The Selves We Occupy

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   
-Though, on second thought, this interplay can be looked at as an interesting example of the subject of the thread!

We learn that, when dreaming, each character, each symbol, is a part of self.
I tend to feel that is also true of our daily “real” lives (which gives way to the concept of life as a dream).

We are drawn towards, and interact with, others who have those corresponding traits or qualities that we our self have – often barely on the surface of consciousness.

What would that say, then, about itisnowagain and I?


Here’s my interpretation:

That itisnowagain has a part of herself which desires to say “I am…” , “I choose…..”,
Which she tries to repel and convince to transform and melt back into selflessness.

That I have a part of myself which is often rising from my depths, which desires to disassociate with the world of matter, duality, individuation, will, physicality, that I object to and repel.

I am aware of this “character” inside me, and feel I have made a conscious decision to choose different experience than what it offers. I acknowledge the validity of it, while also feeling that, for me, this “higher view” is somewhat of an escapist defense, I was once addicted to (and was once a necessary coping mechanism).

I found that experience of life could be so much MORE without fleeing that way- especially relationships, so despite the pleasure I know it entails, I refuse it.
Relation requires duality- an other and an I. Duality may be an illusion, but it is the gameboard of love. Basketball is also an unnecessary game, with no reality to it’s rules and structure except that which we give it. Yet we can still play it, hold specific positions, discuss the rules, block each other, compete, run and fall occasionally.

We play the game because we choose to, because it is fun to do so with others.

This exchange between us is a physical manifestation of our own internal events, between the internal selves, being enacted by external selves.




posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

Life is life so nothing really changes - it is just the 'person' who is doing it has gone. Chopping wood still happens - it is the separate person who thinks they are doing it that is seen through.


"Seen through" by who?
Who or what is seeing?



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Nice thread, Astrocyte. Great read.


The point is, lifes deeper metaphysical structure seems to be centered around the concept of relationship and how we orient ourselves in relationship. Our observer and the contents of our minds (our own self states). And then on the outside, we see physical bodies just like ourselves. The same situation, but in a physical and temporal context.


There's an interesting book by a linguist named George Lakoff called "Metaphors we live by", that provides meaningful examples of how our language is largely metaphorical, and how most of these metaphors are derived not just from our physical bodies, but from our interaction with the physical world as well. For example, ideas such as in, out, on, under, over, away from, towards, around, through etc. require embodiment within a rich environment for them to make any sense. Color is another example of something that would not exist without this relationship. Metaphors such as Affection is warmth—"she is warming up to me"—is likely due to the developing of a primary metaphor we have come to understand from being in the arms of another, the warmth of bodily contact. The point is, concepts are not disembodied, non-material, events; they are rather fully embodied, and a relationship between body and environment.

The mirror neuron, for instance, is fascinating in this respect. We can understand what someone is feeling by looking at them. Our body positions can change our moods drastically. We use body language and a bodily vocabulary to enhance communication, and even our own understanding.

Anyways...



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

Life is life so nothing really changes - it is just the 'person' who is doing it has gone. Chopping wood still happens - it is the separate person who thinks they are doing it that is seen through.


"Seen through" by who?
No one.


Who or what is seeing?
Nothing.

If you go back and read the thread you will see that the mention of 'nothingness' is what sparked the initial reply. The reply stated that 'there is nothing seeing these words.'


edit on 9-9-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Here is an interesting look at 'persona'.
edit on 9-9-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Great OP. This has to be my favorite thread since I've been revisiting ATS.

Don't want to diminish the vigorous conversation already in progress, or veer too far off topic because it is a fascinating one, but my thoughts immediately went to the Superego, the ego, and the Id. Almost three distinct selves within us.

The "ego" gets a bad rap, and people use it as an insult, "he has such a big ego" is a tacit indication that a person is self-centered, and assigns himself more self worth than he deserves. Not so! It is our mediator, it keeps us balanced.

I can see the rudimentary three working inside myself, as can anyone who bothers to notice, and sometimes there is an on-going internal conversation between three, yielding very succinct postulates to internal debates and outcomes.

Lets say, you are at the casino with your ever present Ego, Superego, and Id. You have taken $500.00 from your checking account, and lost it. Your "Id" might say, well you are having a great time, your friends are here, the free drinks are flowing, you could still win, so I'm going to get another $500 from the ATM.

Your ego intervenes and says "no. You've played the original amount you agreed upon, you have bills to pay, so suck up your losses and call it quits". (Although sometimes my ego might compromise, and say "okay. You can try $100. more, but that's it, lol)

Then your superego might come across a person who has lost everything. Is weeping. Has no room to stay the night. Tells you she won't be able to pay bills or feed her children this month. Your superego might kick in and tell you to give her every cent you have. You need to be punished for squandering the $500. and she needs help, and although it might be uncomfortable for you a couple of months, you can manage.

Again, your ego steps in. Discourages you from that. Gives you "permission" to give her some gas money to get home, but that's it. (alright, mine might give permission to give her the free meal I comped while in the process of losing a bunch of money).

But all three are present with us. Not that I'm the biggest Freud fan there ever was, but this is one of his theories you can see working within if you look. The "Id" is often seen as "our inner child", too I think. The one that wants to eat the entire chocolate pie. The ego, the adult, must step in say "no". It's also our "gangster". The one who tells you to take the money and run.

I do understand this is not exactly where you were going with your thoughts in the OP. (Which are awesome, btw), but it's where my thoughts went for a moment.

Another thing, although we are filled with conflict internally, and have a variety of "inner-selves", others tend to see us as much more internally stable and consistent, and much less scattered and diffuse than we actually are.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
We are not at the root "nothing". We are very much something.

I think maybe I went through a little existential phase in my early twenties.

I outgrew it.
edit on 9/9/2014 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma




I don't want to go into a psychoanalyzation of Itisnowagain.... I prefer, when possible, to let each person speak for themself, though at times I fail to stick to that completely.


For me (and my mind), I'm always attentive to these things. It comes with being a clinician and working with people who have problems.

In general, I only get "caught up in it" when the person presents obvious social difficulties. Denying the "reality" of the world each of us inhabit and relate with, in some essential way, is problematic. Of course, many spiritual traditions treat the monastic worldview as meaningful. Problem is, unbeknonwst to so many of these people, they're dealing with - and still are unable to work through - an unresolved trauma.

AS so many books on trauma and the body point out: "the body keeps score", by Bassel Van Der Kolk, "The body bears the Burden", by Robert Scaer; The Body and Trauma, by Pat Ogden (and still many more), people who've experienced intense trauma early in their life grow up living in a dissociated, disembodied way. As a palliative, they often find a spiritual tradition that helps them with their problems. Problem is, it helps by lengthening and widening the dissociation between psyche and soma: as winnicot said, mental health is when the psyche and soma combine to give us a deeper and more alive feeling of living.

That's all I mean by "psychoanalyzing" itsnowagain. I don't mean to be mean; although I do feel irritated with his highly dissociative - unresponsive - ways of relating with people; as if we were empty containers waiting to be filled by his dissociative "wisdom". That irks me. But I'm drawn to comment on it because I know so much (and spend so much time) studyng the neuroscientific and biopsychosocial dimensions of dissociation.

Dissociation is a very real, very relevant topic in todays neuroscience and psychological thinking. Freud kicked it out. Freud rejected the work of Charcot and Janet. But dissocation could not be denied. Today its a basic idea in cognitive science and clinical psychology.

In case you're wondering why I "always talk abut it" - its important to pay attention to. It's the process by which self-states become separated from one another. It's the process by which secret parts of self influence present thought processes/ Important stuff, if you ask me.




descend back down that mountain, and engage in that reality.


Life is a gift. I had a traumatic upbringing. Raised by a woman with borderline personality disorder; I witnessed multiple suicide attempts by my mother and because of her and the attention she needed my problems went under the radar; I developed developmental trauma. I coudn't speak or socialize. I couldn't do much of anything. And like itsnowagain, I, unknowingly, took refuge in a dissociative philosopy. Safely out of life, I felt a implicist derision for living and for anyone who cared for it. But you know what: it was fear. It was always fear, masquarading behind the semblance of "spiritual knowledge". I stayed away because I FELT I couldn't handle it.

Truth is. The world matters very much. And whats also truly, paradoxically, you have to experience how deeply created it is by our own subjectivity (at some level; there is, still, an objective world "out there') for you to be removed enough to choose for yourself how you want to be with others.

Because of this, I am able to laugh and joke and be frivolous and silly with other people with very little objective awareness or concern for how i look. I am choosing this, because I want to be with people. I want to be involved in the world. And I want to contribute towards creating a more humanized society.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: Bluesma
For me (and my mind), I'm always attentive to these things. It comes with being a clinician and working with people who have problems.


That is perfectly rational! I am not a mental health professional, so I try to refrain (sometimes without success). But your case is different.





Life is a gift. I had a traumatic upbringing. Raised by a woman with borderline personality disorder; I witnessed multiple suicide attempts by my mother and because of her and the attention she needed my problems went under the radar; I developed developmental trauma. I coudn't speak or socialize. I couldn't do much of anything. And like itsnowagain, I, unknowingly, took refuge in a dissociative philosopy. Safely out of life, I felt a implicist derision for living and for anyone who cared for it. But you know what: it was fear. It was always fear, masquarading behind the semblance of "spiritual knowledge". I stayed away because I FELT I couldn't handle it.


Wow- we have amazing similarities in our past! My mother tried to commit suicide in front of me when I was young, and I felt I had to be constantly tuned in to her to keep her alive. (she eventually was successful with the suicide when I became and adult and left the country). I also went through a period of years in which I stopped speaking. Between my mother, and my handicapped sister, I could not afford to have a self to consider as well. I was nothing. What was happening was all there was, and I had to be completely, deeply, in the present at all times.
But without a sense of self, I could not engage in it. I was an observing nothing.

Much later, I came to the conclusion you have- life matters.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   
The subject of our multiple selves is so fascinating....

I found that people had a certain reaction to me at first, which would change with time (for most).

They would act intimidated, or admiring/respectful, or rebellious, projecting upon me a certain authority. They twist what I say or do into various forms of criticism, and claim I put pressure on them to do or be better in one way or another.

Often they were totally and completely off the mark! They would imagine I want them to work harder, when I actually felt they are already working too hard for their own health or anyone elses good. Or that I judge what they wear, when I really am so not into clothing, I probably did not notice what they wearing at all.

One day I read a study that was done on peoples subconscious reactions to different facial traits. There were some correlations found that remained static by humans from all around the world. The first reactions could change with time, if behaviorisms contradicted them, but the initial reactions were always the same.

Someone with a heavy and square jaw, and a mouth which falls at the corners stimulates a sense of harsh authority- people become instantly distrustful, wary, or even scared. This is what I have, physically. (our family calls ourselves "the square jaws" because it is a trait in us all). This made me so sad to realize. But also relieved in a way, because I struggled with understanding what I was doing to stimulate this false impression.

But what was interesting to observe with time is the various forms of "super ego" people have. By whatever they would project upon me, I could see exactly what their values were, what they desired to be, what specific types of pressure, condemnation, or criticism they place upon their ego, with their super ego. I can see how harsh it is, how severe.

The roles we each play with each other, the self we project upon others in order to enact internal exchanges can even depend upon our physical form that is observed!



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   
edit on 10-9-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join