are acting on it, which implies that they have their own sense of consciousness that I’m not aware of.  With “switching” I can say that I think, do, say, act a particular way when I’m certain environments that make me think, do, say or act in that manner.  This makes sense to me because my “parts” don’t have their own consciousness.  They are just modes that I slip into.  Saying that the parts are operating through passive influence though implies that they have some degree of their own agency, which would imply that they have a separate consciousness from me to some degree.  I know passive influence is considered “milder” than “switching” but I do feel that it implies some separation of consciousness between parts and I’m really not sure how I feel about that when I have never experienced split consciousness myself.  

I wonder why I am so resistant to the idea of having more than one consciousness within me.  Besides the reality that I only have ever experienced one consciousness, I think what I fear is lack of control.  When I was diagnosed with OSDD it affected me because the one thing you’re supposed to be able to count on in life is yourself, and if you’re more than one person what does this mean?  I feared losing control because it felt like everything I knew and believed about myself (e.g., that I was one person and had a pretty strong sense of self) had just been said to be a lie.  The thing is, I do feel like I have strong sense of self, even the so called “parts” conform to ideals and values that I strongly identify with.  

I felt that with the diagnosis I would learn new things about myself and that “parts” would emerge more strongly and take control.  I did not stop to consider that I had been living with this “condition” already and was already familiar with what it meant in terms of loss of control.  Yes, sometimes I will do or say things that are a bit outlandish, but it’s all still me at the end of the day.  If I could live with this “loss of control” my whole life thus far, why should I expect diagnosis to change what “loss of control” is for me and my capability to handle it?  So, I have to remind myself of this when parts work through “passive influence” rather than it merely being me thinking, doing, saying, or acting a particular way in response to certain environmental triggers.  I guess the reality is that my parts have been working through passive influence as well as “switching” my whole life, so I already know what it feels like and I know that I can handle it.  

The truth of circular thinking depends on what your core values are. True Circular Thinking is an effective tool to be used against our arch enemy, Satan.  Read more:

The truth of circular thinking depends on what your core values are. True Circular Thinking is an effective tool to be used against our arch enemy, Satan.  Read more: