Our partner

Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Schizoid Personality Disorder message board, open discussion, and online support group.

Moderator: Tyler

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby Lucid » Tue Apr 07, 2020 2:13 pm

Its quite different. Schizoid thinking is like autistic thinking, and it used to be called this way. Its essentially creating your own world and live in it, irrelevant of what others might do or want. Its like a competitive narrative that may mesh in strange ways with the common narrative


This is a very true statement. I often find myself internalizing a narrative that is feeding back and fourth with the real world as if I were romancing the world. I remember being younger and I really idolized angels and I would try a lot of ways to communicate with them or persuade them to talk to me back. It became to the point where I would look for signs in the real world to see if they were somehow communicating with me ever so slightly.

These days now, sometimes I feel like they are watching me or protecting me. I feel this a lot with general symbolism as well and the combination of scenes or objects that elicit an experience within my mind. I can look at an object and I am able to withdraw a world of some sort out of it within my head with creativity.

Those on the autistic spectrum have been shown to have visual cortex with higher activity as well. This is something also present on the schizoid spectrum I would imagine as both exhibit the deeper fantasy life. The only thing is, i often think It is difficult to find great resources that properly explore the external worlds or gather the information. Which is a shame, it is one of the things that interests me a great deal. I always would love seeing what other people fantasize within their minds.
Diagnosed: Aspergers
User avatar
Lucid
Consumer 1
Consumer 1
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:13 am
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:51 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


ADVERTISEMENT

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby DaturaInnoxia » Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:08 am

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
1PolarBear wrote:It's interesting, but I am more interested in the identity diffusion one, where you actually believe at some point that you are the other person. It's a lot scarier.


The best I can try to understand this is guess that one experiencing this might feel like they no longer have a separate consciousness / mind from another person.


Yeah, I was still feeling separate, just a sense of loosing solidity. It's a personal experience I am looking at, not theory. But it is closer to the feeling of the movie Body Snatcher, if you saw it. In that movie, plants are morphing into people and taking their place (old myth of the doppleganger). So it is like being a doppleganger, but resisting the temptation.  :lol:


Very interesting, but sounds terrifying to me!

That's similar to the concept behind "shapeshifting' in some shamanic cultures (just intentionally instead of unintentionally) isn't it?
^ to enter a state where you could leave your body and enter someone or something else's with your etheric body.

I sort of abstractly associate this topic to remembering times when I felt like I might do things that I did not want to do, due to percieved (or mispercieved) external influences or pressurings or forces :shock:


1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:Do you have an opinion on his idea of the "Collective Consciousness"?


It's a very pedestrian one. People share the same problems, and come up with the same solutions. It might even take them the same time, overall. Plus people communicate, even though the ideas don't replicate perfectly, some core essence is kept. Its unclear how they communicate, it can be a mix of things. Let's say you have a person that has a complete theory about a problem that he sees. Some other person in another place, that does not have the exact same problem but close, takes part of it, and make up a diluted theory adapted to his situation and goals, and what he understand of the original. Then another in another place does the same, and another and another. Then someone else that seeks answer to the original question, while not knowing the original solution, hears bits and pieces of all the others, see connections, and essentially remake the original solution through intuition and logic. Not exactly the same, but close. So it is not direct, but mediated ideas. I believe it happens more than people think, but it is hard to follow the actual threads, but that is what historians often try to do, with mixed results. When seen from a higher perspective though, it may look like a coincidence, if you don't see the threads or don't know them.

So yeah, it is probably not what people want to hear, but it is a realist explanation.  :lol:


This timelapse photo of bees is how I interpreted some of what you said:
Image



I think your response clarifies a lot, but is still a bit over my head for me in some respects (and currently my mind isn't working as well as it was).

For example, using something more "zoomed in" like even this website:

Ever since I joined, I've seen one individual will start talking about something in one subforum and then in a completely unrelated subforum someone will start up on it (but possibly from a different angle like I understood you to illustrate in a few different ways) and it can happen in a whole bunch of areas at once.
^
And yet, it's not only pre-existing members; it's new ones making new topics or reviving old threads that have been dead for many, many years. And on more than one occasion, it's been a preexisting member who hasn't even posted on the website in many years - and sometimes the topics are not at all typical either.



And then, zooming out in my thinking now, I've also been thinking about previously discussed topics such as talking about extremists be it rabid feminists or other types of "humanists"
Pulling up some old pieces of discussion:

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:... forces this and they use it to hide the stereotypes they themselves project.


Yes, that happens. But it comes from the Enlightenment originally and the idea of Man, so humanism and the rights of man. I happen to be reading on the subject at the moment. The current forces of darkness are a particular brand of dangerous though for this.

As soon as man defined himself as a sovereign individual, the first thing he did was censure himself, so it is history repeating itself. It comes with political emancipation, or is a result of it...


1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:"Defined himself a sovereign individual"? When and as opposed to what?
My mind's going all biblical here.


With good reason. As opposed to the sovereignty of God. But understood as it should, so the sovereignty of reality, especially social reality. In a feudal state, the reality is authority and customs, which are more important than even the king. It does not mean the king does not have some leadership, but it is not a totally emancipated one. He is even less free than his subjects, with all the courtiers and priests around, without counting the people who want his head. What he can do though, is give privilege to some classes of people, give them a political existence separate from others, through which they can talk to him. Today it is called identity politics.

The only problem is that in a democracy where there is no king, the state is supposed to treat people equally, since it is owned by the people as a whole. Its the concepts of equality and liberty, and rights. So people have individual rights, not class privileges. They are men, not roles. Man is the ideal, the political man, that has no identity, but is a citizen. The real man is free to have whatever identity he wishes, but it is one that has no political power. Its the secular humanist scheme, or liberal scheme. Feudal people in such a scheme are regressive and asking for the impossible. The best they can get is a dictatorship, and that is the end of rights and privileges. China for example, is such a scheme. Their population is feudal and not emancipated, and never was, so they can only have something that looks like democracy from their point of view, which is simply totalitarian, but with people equal in misery and a meritocratic way for the peasant to become king. Although they have started to give privileges in the free market zones. 


What do you think will happen if humanists get primates to tear down fences completely - instead of repairing them or putting better and more secure ones in place?

I imagine it would open them up to even greater and more unfamiliar zookeepers, farmers (or harvesters) that they're even less equipped in dealing with (like places like Slovakia, Romania, Ukraine, etc. have experienced over the years).

Primate-Humanist-Individualists seem more invested in focusing on the sheepdogs than the shepherds.
If you tell them the shepherds are the core, they get enraged with you and all start calling you a "sociopath" (laughable given how sensitive and caring I am with the right populations) - all the while they continue to keep everyone focused on and trying to defend themselves against the sheepdogs (that are replaceable not only in body and by numbers, but also breeds and species too).

From a prosocial angle, I don't know how to respond or view things anymore (I have my own vision, values and ideals fused into the core of my being, but they aren't compatible with this world and thus often quite useless).
I don't even know what a helpful response or way to offer guidance would look like (that any primate would be receptive to) --- and :lol: we all know I hate being quiet!




Again, only respond if or when you feel like it, of course.
Bitches Be Tripping. They're me - I'm Bitches.  ~ unknown
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
DaturaInnoxia
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:21 am
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:51 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby 1PolarBear » Tue Jun 09, 2020 11:17 pm

DaturaInnoxia wrote:That's similar to the concept behind "shapeshifting' in some shamanic cultures (just intentionally instead of unintentionally) isn't it?
^ to enter a state where you could leave your body and enter someone or something else's with your etheric body.


Yes, among others. The comic I linked to in this thread was about that in many ways, seen through three different characters and different ways. I mean it relates, but is not the same.

This is not it either:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2015 ... ppelganger

This is more like sleepwalking, probably closer to what this thread was about.

What I am saying is closer to the changelings, in that site.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-l ... les-001825
Not exactly again
Not all those stories means the same thing or target the same phenomena, even if they share similarities.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I sort of abstractly associate this topic to remembering times when I felt like I might do things that I did not want to do, due to percieved (or mispercieved) external influences or pressurings or forces :shock:


Yes, but while there are similarities, it is the said to anathegram. It's different. In my experience, you loose yourself and become the other person. It's like the ultimate empathy. It would be closer to spiritism, when people do this with the dead, except it is not with the dead. if there is outside influence, there is a self, so it is not it. Becoming a crow or whatever is not it either, because you are still a self. Seeing copies is not it either, you are still a self. In spiritism, the person loose themselves.

There is a movie, unbreakable with Bruce Willis. He can see through someone else's eyes when he touch them, so he looses his self in that moment. Not the same either, but closer.

Ok, one near perfect scene is the scene is Star Wars, when Luke confronts Darth Vader in the Dagobah cave. Its the closest I can think of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdJYpfoqotk

But it is also like the others I mentioned.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
This timelapse photo of bees is how I interpreted some of what you said:
Image


Yes, something like that.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Ever since I joined, I've seen one individual will start talking about something in one subforum and then in a completely unrelated subforum someone will start up on it (but possibly from a different angle like I understood you to illustrate in a few different ways) and it can happen in a whole bunch of areas at once.
^
And yet, it's not only pre-existing members; it's new ones making new topics or reviving old threads that have been dead for many, many years. And on more than one occasion, it's been a preexisting member who hasn't even posted on the website in many years - and sometimes the topics are not at all typical either.


Yes, it happens. Sometimes you can see the thread and the borrowing, sometimes not, and sometimes it is just coincidence. The collective unconscious takes out the coincidence factor, and tries to explain it away, which is why it is superstitious in nature. It dates back to Plato and metempsychosis. Jung simply adapted it in more idealistic and mystical terms. The whole Freudian approach comes from Plato.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:What do you think will happen if humanists get primates to tear down fences completely - instead of repairing them or putting better and more secure ones in place?


Some primates are humanists. All humanists are primates. :wink:
Security was never part of the humanist project, in fact it is the opposite of it.
Its about taking your chances in order to be free.
But it assumes virtuous individuals that can reason and take responsibility and organize and communicate. "Humans".
The real question is whether it is simply a narcissistic delusion of primates, or a real potential of primates.
The jury is still out, but the evidence does not look good.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I imagine it would open them up to even greater and more unfamiliar zookeepers, farmers (or harvesters) that they're even less equipped in dealing with (like places like Slovakia, Romania, Ukraine, etc. have experienced over the years).


It can open up to democracy, or it can open up to some dictator. I mean eventually it will be the second, but in the meanwhile it could be the former. The end game of humanism is democracy as I defined above. Its not a sure thing, it depends if enough people actually wants it and are capable of it. Can someone own their mistakes? If people keep accepting blame shifting, the project is dead on arrival and is simply a delusion. And I am not even talking about the clowns and the illusionists.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Primate-Humanist-Individualists seem more invested in focusing on the sheepdogs than the shepherds.


Yeah, they are not the same. Primate is the substratum, humanism is their persona. Individualism is their first principle. That's why a keen bear can see through a humanist and see the underlying primate. It's what science is all about.

The thing is that true humanists don't have sheepdogs or sheperds. Those you are describing are just primates pretending to be humanists, but really they are still working on the feudal level.

Ok, quick history lesson of the last 2000 years. With just the thread I am looking at.
In every respectable religion and realist philosophy, primates are sheep, metaphorically speaking.
They are born sheep and die sheep.
Some might take on the role of sheepdogs or shepherds by role, but ultimately they are sheep.
Or as Aristotle put it, men as social animals. They are part of a whole, a herd of sheep.

Comes Christianity, they say the same, but makes distinctions. First the real shepherd is not a primate, but has no body. He is an ideal, and all the other shepherds are fakes, and some of them mislead and no allegiance to them should be given, but don't kill the dogs, they are sheep too, and even the false prophets are sheep too, to the real one. This was in the time of Imperial Rome.

Comes the Middle Ages, it becomes feudal. Now the message is essentially the same, but the dogs need to be tolerated, and some primate shepherds are anointed to do the bidding of the real one. They don't have ultimate authority, but take it from somewhere else if legitimate. Still, it is a step towards idolatry that the people that were under Imperial rule would have strongly rejected. The idea is slowly becoming a primate.

Humanism was a step further in that direction. Now the idea is a primate, and primates (non specified, are the measure of things). So they reject the idea of the real shepherd and replace it with an idealized self. Its a step forward into idolatry and superstition. This is why I said it was never about security. The medieval age was, but not humanism, and even less the original (which was revolutionary).

Now, I did say "non-specified", because it is unclear who those primates were, it was left vague for a reason. The idea was to sell it as universal, but really it was about the right people, the liberals, that have those characteristic I mentioned, the characteristic of a human, which they get through their liberal education. The liberals become the new shepherds while at the same time claiming legitimacy from being just like everybody else, just better. Or like Orwell said in animal farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Those are pigs, and they are the new shepherds.

And now, this is where we are. Pigs don't seem human anymore, lost legitimacy, so people become illiberal. So people are searching for men, but can't find them anywhere, because they don't exist.

You can be illiberal in two ways, forward or backward. Backward, you are some sort of medievalist, which today seems to be the majority, at least in the United States, not so much in other places. Those are seeking humans that are not pigs, and can't find them, but they look for humans for salvation, just like a medieval person would look for the king or God, depending on the subject matter. Forward, it would be democrats with a small d, because the ones with a big D are pigs. Now, I don't know how democrats look like. I see some here and there, but they haven't really stood up. They can't find themselves throughout all the pigs and lost sheep, and there is no secret handshake.

So the people you are talking about are lost sheep, delusional for the most part, trying to distinguish pigs from humans (that don't exist) by squinting their eyes. The democrats look like sheep, perhaps wolves in sheep's clothing, at least from a sheep perspective. And that is because the democrat will tell the sheep to stop squinting at pigs, and instead take to the field, but that is where wolves are, thus the problem. So you see where the security is. It is backward, not forward. Now, of course, there are true wolves as well, in sheep's clothing, and it is hard to tell which one is which.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:If you tell them the shepherds are the core, they get enraged with you and all start calling you a "sociopath" (laughable given how sensitive and caring I am with the right populations) - all the while they continue to keep everyone focused on and trying to defend themselves against the sheepdogs (that are replaceable not only in body and by numbers, but also breeds and species too).


Explained. :wink:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:From a prosocial angle, I don't know how to respond or view things anymore (I have my own vision, values and ideals fused into the core of my being, but they aren't compatible with this world and thus often quite useless).
I don't even know what a helpful response or way to offer guidance would look like (that any primate would be receptive to) --- and :lol: we all know I hate being quiet!




Again, only respond if or when you feel like it, of course.


Yes, nobody knows yet either, and maybe it is impossible. Democracy is about diversity of ideas. So there are just as many solutions as there are people, almost. It is why it gets paralyzed by inaction in the long run, but people aren't there yet, because it is based on the virtue of tolerance, which people simply don't have. In fact it is the only virtue, along with some courage that is allowed. There is simply no answer to those questions, because they cannot exist. One day it might be one thing, and the next another. In the end, people are on their own, which is the ultimate fulfillment of the individualist first principle. It's inevitable.
User avatar
1PolarBear
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:51 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby DaturaInnoxia » Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:01 am

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
That's similar to the concept behind "shapeshifting' in some shamanic cultures (just intentionally instead of unintentionally) isn't it?
^ to enter a state where you could leave your body and enter someone or something else's with your etheric body.


Yes, among others. The comic I linked to in this thread was about that in many ways, seen through three different characters and different ways. I mean it relates, but is not the same. 


Right ok. The idea behind the comic felt more intense or ominous to me than 'shapeshifting' in shamanic cultures - but also more meaningful as a bigger picture.

1PolarBear wrote:This is not it either:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2015 ... ppelganger

This is more like sleepwalking, probably closer to what this thread was about.


This is fascinating!
I'm understanding this to be the scientific language of etheric projection / out of body experiences close to home.
I thinking this describes certain levels of dissociation too - I'm going to have to read it a second time to better understand what was written (I can be slow at understanding things).

It's thought provoking because I've always understood OBEs and heautoscopy (though I never knew there was a language of science term) to be one in the same as an experience - and their description of the doppelganger effect of switching back and forth is when people are struggling with leaving their body properly. It's interesting to learn there are differences in the language of science.

I used to try to induce OBEs when I was a youth.
I could get into extremely deep trances (where I no longer felt my body and stopped hearing things from the external world, had no track of time, etc.), but damn if I could induce an OBE - maybe it's because I was lacking a purported medical condition.
I did eventually discover lucid dreaming though (as far as I'm concerned).

1PolarBear wrote:What I am saying is closer to the changelings, in that site.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-l ... les-001825
Not exactly again


I'm trying to figure out if it's not only having another's experience as if your own, but also an encounter with a darker aspect of self (or others?) - especially after looking at the addition of the Star Wars video clip.

1PolarBear wrote:Not all those stories means the same thing or target the same phenomena, even if they share similarities.


I'm not sure what this could mean beyond doppelgangers are perhaps not always a harbinger of death or some other type of "bad" omen.
I still don't understand the point of 'changelings' (I'll have to look further) and I had no idea Narcissus' reflection might be considered a type of doppelganger.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I sort of abstractly associate this topic to remembering times when I felt like I might do things that I did not want to do, due to percieved (or mispercieved) external influences or pressurings or forces :shock:


Yes, but while there are similarities, it is the said to anathegram. It's different. In my experience, you loose yourself and become the other person. It's like the ultimate empathy. It would be closer to spiritism, when people do this with the dead, except it is not with the dead. if there is outside influence, there is a self, so it is not it. Becoming a crow or whatever is not it either, because you are still a self. Seeing copies is not it either, you are still a self. In spiritism, the person loose themselves.


I loved delving into things like spiritism and the other things mentioned (along with many more topics) when I was younger.

Sadly, for my health, it's a rabbit hole I have to avoid playing in these days for the most part :(

1PolarBear wrote:There is a movie, unbreakable with Bruce Willis. He can see through someone else's eyes when he touch them, so he looses his self in that moment. Not the same either, but closer.


Again, intense. I'm assuming this describes a piece of "ultimate empathy" that you mentioned.

1PolarBear wrote: Ok, one near perfect scene is the scene is Star Wars, when Luke confronts Darth Vader in the Dagobah cave. Its the closest I can think of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdJYpfoqotk

But it is also like the others I mentioned.


I would become extremely distressed.
{to tangent, I might have found solace in the pythons or anacondas lounging in the branches - unless they're just computer animations}

In my mind, I started thinking of almost "melting-into" or merging - or being too permeable with others who are also too permeable.
^
As you continued to elaborate (on top of using the term "identity diffusion"), I started thinking of what you said as similar to this image with the dots being self and the line being an indicator of where one person should end and the other should begin:
Image

I thought I was getting a better idea of what you were saying, but then after watching the movie clip I'm not so sure because now I'm understanding there to be a battle of shadow (like in the second doppelganger link and the comic mentioned) along with the mentioned Bruce Willis movie's "ultimate empathy" (which could risk being physically painful, in my mind).

Was there anything you found helpful for it or would recommend to others who may experience similar?

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:Ever since I joined, I've seen one individual will start talking about something in one subforum and then in a completely unrelated subforum someone will start up on it (but possibly from a different angle like I understood you to illustrate in a few different ways) and it can happen in a whole bunch of areas at once.
^
And yet, it's not only pre-existing members; it's new ones making new topics or reviving old threads that have been dead for many, many years. And on more than one occasion, it's been a preexisting member who hasn't even posted on the website in many years - and sometimes the topics are not at all typical either.


Yes, it happens. Sometimes you can see the thread and the borrowing, sometimes not, and sometimes it is just coincidence. The collective unconscious takes out the coincidence factor, and tries to explain it away, which is why it is superstitious in nature. It dates back to Plato and metempsychosis. Jung simply adapted it in more idealistic and mystical terms. The whole Freudian approach comes from Plato.


I guess I was partially wondering if people who are "imbalanced" (and yes, I'm aware I qualify :roll: ) are more perceptive of things and intune with each other (superstitious, I guess) --- but maybe it's everything you described along with also maybe being highly suggestible too.

:D As always, it takes me extra time to absorb what you say. I'm going to briefly explore a little in understanding "metempsychosis" (it's a new the term) before moving forward to graze on the rest of what you wrote
--- and I'm aware that you prefer to come through the forum at your own leisure - but I did want to say thank you for the in-depth response
Bitches Be Tripping. They're me - I'm Bitches.  ~ unknown
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
DaturaInnoxia
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:21 am
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:51 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby 1PolarBear » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:31 pm

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Right ok. The idea behind the comic felt more intense or ominous to me than 'shapeshifting' in shamanic cultures - but also more meaningful as a bigger picture.


It was, it's an existential crisis. About loosing your self and regaining it. But in the case of Kraven at least, it is also to be drawn into another self. Some people might see it as a threat, so you see a lot of fear of engulfment in that comic. Someone being buried alive, being overwhelmed by insects, or being eaten by a bigger thing. But the same thing can be seen benevolently, as guiding spirits. It all depends on if you accept it or not, etc.

So it is my understanding of fear of engulfment. This is how all this started. Other things, I am skeptical. Like if someone would tell me being forced to brush your teeth make you loose your self, or having to compromise with others or take them into account. To me it is not existential, there is no threat there, and can't be a real fear. There is a difference between a fear of dying and a fear of not being completely free to do whatever.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:This is fascinating!
I'm understanding this to be the scientific language of etheric projection / out of body experiences close to home.
I thinking this describes certain levels of dissociation too - I'm going to have to read it a second time to better understand what was written (I can be slow at understanding things).


Yes. I don't think they talk about dissociation, but it makes sense it would be similar, possibly the same.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'm trying to figure out if it's not only having another's experience as if your own, but also an encounter with a darker aspect of self (or others?) - especially after looking at the addition of the Star Wars video clip.


I definitively met darker aspects as well. People changing in demons. But I also saw people change in myself, and I don't know which is the scariest. I was trying to explain the latter mostly. The thing is that with demons, they are not part of me, no connection, except that they "know" me or are aware of my presence. It's a different fear I believe, but maybe not. They are the dark aspect of socialization, having to interact and react to others, etc. I think it is different.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'm not sure what this could mean beyond doppelgangers are perhaps not always a harbinger of death or some other type of "bad" omen.
I still don't understand the point of 'changelings' (I'll have to look further) and I had no idea Narcissus' reflection might be considered a type of doppelganger.


Yeah, they went a bit broad in their connections. Well changelings is the fear of being replaced, and not being able to tell the difference. It is the same as the fear of teleporters in Star Trek. How can you tell it is really you? and not just some copy that died?. Same theme is studied in the movie The Prestige. The illusionist uses deception, but the scientist uses real copies, which is highly unethical, so in that movie, the scientist is the bad guy, and the illusionist is the good guy, but it is also just a show. Of course it comes from a movie maker, an illusionist. :lol:

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Again, intense. I'm assuming this describes a piece of "ultimate empathy" that you mentioned.


Yes, its part of the puzzle.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:In my mind, I started thinking of almost "melting-into" or merging - or being too permeable with others who are also too permeable.


It's a way to put it. Quite good actually.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:As you continued to elaborate (on top of using the term "identity diffusion"), I started thinking of what you said as similar to this image with the dots being self and the line being an indicator of where one person should end and the other should begin:
Image


Yes, that is what chemical diffusion is, and at the end, both sides are the same, and it is done in a way, gradually, thus like melting.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I thought I was getting a better idea of what you were saying, but then after watching the movie clip I'm not so sure because now I'm understanding there to be a battle of shadow (like in the second doppelganger link and the comic mentioned) along with the mentioned Bruce Willis movie's "ultimate empathy" (which could risk being physically painful, in my mind).


Well, there is a battle if you fight it, but not fighting means dying. In the case of Willis, he uses it to do good things. Its just that in my own experience, I didn't want it, or was scared of it. So that is why I use dark imagery, but I suppose the same thing could be imagined in other ways.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Was there anything you found helpful for it or would recommend to others who may experience similar?


No, I don't know what causes it, nor how to stop it. It only happened a few times as some sort of unusual perception, although the feeling might be there somewhere unconscious. The thing is that most people seek those type of experiences, that's the difference. That's also how they get into toxic relationships. What do you think "being in love" is about? its the same, just on a different playing field. I recommend social distancing. 8)

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I guess I was partially wondering if people who are "imbalanced" (and yes, I'm aware I qualify :roll: ) are more perceptive of things and intune with each other (superstitious, I guess) --- but maybe it's everything you described along with also maybe being highly suggestible too.


I haven't thought about it in those terms all that much. Idealists are usually delusional, but then again, being part of any group is idealistic, so living a lie is a requirement if you want to be part of the group. I just don't know who qualifies as imbalanced if everybody is to one degree or another, its not useful. Some ideologies create crazy people as well. So there is a chicken and egg problem.
User avatar
1PolarBear
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:51 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby DaturaInnoxia » Thu Jun 11, 2020 6:51 pm

I've been slow on understanding and delayed with anything that involves any level of intelligent thought lately - most things don't, but this does.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:What do you think will happen if humanists get primates to tear down fences completely - instead of repairing them or putting better and more secure ones in place?


Some primates are humanists. All humanists are primates.  :wink:
Security was never part of the humanist project, in fact it is the opposite of it.
Its about taking your chances in order to be free.
But it assumes virtuous individuals that can reason and take responsibility and organize and communicate. "Humans".
The real question is whether it is simply a narcissistic delusion of primates, or a real potential of primates.
The jury is still out, but the evidence does not look good.


I've never understood how security was never a part of humanism.

I'm not seeing reason which is part of why I was wondering.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:I imagine it would open them up to even greater and more unfamiliar zookeepers, farmers (or harvesters) that they're even less equipped in dealing with (like places like Slovakia, Romania, Ukraine, etc. have experienced over the years).


It can open up to democracy, or it can open up to some dictator. I mean eventually it will be the second, but in the meanwhile it could be the former. The end game of humanism is democracy as I defined above. Its not a sure thing, it depends if enough people actually wants it and are capable of it. Can someone own their mistakes? If people keep accepting blame shifting, the project is dead on arrival and is simply a delusion. And I am not even talking about the clowns and the illusionists.


I'm thinking owning mistakes may be easier as a larger group than individually because they can shift amongst each other or point at the organization while easing into taking responsibility.

I'm not sure if suddenly "flipping" to solidarity of a cause is the same thing as owning mistakes.

I was also thinking of other animals that would serve as pigs - like wild boars or hyenas or tazmanian devils that don't even adhere to enforcing or creating a dictatorship.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:Primate-Humanist-Individualists seem more invested in focusing on the sheepdogs than the shepherds.


Yeah, they are not the same. Primate is the substratum, humanism is their persona. Individualism is their first principle. That's why a keen bear can see through a humanist and see the underlying primate. It's what science is all about.


Ok that's making sense. I thought I already understood that humanists were a type of primate, but I didn't realize that individualism was principle rather than another type of primate.

1PolarBear wrote:The thing is that true humanists don't have sheepdogs or sheperds. Those you are describing are just primates pretending to be humanists, but really they are still working on the feudal level.


This is where my concern is, I think. They're operating as you explain, on a feudal level but getting rid of the system when, as you've said before, they need some type of dogs or shepherds.
This makes me wonder if true humanists would become the sheepdogs or shepherds, but I'm doubtful because they're not keeping the pretenders on point currently and haven't been for a long time (I've already complained about this earlier in this thread). It's a $#%^ show.

1PolarBear wrote:Ok, quick history lesson of the last 2000 years. With just the thread I am looking at.
In every respectable religion and realist philosophy, primates are sheep, metaphorically speaking.
They are born sheep and die sheep.
Some might take on the role of sheepdogs or shepherds by role, but ultimately they are sheep.
Or as Aristotle put it, men as social animals. They are part of a whole, a herd of sheep.

Comes Christianity, they say the same, but makes distinctions. First the real shepherd is not a primate, but has no body. He is an ideal, and all the other shepherds are fakes, and some of them mislead and no allegiance to them should be given, but don't kill the dogs, they are sheep too, and even the false prophets are sheep too, to  the real one. This was in the time of Imperial Rome.


This clarifies some of what you mentioned earlier in our conversations, thank you.

1PolarBear wrote:Comes the Middle Ages, it becomes feudal. Now the message is essentially the same, but the dogs need to be tolerated, and some primate shepherds are anointed to do the bidding of the real one. They don't have ultimate authority, but take it from somewhere else if legitimate. Still, it is a step towards idolatry that the people that were under Imperial rule would have strongly rejected. The idea is slowly becoming a primate.


I'm trying to understand if this means kings or queens which you've also touched a little upon in past conversation.

1PolarBear wrote:Humanism was a step further in that direction. Now the idea is a primate, and primates (non specified, are the measure of things). So they reject the idea of the real shepherd and replace it with an idealized self. Its a step forward into idolatry and superstition. This is why I said it was never about security. The medieval age was, but not humanism, and even less the original (which was revolutionary).


Idealized self clarifies what they're doing, but since very few are humanists and humanists aren't bothering to keep them in line it's a problem.
I'm assuming idealized self was supposed to replace the need for fences too.

1PolarBear wrote:Now, I did say "non-specified", because it is unclear who those primates were, it was left vague for a reason. The idea was to sell it as universal, but really it was about the right people, the liberals, that have those characteristic I mentioned, the characteristic of a human, which they get through their liberal education.

The liberals become the new shepherds while at the same time claiming legitimacy from being just like everybody else, just better. Or like Orwell said in animal farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Those are pigs, and they are the new shepherds.


I plan to think further to understand this

1PolarBear wrote:And now, this is where we are. Pigs don't seem human anymore, lost legitimacy, so people become illiberal. So people are searching for men, but can't find them anywhere, because they don't exist.


My thinking is, pigs have eaten their farmers when the farmer collapsed - so it's only natural that they'd pose the same risk to any other primate that is weakened if not supervised properly.

It's just pigs being pigs - blaming them doesn't do much. It's those that are supposed to keep them within their pens that need to be targeted, but even then, if the goal is idealized self with false humanists not knowing where to focus because they don't care about reason...

1PolarBear wrote:You can be illiberal in two ways, forward or backward. Backward, you are some sort of medievalist, which today seems to be the majority, at least in the United States, not so much in other places. Those are seeking humans that are not pigs, and can't find them, but they look for humans for salvation, just like a medieval person would look for the king or God, depending on the subject matter. Forward, it would be democrats with a small d, because the ones with a big D are pigs. Now, I don't know how democrats look like. I see some here and there, but they haven't really stood up. They can't find themselves throughout all the pigs and lost sheep, and there is no secret handshake.

So the people you are talking about are lost sheep, delusional for the most part, trying to distinguish pigs from humans (that don't exist) by squinting their eyes. The democrats look like sheep, perhaps wolves in sheep's clothing, at least from a sheep perspective. And that is because the democrat will tell the sheep to stop squinting at pigs, and instead take to the field, but that is where wolves are, thus the problem. So you see where the security is. It is backward, not forward. Now, of course, there are true wolves as well, in sheep's clothing, and it is hard to tell which one is which.


1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
From a prosocial angle, I don't know how to respond or view things anymore (I have my own vision, values and ideals fused into the core of my being, but they aren't compatible with this world and thus often quite useless).
I don't even know what a helpful response or way to offer guidance would look like (that any primate would be receptive to) --- and :lol: we all know I hate being quiet! 




Again, only respond if or when you feel like it, of course.


Yes, nobody knows yet either, and maybe it is impossible. Democracy is about diversity of ideas. So there are just as many solutions as there are people, almost. It is why it gets paralyzed by inaction in the long run, but people aren't there yet, because it is based on the virtue of tolerance, which people simply don't have. In fact it is the only virtue, along with some courage that is allowed. There is simply no answer to those questions, because they cannot exist. One day it might be one thing, and the next another. In the end, people are on their own, which is the ultimate fulfillment of the individualist first principle. It's inevitable.


I'm not clear on a lot of this, so I wanted to think further.
I do know my life would be and would have been a lot easier if I had the virtue of tolerance. 
I wish I could force myself to learn it or a replacement.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:Right ok. The idea behind the comic felt more intense or ominous to me than 'shapeshifting' in shamanic cultures - but also more meaningful as a bigger picture.


It was, it's an existential crisis. About loosing your self and regaining it. But in the case of Kraven at least, it is also to be drawn into another self. Some people might see it as a threat, so you see a lot of fear of engulfment in that comic. Someone being buried alive, being overwhelmed by insects, or being eaten by a bigger thing. But the same thing can be seen benevolently, as guiding spirits. It all depends on if you accept it or not, etc.

So it is my understanding of fear of engulfment. This is how all this started. Other things, I am skeptical. Like if someone would tell me being forced to brush your teeth make you loose your self, or having to compromise with others or take them into account. To me it is not existential, there is no threat there, and can't be a real fear. There is a difference between a fear of dying and a fear of not being completely free to do whatever. 


I haven't gotten much chance to think on this, so I'm not sure if I understand --- but perhaps being capable of the aforementioned "ultimate empathy" means you shouldn't be asked to do anything that requires an imposition on freedom unless you come to that conclusion yourself.
Maybe that's why social distancing works.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I'm trying to figure out if it's not only having another's experience as if your own, but also an encounter with a darker aspect of self (or others?) - especially after looking at the addition of the Star Wars video clip.


I definitively met darker aspects as well. People changing in demons. But I also saw people change in myself, and I don't know which is the scariest. I was trying to explain the latter mostly. The thing is that with demons, they are not part of me, no connection, except that they "know" me or are aware of my presence. It's a different fear I believe, but maybe not. They are the dark aspect of socialization, having to interact and react to others, etc. I think it is different.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I'm not sure what this could mean beyond doppelgangers are perhaps not always a harbinger of death or some other type of "bad" omen.
I still don't understand the point of 'changelings' (I'll have to look further) and I had no idea Narcissus' reflection might be considered a type of doppelganger.


Yeah, they went a bit broad in their connections. Well changelings is the fear of being replaced, and not being able to tell the difference. It is the same as the fear of teleporters in Star Trek. How can you tell it is really you? and not just some copy that died?. Same theme is studied in the movie The Prestige. The illusionist uses deception, but the scientist uses real copies, which is highly unethical, so in that movie, the scientist is the bad guy, and the illusionist is the good guy, but it is also just a show. Of course it comes from a movie maker, an illusionist.  :lol: 


Id like to think further on this

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
As you continued to elaborate (on top of using the term "identity diffusion"), I started thinking of what you said as similar to this image with the dots being self and the line being an indicator of where one person should end and the other should begin:
Image


Yes, that is what chemical diffusion is, and at the end, both sides are the same, and it is done in a way, gradually, thus like melting. 


For me, in real life interactions, I often feel like I'm too open/receptive to most others and it feels obnoxious and invasive and they try to engulf me which is why I hate strangers in my personal space and I like social distance.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I thought I was getting a better idea of what you were saying, but then after watching the movie clip I'm not so sure because now I'm understanding there to be a battle of shadow (like in the second doppelganger link and the comic mentioned) along with the mentioned Bruce Willis movie's "ultimate empathy" (which could risk being physically painful, in my mind).


Well, there is a battle if you fight it, but not fighting means dying. In the case of Willis, he uses it to do good things. Its just that in my own experience, I didn't want it, or was scared of it. So that is why I use dark imagery, but I suppose the same thing could be imagined in other ways.


This makes sense to me now. I would hate it.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Was there anything you found helpful for it or would recommend to others who may experience similar?


No, I don't know what causes it, nor how to stop it. It only happened a few times as some sort of unusual perception, although the feeling might be there somewhere unconscious. The thing is that most people seek those type of experiences, that's the difference. That's also how they get into toxic relationships. What do you think "being in love" is about? its the same, just on a different playing field. I recommend social distancing.  8)


I'm not sure I agree that all "being in love" is about that, but I definitely see what you mean.

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I guess I was partially wondering if people who are "imbalanced" (and yes, I'm aware I qualify :roll: ) are more perceptive of things and intune with each other (superstitious, I guess) --- but maybe it's everything you described along with also maybe being highly suggestible too.


I haven't thought about it in those terms all that much. Idealists are usually delusional, but then again, being part of any group is idealistic, so living a lie is a requirement if you want to be part of the group. I just don't know who qualifies as imbalanced if everybody is to one degree or another, its not useful. Some ideologies create crazy people as well. So there is a chicken and egg problem.


I don't like groups, but I'm an idealist to a fair extent.
As for being delusional, it's possible - but at least functional enough not to be institutionalized. Lol.

Groups provide safety - the problem is not having one you can blend into.
For example, me.
Too "immoral" and odd to not upset the white sheep.
Too "moral" to not upset the the black sheep.
This is maybe my version of fear of engulfment.
Why exist if you have to repress everything that yields any quality of life for you - beyond where my idealism lies; service to others and my non-primate shepherd.
Bitches Be Tripping. They're me - I'm Bitches.  ~ unknown
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
DaturaInnoxia
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:21 am
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:51 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby 1PolarBear » Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:32 pm

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I've never understood how security was never a part of humanism.

I'm not seeing reason which is part of why I was wondering.


Because the whole scheme of feudalism is about security. You have God, who as a person is a benevolent father figure. You have bishops that protect the soul, and kings and queens that protect the body. Each have a whole hierarchy and a structure, and are for the most part really stable. Popes live long, same as kings, and in the latter, it is the same family, so there is a strong continuity, and not too much innovation, and in fact, innovation is seen suspiciously by most.

Humanism is like an adolescent that decides he wants to make his own mistakes. So it is about trying out things and taking risk, as well as making your own decision, as human, and in the name of human. And it is a human that is at the top, that directs and stuff, usually for a limited period of time so things don't get stale. Merchants start going further at sea, taking risk in trading. More wars as well, lots of expansionism and colonization. Interacting with other cultures and dominating them. Etc.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'm thinking owning mistakes may be easier as a larger group than individually because they can shift amongst each other or point at the organization while easing into taking responsibility.


I don't know, but it is not part of humanism or liberalism. Class system is a medieval thing. There was still some in liberalism, but the end was always not to have any. It goes against individualism, which like I said is the first principle. Class privilege is medieval.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'm not sure if suddenly "flipping" to solidarity of a cause is the same thing as owning mistakes.


No. It's not even close. It's just posturing. It's part of the liberal deception if you want, or how Republics were created. You have an elite that is elected and once this inconvenience is over, they have free reign for a few years. "Causes" is more or less people trying to make themselves heard by the elite, or the elite gathering followers, mostly the latter. It's essentially royal petition without a king, so not full humanism, but a step further. There is no responsibility on the part of the petitioners, even less than in the medieval period, where privileges were given, but duties enacted as well. In a liberal republic, the duties is the taxation, so the real responsibility is almost inexistant, and diluted throughout the whole population.

In other words, nobody is responsible for the $#%^ they propose, and they won't be the one doing anything about it, they just have the right to say stupid stuff.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I was also thinking of other animals that would serve as pigs - like wild boars or hyenas or tazmanian devils that don't even adhere to enforcing or creating a dictatorship.


Pigs aren't dictators. They are liberals. They simply are not much different than the aristocrats they replaced in the name of animalism. At least in the eye of a socialist like Orwell.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:This is where my concern is, I think. They're operating as you explain, on a feudal level but getting rid of the system when, as you've said before, they need some type of dogs or shepherds.
This makes me wonder if true humanists would become the sheepdogs or shepherds, but I'm doubtful because they're not keeping the pretenders on point currently and haven't been for a long time (I've already complained about this earlier in this thread). It's a $#%^ show.


Yeah, there is a misunderstanding. There is no such thing as true humanists. Everybody is a humanist in a humanist society. Same as everybody is a liberal in a liberal society. You can't be anything else, but you can long for something else. So when I say some people are feudal, I mean they still long for feudalism, and haven't really accepted humanism, but they are still humanists and liberals, and they have concepts of it, its their base. They are all individualists. They would probably kill themselves in a more communist society. All the structures that made feudalism have been replaced for the most part, gradually, and some people emancipated themselves from bondage of those structures. Religious authority for one, it was the first, than the kings. The liberal elite replaced them piecemeal, brick by brick by specialists.

Then the workers started to emancipate themselves politically. It's the socialists movements that gave everybody the right to vote eventually. For some reason though slaves and women didn't emancipate themselves in the same way, and in fact didn't, except superficially. They were given an opportunity but did not take it. And for some reason they are asking the workers to give them special privileges to compensate, which is not possible since they don't have those privilege to give, since they don't have them. Of course liberals profit from this to kind of rollback advances that were made.

And like I hinted earlier, it is not the first time such a thing happened. When Christians emancipated in Europe, Jews were left didn't follow in the same way. And just the same, they asked the Christians to give them privileges they did not have. The only privilege they did have was to have given up Christianity, they emancipated themselves. Jews wanted the same advantages, while still being Jews, which was not possible. And it created the situation we know in the world war.

So that is what I mean by still feudal. Just like the Jews hadn't accepted liberalism (now they do), those two groups have to emancipate themselves, not ask others to do it for them, which is not possible, and defeats the purpose to start with.

"True humanists", that don't exist right now, would be democrats. It's the end game. No more class and race and gender that gets politicized. Or sexual identity. Just the same as people don't vote Christian anymore. It's about looking further than people that looks or think like you. And it is about taking personal responsibility, not waiting for an elite to give it to you, because they don't exist, or at least, some do exist, but they are not any more responsible than any other. They just pretend to be. If a pig gets into a scandal, another takes his place and denounce the other pig. There is no real pig class that can take responsibility as a class, or as pigs. Each pig is an individual, which is why they are emanticipated and not serfs.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:I'm trying to understand if this means kings or queens which you've also touched a little upon in past conversation.


They were part of the system, but not at the top. Top in temporal matters only, which was the lowest.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Idealized self clarifies what they're doing, but since very few are humanists and humanists aren't bothering to keep them in line it's a problem.
I'm assuming idealized self was supposed to replace the need for fences too.


Like I said, they are all humanists, they simply reject liberalism, but are too afraid to be democrats and leave their idealized self at the door, like an emanticipated person needs to do. It's not an option or anything.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:My thinking is, pigs have eaten their farmers when the farmer collapsed - so it's only natural that they'd pose the same risk to any other primate that is weakened if not supervised properly.

It's just pigs being pigs - blaming them doesn't do much. It's those that are supposed to keep them within their pens that need to be targeted, but even then, if the goal is idealized self with false humanists not knowing where to focus because they don't care about reason...


It's just that for awhile, pigs had lipstick that made them look like Aristocrats, so some people treated them as such, and that is how they got power and kept it for a few hundred years. But now you get a guy like Trump, there is no denying he is a pig because he has no lipstick at all, just a plain pig. So for those that were dreaming of aristocrats, it was a shock, that a pig could be a shepherd. The whole country went into meltdown, and pigs around the world panicked and started sweating.

It's a question of legitimacy. Rulers are supposed to be humans, not pigs. Or at least a continuity, just like the kings did, but Trump broke the spell. This being said, it did not start with him obviously. People have to emancipate themselves, then perhaps the pigs can be replaced by the other animals, just like it was supposed to be. No shepherd, no dogs, just people making decision. But like I said, it seems pretty far away in the future if at all.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I haven't gotten much chance to think on this, so I'm not sure if I understand --- but perhaps being capable of the aforementioned "ultimate empathy" means you shouldn't be asked to do anything that requires an imposition on freedom unless you come to that conclusion yourself.
Maybe that's why social distancing works.


I didn't say I was able to do that, it's just the impression it gives. Social distancing works because that is how you don't get infected by other people in any way shape or form. And if you have a disease, you don't spread it.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
I don't like groups, but I'm an idealist to a fair extent.
As for being delusional, it's possible - but at least functional enough not to be institutionalized. Lol.

Groups provide safety - the problem is not having one you can blend into.
For example, me.
Too "immoral" and odd to not upset the white sheep.
Too "moral" to not upset the the black sheep.
This is maybe my version of fear of engulfment.
Why exist if you have to repress everything that yields any quality of life for you - beyond where my idealism lies; service to others and my non-primate shepherd.


Yes, maybe it is your version.
User avatar
1PolarBear
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:51 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby Squaredonutwheels » Fri Jun 12, 2020 8:40 am

1PolarBear wrote:
Yeah, I was still feeling separate, just a sense of loosing solidity. It's a personal experience I am looking at, not theory. But it is closer to the feeling of the movie Body Snatcher, if you saw it. In that movie, plants are morphing into people and taking their place (old myth of the doppleganger). So it is like being a doppleganger, but resisting the temptation.  :lol:


[/quote]

Being born from the ground like the podpeople in body snatchers, can also be seen in Platos republic where Socrates talks about the "ideal Just city". Where people are brainwashed into believeing they are not born from their parents but from the state itself.

While seeing bodies emerging from the ground may be disturbing to witness; at a psychic level, most "individuals" accept "motherland" "fatherland" and even if they are not nationalistic like tolkiens orcs, at least derive most, if not all of their identity from external ideologies that emerege from a place they barely know exists - because it is everywhere, the foundation which they walk on.

My guess would be that the folklore of doppellgangers would have emerged when tribes around the world encountered imperial civilisations with their unified absolute morals.

the fear of loss of individuality and being assimilated into the collective probably causes certain people to withdraw into themselves. Ironically, by removing close intimate, family and friend ties they end up becoming the very pod people that have replaced everything about themselves with whatever product the collective produces for them.
Squaredonutwheels
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:41 pm
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:51 pm
Blog: View Blog (15)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby 1PolarBear » Fri Jun 12, 2020 9:11 pm

Squaredonutwheels wrote:Being born from the ground like the podpeople in body snatchers, can also be seen in Platos republic where Socrates talks about the "ideal Just city". Where people are brainwashed into believeing they are not born from their parents but from the state itself.


I suppose you could make that link. The body snatcher has a whiff of collective takes over. My analogy was not appropriate in that sense, its more fundamental and can happen in any relationship. Also people are replaced by plants with no emotions, which is part of the scary, but that would not apply either. I just liked that movie. :)

That city of Socrates is the second one, and not the ideal just city. The ideal just city is where everybody minds their own business and do their own things. They live a self-sufficient life, but obviously also a poor one. His definition of justice, which is the goal of the play, is "to mind your own business", and the ideal city's citizens do just that.

However, after he describes said city, people listening to him take offense and tell him this is a city of pigs, with no luxury or anything worth living. The second city, which is the main part of the book, is best case scenario, what would happen of a city that wants luxuries. So he starts with a city where everybody is the same, has the same origin, so the same culture, and everybody is smart and wise, but even then the wisest gets to rule. And then he follows the downfall of that city point by point. So the moral of the story is that you can't fake your way into justice. If you deny the first principle, no matter what you do, it will corrupt over time, no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise perfect. It's true for justice, but also for any first principles. People always think they can get away with just this little bit of exception which breaks the rule. So the whole play is a slippery slope argument.

Squaredonutwheels wrote:While seeing bodies emerging from the ground may be disturbing to witness; at a psychic level, most "individuals" accept "motherland" "fatherland" and even if they are not nationalistic like tolkiens orcs, at least derive most, if not all of their identity from external ideologies that emerege from a place they barely know exists - because it is everywhere, the foundation which they walk on.


Hadn't make the connection with orcs and nationalism. For sure we take our identities from our culture and traditions, without knowing it. At least for the most part. I agree with that, and it is well.. quite traditional. :lol:

Squaredonutwheels wrote:My guess would be that the folklore of doppellgangers would have emerged when tribes around the world encountered imperial civilisations with their unified absolute morals.


Well, it's German. I remember reading stories about it, and I am not sure which one it was. I tried to find the origin of it.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/h ... ppelganger

What I was thinking was probably from Hans Christian Andersen, or the changeling tales. It's the idea that someone is being replaced by a double, with different personality. I thought about it, especially in the case of the changelings, and I wonder if it is not a case of fear of letting children out of your sight. Lots of tales about that. Goblins may steal them, but they can be replaced by changelings and you won't even notice, so better not take any chance.

If the McCanns had taken those tales seriously, maybe the goblins would have been thwarted. As it were, they simply took the little Maddy, and goblins are good at hiding under the Earth, so you never can find that child again.

Squaredonutwheels wrote:the fear of loss of individuality and being assimilated into the collective probably causes certain people to withdraw into themselves. Ironically, by removing close intimate, family and friend ties they end up becoming the very pod people that have replaced everything about themselves with whatever product the collective produces for them.


That's assuming you absolutely have to take something from others, and that the only protection is friends and family, which you can't protect yourself from. So in the end, it makes no difference if that is the case, but I don't believe it is. People can pick and choose what they believe in, and pretty much always do, but customs give a reservoir of stories for everybody, but not every story is for everybody. Although I can see what you mean, and there is some truth to that. People that deny family, customs and religion have only really one source of information, and that would be the State approved ones, from the institutions. Often stories are used as subversion of current narrative. The body snatcher story was probably such a story.

However, I did not bring out those myths in that sense, and I denied it twice already. :)
I brought it up as a more existential threat, and the threat is not in the real of ideas, values or morality, it is more of a bodily threat. Or an loss of agency threat. Because if you kind of become one with someone, it is hard to tell who's agency you are following. Your own, or the other's? So you'd better know what you stand for before hand, or potentially be manipulated and cease to exist.

Which reminds me again of the McCanns. Its clear to me from one interview, that the mother is completely fused with the husband. She has lost her agency to him, or he took it, but essentially, he talks for her all the time, and she does not push back at all. She also talks weirdly, in an impersonal matter, as if she has trouble taking agency and responsibility for things. She is in some sort of dream where things happen and she is not all there. Not sure if it is a dependent personality, or a case of abusive husband or something, but the relationship looks toxic.

So its that type of fear, or becoming like her.
User avatar
1PolarBear
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:51 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Maladaptive Daydreaming vs. Schizoid Thought Life

Postby justonemoreperson » Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:07 am

1PolarBear wrote:
DaturaInnoxia wrote:You think so?
So then, do you think some people just don't have that imprinted upon them?


Or they have a different imprint, no different than living as an alien in another culture. Both can be true as well. Just imagine someone living in a world that changes all the time, a chaotic world. Then there is nothing to imprint, things are just too random, so the person becomes random personified.

If there were no constants in the Universe, there would be no science. Believing you know something would be delusional and hurtful.


Just to flip this onto its head for a minute: what if the schizoid reaction is the correct one?

Looking at the way we live compared to how we used to live, we see a significant detraction from normal behaviour.

For many, life is a conveyor belt of normality. You, like everyone else, are brought up to go to school from 4/5 to 16/18, then to develop a career, working for someone else. The main goal is to buy a brick building in which to live, and then spend the rest of your time trying to buy back as much time as you can so that you can do what you want. The main goal is to make sure that when you're too old and weak you'll be able to do stuff that you wished you could do when you were younger.

That, when you look at it, doesn't really make a lot of sense. It presupposes that everyone is the same; that everyone has the same goals, fears and drivers.

Given the unique characteristics of people, doesn't it seem obvious that, psychologically, people will "act out" to try to re-establish their own version of reality that matches their own goals, fears and drivers?

Certainly, most of the people we look up to as inspiring thought leaders are people who are "weird." They have odd visions of life which, as odd as they seem, resonate with groups of people.

People who feel stressed react in ways that aren't always obvious. They can cut themselves, develop obsessive behaviour, eating disorders and create fantasy worlds in which to live.

Most of these are seen as coping mechanisms, and a good psychologist will dig into the cause to find why these behaviours are necessary.

If it's caused by abuse or some other series of events, these can be explored to help the individual create a new story for their life, hopefully to end the damaging behaviour.

But what if the stress is caused by "normal" life? There is no fix, because you can't change the world, but it doesn't make the "normal" we have right. And, if the way we live now isn't right, it means that the schizoid reaction to that doesn't need to be fixed, because it's a reasonable response to psychological imprisonment.

Some time ago I read an article about a person who was kept in isolation as a prisoner for years. He spent most of the timed in a small box room, with no window onto the outside world. He coped by creating vivid mental images.

He created his street in his head and his neighbours were different parts of the walls. He'd visit them, talk to them and create a complex story for their lives that he could interact with.

To all intents and purposes he was schizoid, but he wasn't diagnosed schizoid, as it was clear that it was necessary for his mental health.

Maybe the only problem with schizoid people is that they don't fit the modern day world-template. It begs the question: why aren't there more schizoid people? Maybe there are, but many of them fail to create the internal world and, instead, end up depressed or self-harming.

The more complex the world becomes, the more defined normal becomes and "surprise surprise" more people are psychologically maladaptive.
I'm not arguing; I'm explaining why I'm right.
justonemoreperson
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 11386
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:02 am
Local time: Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:51 am
Blog: View Blog (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Schizoid Personality Disorder Forum




  • Related articles
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 24 guests