I happen to have given those issues a lot of thinking as well, Heretic Cata, and my conclusions generally- some of them at least- are that:
-While in the earlier years (eg elementary school, early highschool) most children were generally behaving instinctively, and thus were quite obvious to "understand" (more later on what this supposed understanding is) or they at any rate could not really pretend to be feeling something else, this changes later on since most people move away from the pillars of stability that their parents ussually mean for them at those very early ages. However to some children there is no such relatively calm relation with their parents, and so they never really form any such calmness either, and therefore from a very early age have developmed ways to pretend and decieve, since it was seen as a very real need (so that their parents could not understand how they felt.
-In reality no one can understand exactly how you feel. However most people have no understanding of the fact that their personal state of consciousness is already unique, since it lies on the surface of the rest of their mental world, which inevitably would be unique (and equally unexamined). This often leads to the confusion that the other person would be reading one's emotions, since to the individual thinking of them they could seem as basic. They could be basic in many ways, but they still would have been the sum of a vast number of brain cell connections, and obviously the other person could only create an approximation of those, again mostly instinctively, while thinking of how the first person was thinking. Obviously it is not that hard to form an estimate, but the estimate itself is not the same as the actual phenomenon of the other person's thought. Here is a simple example of this, so that it can become clearer:
In an elementary class a teacher asks a question. Two children raise their hands to reply. The teacher chooses child X, because the other child, child Y, had already replied to many questions, whereas X had not. Child Y puts its hand down as the teacher voices his choice of who he will choose to reply to him, but now child Y is careful to examine how child X would reply. To child Y child X is not a good student, and so he expects a less accurate, developed reply than the one he would have given. And really, child X's reply seems to be basic, simpler than it should have been, with emphasis on not all of the points it should have had, and overall it makes child Y feel contempt.
What has happened is that child Y had been following its own approximated sense of what the reply by child X had been. The use of simpler, less analytical sentences by child X, was felt as something negative by child Y, but at the same time it is true that obviously child X did not feel any such negativity since to it the thoughts it was presenting were felt in a very different way. Child Y did not see how the thoughts were being developed, but saw an automatic comparisson between them and what its own thoughts were, and drew conclusions from that comparisson, infulenced also by its overall view of child X. Had child Y tried to immitate child X it would have had given a similar reply, but it would still have not have made the same thought pattern, since that would be impossible. This is a simple example to show that you cannot understand how another person really thinks, but can only make your own approximation of it, and in that you are being unfluenced by a nearly endless multitude of parameters, the obvious majority of which are not conscious
-Everyone is living in their own organised mentality. The particularities of that organisation are, again, not all conscious. They can be in part conscious, which is what happens with introverted people. Apart from simply introverted people there are people who are entirely, or nearly entirely introverted, and the term for that is schizoid personalities (which is mine as well
). The term schizoid is used due to the greek world schizo (cut) so as to refer to the organisation consciously in many levels, which appear to be clearly defined and differing from each other. Also it can refer, at other times, to a gap between being emotional about a thought, and thinking the actual thought (control over emotions). It is another type of personality and it is not seen as a disorder anymore, although obviously it can lead to severe isolation.
-What you said about knowing 'how it started' (which you had said again in the past, in a similar thread you had started) does seem interesting, but then again had you really known how it started should not you have been able to solve it? At that thread i had suggested that you kept notes about your relation to your parents, and you had replied that each time you tried to do that you could not focus or examine your thoughts in depth, but this -despite the complexity which could seem charming to someone non-schizoid) in reality is a problem, since if you cannot even start examining something due to whatever reason, that means that you will keep being unable to start examining.
All people examine their relation with their parents at some point, ussually while they are trying to end adolescence. While obviously such examinations are done in very different degrees, that is fine since they are very different people, and no one is in need of the same analysis, nor does everyone like thinking of such issues. However not being able to think them through will not help you, and symptoms such as being interested in peripheral problems such as the obviously symptomatic issue in relation to the eyes, only depict the fact that there is a deeper issue which is not being dealt with.
I think that i will end this post here, since probably it became rather big already.
