Conflicts in understanding myself as a narcissist

emptiness is your default state because that is the way your brain functions

Daniel, that's a fascinating belief you are presenting there! I can see how that statement can be true in your model of the world, but to me it seems a bit odd… isn't that a bit like saying that you are overweight because that's the way your stomach functions? As I look at your post.. I'm wondering.. how -- specifically -- are you believing that my brain functions? And… in what way would my brain have to function for me to accept that 'that's the way your brain functions' is a valid reason for anything at all?

Because to me…it seems that my brain can function in many different ways…in many different states.. with some of those states being more useful than others. I'm actually kind of curious... I'm starting to wonder... how many different states I can function in? And I'm starting to ask myself... which state would I like to function in? And how would I know that I'm functioning in that state?

(I was very briefly in 'true self' mode three days ago, so my brain is obviously fully capable perceiving the world in the way most Normal People perceive it. I think I'm up to a total of perhaps between eight to fifteen of these 'true self' moments, with some of them lasting for hours and some of them being very brief and fleeting. I've experienced all these moments during the last 12-13 months. I'd say that about three or four of them were as the direct result of me using specific set of certain self-help techniques that I more or less described in my post above. Considering that I've at most spent somewhere around 20-30 hours on actively working on my beliefs.. I'd say that my return on the invested time and has been very good so far. )

narcovery wrote: isn't that a bit like saying that you are overweight because that's the way your stomach functions?

Narcovery, you may be unfamiliar with the emotional set point concept, which states that there is an emotional baseline to which we inevitably return to, even after triumphs or tragedies. Or after our using one of the latest self help techniques we’ve picked up. There is also the concept of hedonic adaptation, which you may also be unfamiliar with, which indicates that we readily grow accustomed to physiological changes. Another way of saying that is we get used to whatever changes we have made which made us feel happy. Google these terms for more information.

So it stands to reason that if these psychological insights are accurate and that, by your own testimony, you readily find yourself returning to an emotional state that you categorized as empty, then emptiness may be your emotional set point and all of your self help techniques won’t change that.

Besides which, why should feeling “normal”, whatever that means, be considered your “true self”? Where on earth did you the idea that normality equates with authenticity?

how -- specifically -- are you believing that my brain functions?

Like most humans. Which is why the above insights would apply to you, me and everyone with a largely undamaged brain. But then again, I don’t know you. I can only go by the comments you have left here.

And… in what way would my brain have to function for me to accept that 'that's the way your brain functions' is a valid reason for anything at all?

You don’t have to do anything but die when the time comes. Unless someone figures out a way to extend biological life indefinitely. I put my question out there to see what your response would be. What you do or don’t accept is of course your business and no sweat off my back either way.

I would however, suggest that you cannot transcend your biology.

Daniel Birdick wrote:I would however, suggest that you cannot transcend your biology.

I like your caution, but too much biological determinism. You may not be able to transcend your biology, but that doesn't have much real-world meaning since nobody understands the biology well enough to say what's fixed, what's mutable and what the limits are on change. And you can change your brain, it's designed for that. We just don't know how much or in what ways. Other than by trying it out.

Also a "set point" (speculative) which applies to some quantity of "happiness" in response to a reward - doesn't say anything about whether and how much the quality of one's baseline emotional state can change. Or even if there is such a thing as a baseline quality. That may be an entirely different can of worms. Whatever. It's another nature/nurture debate and usually we all end up throwing up our hands and saying it's both biology and environment. Substitute what you like for environment: personal choices, circumstances, upbringing...but those are the levers for change.

angelina3 wrote: I like your caution, but too much biological determinism.

Not really. Just asking some questions and putting a few things out there. I was hoping for an insightful and dare I say it, hopeful response from the other person.

Not that I expected to get one though. Look, the "real world meaning" to be had is that no matter how possible we theorize personal change might be, it is unlikely because most people don't change, for whatever reason. Yes, I know I am making a broad generalization. I haven't seen any reason to believe otherwise though.

Everything narcovery said makes complete sense to me right now. It didn't 2 weeks ago when I first read it, it just sounded like pop-psychology Barnes & Noble gobbledygook. I read half of it and I was like "whatever".

I am currently in what seems to be "True Self" mode. I snapped into it about a week ago, pretty suddenly, after experiencing a horrifically mind-numbing and body-paralyzing depression. In fact, it was such a contrast that I thought for a moment that I was bipolar. But I'm not.

It's just self-realization. Who knows how long it will last though, unless it's possible to shift my "baseline" as Daniel puts it... but self-realization has always been very slightly more important to me than success and glory. And I need success and glory more than anything, most of the time.

Biological determinism is interesting, but not very useful at this point in time. If given two options, neither of them proven, neither of them going on anything but belief or faith, wouldn't it be a bit more self-serving to go with the option that at least gives you the chance or the hope of improving your quality of life? The more optimistic choice?

As it stands, we have somewhat of a choice over our thoughts, but not our brain cells. If there is even a difference. And narcissists do like control, after all...

The last sentence in my previous post was meant as a joke, but it actually provides something else to consider:

There is the danger that self-realization might act as a treacherous ouroboros. Suddenly we "know" what's up, thus feeding back into the grandiosity loop, into our "baseline". Could this perhaps have something to do with fact that you keep slipping back into you False Self, narcovery?

I suppose, in a way, this goes back to Daniel's point of hedonic adaptation. Mice running in circles, thinking they will eventually get somewhere.

medusa, I love your posts.

As for hedonic adaptation... Is that a bad thing? Isn't that everyone's eventual goal; to be happy regardless of external factors? I see a lot of cynicism in the "outlier zone" around happiness. Possibly because nobody wants to be "that guy," that Matthew McConaughey type who is so irritatingly "blissed out" on a 24/7 basis. Yet, those who are in that place lack a narcissistic wound so don't bother with the cynics or their opinions.

Something I've come to understand is the relationship between behavior and make-up. The two play off each other. Through behavioral practice, the core (or Self) makes its appearance. And vice versa. Through accessing the Self, behaviors follow suit. None of this happens magically, of course. It is through mindfulness and, again, practice that a steadier stream of happiness is realized.

I have to believe that, regardless of biology, all creatures have a Self. We're born with it. It is inherent to our beings. Many of us have handicaps in attaining access to that Self due to nature/nurture, but it remains regardless.

medusa wrote:Mice running in circles, thinking they will eventually get somewhere.

Yeah, that’s why I hoped, however faintly, that Narcovery might give me something I’d never seen or heard before. I went thru a pro-longed self help phase a little while ago, thinking I could change myself precisely because I didn’t understand what was going on within me and why. But all I ended up doing instead was chasing my own tail.

I am currently in what seems to be "True Self" mode... It's just self-realization.

What is this “self realization” and “true self” thing you all are talking about? Of course I have heard it mentioned in other places, mainly within the context of Eastern religion, but you and Narcovery seem to be using these terms in a very specific way. Is this “true self” merely a euphemism for normal? You say you are feeling better. Terrific! Why can’t this better feeling period just be relief as opposed to self realization?

Biological determinism is interesting, but not very useful at this point in time. If given two options, neither of them proven, neither of them going on anything but belief or faith, wouldn't it be a bit more self-serving to go with the option that at least gives you the chance or the hope of improving your quality of life? The more optimistic choice?

Again, I’m not really going to push the idea of biological determinism. My main point is that it can actually do more harm than good to keep expecting yourself to be something that you clearly aren’t, regardless of whatever temporary spikes in emotion one might feel when they think they have succeeded in permanently changing themselves. I imagine that after the high is over and you once again find yourself thinking and feeling the same way you did before, the disappointment can very well lead to depression, if not despair. Why not instead create new meanings for the very traits society tells you are undesirable? Why not instead work with what you have rather than attempt to mold yourself into something you have never been and may never be? Wouldn’t intelligent self acceptance be the more lasting way to improve one’s quality of life?

velouria wrote:medusa, I love your posts.

I have to agree. Medusa is on fire this morning!

Daniel Birdick wrote:What is this “self realization” and “true self” thing you all are talking about? Of course I have heard it mentioned in other places, mainly within the context of Eastern religion, but you and Narcovery seem to be using these terms in a very specific way. Is this “true self” merely a euphemism for normal? You say you are feeling better. Terrific! Why can’t this better feeling period just be relief as opposed to self realization?

These are specific Narcissism terms, and not as new-agey as it sounds. The False Self is a defense mechanism, usually self-created at a young age, due to a rejection of the True Self. The False Self is grandiose and has a superiority complex, to compensate for the damaged True Self which has an inferiority complex and is repressed. This division of the self is usually caused either by parental neglect and abuse, or by narcissist parents forcing their ego into you. [See: Sam Vaknin for a more grandiosely written version of this.]

Self-realization, now, this is a bit trickier. Most I can say right now is that it means unadulterated honesty with oneself, parsing truth from delusion. A step towards self-actualization, being the full realization of one's potential. This is how I see it, anyway.

Daniel Birdick wrote:Again, I’m not really going to push the idea of biological determinism. My main point is that it can actually do more harm than good to keep expecting yourself to be something that you clearly aren’t, regardless of whatever temporary spikes in emotion one might feel when they think they have succeeded in permanently changing themselves. I imagine that after the high is over and you once again find yourself thinking and feeling the same way you did before, the disappointment can very well lead to depression, if not despair. Why not instead create new meanings for the very traits society tells you are undesirable? Why not instead work with what you have rather than attempt to mold yourself into something you have never been and may never be? Wouldn’t intelligent self acceptance be the more lasting way to improve one’s quality of life?

Yes, I'm thinking that the next step would look something like that. Acceptance and peace with oneself. Though one might still hold out for an exit sign. Or schizophrenia.

Daniel Birdick wrote:

velouria wrote:medusa, I love your posts.

I have to agree. Medusa is on fire this morning!

Thanks guys. I'm having some kind of mania problem and I can't sleep.

Is this “true self” merely a euphemism for normal? You say you are feeling better. Terrific! Why can’t this better feeling period just be relief as opposed to self realization?

"Normal," IMO, is merely the ability to interact with others in a socially acceptable, and hopefully authentic, fashion. Using "normal" as a definition for the Self is limiting. If medusa, or anyone else, feels herself lifting the masks and accessing her Self, realizing her Self, she sure as rain is going to feel better. Because the Self is an incredibly warm, happy place to be. It is free of all the BS that's been cast upon us since the earliest years of our current incarnations. Even touching on it will make someone feel better, even just to know it's there.

Why not instead create new meanings for the very traits society tells you are undesirable? Why not instead work with what you have rather than attempt to mold yourself into something you have never been and may never be? Wouldn’t intelligent self acceptance be the more lasting way to improve one’s quality of life?

I do not possess a PD, but am diagnosed neurotic so that is the lens from which I write. My "undesirable traits," or "masks," are false. I have no purpose for them today. I can identify them and trace them to their origins. In every case they originated as defense mechanisms. Today they serve as obstacles and guides to unhealthy behaviors. To that end, "intelligent self acceptance" is accepting my true self as me, that I am not the sum of the masks I've honed over decades.

One confusing aspect is that some of these masks seem like positive traits. For instance, one I call "the counselor." I am the person everyone calls when they need advice or direction. Three calls last weekend from various friends led to me neglecting my own needs and responsibilities. And caused some unnecessary enmeshment with one of the friends. Yet this mask serves to draw people to me. I know that I will retain friendships in spite of some of my nastier traits because I know they will always "need" me. Yet, in so many ways, I always end up feeling alone. Alone because it's never a two-way street. Alone because I always feel gutted. Alone because when my advice doesn't match the direction a friend wants to take, I am pushed away.

There are no "new meanings" for those seemingly negative traits. They are what they are and while I have done quite well with them, I always eventually end up feeling empty once I've followed their pathways. All roads from those masks lead to isolation. Sure, I'm a socially accepted entity, but there is a lot of pain associated with that acceptance. And I can't guarantee how much of that acceptance is due to artful use of my masks vs. who I truly am as an individual. Thus, acceptance (and success) I have today has little meaning to me as I seek to approach life from my core. A scary endeavor, indeed. Even scarier for the disordered as the battles between the selves are much more calamitous.