Conflicts in understanding myself as a narcissist

Euler wrote:There are some other overt (really felt) feelings but they're hollow and leave within a very short duration.

Can you give an example of this? Would it be something like the experience of listening to music (sans lyrical content), for example? Or a beautiful landscape? Or having a gun pointed at your head?

Basically anything not directly connected to the experience of being a human amongst humans, if you know what I mean?

Euler wrote:In short for any normie, and yes the term is applicable since there are general psychological patterns that the majority have, to inflict their definition of healthy upon me is implicitly expecting me to not be me and mirror them. Basically living a false self without doing damage....sorry, but there's nothing in doing so for me.

Yes! Very well put. Although I would say that this can extend beyond any so-called PD and be applicable to a certain sector of extremely self-aware people.

Euler wrote:So I put my ugly, "demonic", disordered foot on the floor at such a preposterous notion and thankfully my therapists agrees whole-heartedly.

I would imagine this would take one hell of an open-minded and imaginative therapist to do this without consciously or unconsciously superimposing a "normal" or majority-accepted "healthy" set of guidelines for you.

medusa wrote:

Euler wrote:There are some other overt (really felt) feelings but they're hollow and leave within a very short duration.

Can you give an example of this? Would it be something like the experience of listening to music (sans lyrical content), for example? Or a beautiful landscape? Or having a gun pointed at your head?

Basically anything not directly connected to the experience of being a human amongst humans, if you know what I mean?

Euler wrote: The only solid, real felt emotions, are hate I know I'm not unique in this. There are some other overt (really felt) feelings but they're hollow and leave within a very short duration. Even the anger is hollow and short-lived. The cold emotion. I know I get anxiety and other things because I can feel a sensation in my body, much in the same way I know when I have a runny nose.

I believe this entire statement answers the question you raise. Anything I feel (and I believe Euler will agree with this, though forgive me if I overstep in that assumption) is entirely transitory. I may feel INTENSELY angry, or INTENSELY euphoric.... for a minute or two, then it fades to nothing. A non-emotion. So in situations where some moderation, or extension of those feelings is required, I pretend.

medusa wrote:

Euler wrote:In short for any normie, and yes the term is applicable since there are general psychological patterns that the majority have, to inflict their definition of healthy upon me is implicitly expecting me to not be me and mirror them. Basically living a false self without doing damage....sorry, but there's nothing in doing so for me.

Yes! Very well put. Although I would say that this can extend beyond any so-called PD and be applicable to a certain sector of extremely self-aware people.

Bingo! This is the crux of Euler's position. You (medusa) seem to be saying that "true self" and "socially acceptable self" are synonymous. Euler is pointing out that your position is... untenable to say the least. Yes this is true beyond the range of PDs, but it is more relevant to those with PDs than it is to those without. Think about this- who has more people lining up to say that they are fundamentally "wrong"? PDs or the "chronically normal"? Its amazing how society at large (and yourself in this post) seems to feel that to disagree with consensus reality or majority thinking is a psychological flaw that can be rectified? Maybe... just maybe... individuals such as Euler and myself are not "covering" any true self with "disordered thought"... maybe, our "true self" is different from you, so it's just best for all parties concerned if we learn to play along and act nice. The "mask" is not the symptoms, the mask is what we put on to avoid prosecution.

medusa wrote:

Euler wrote:So I put my ugly, "demonic", disordered foot on the floor at such a preposterous notion and thankfully my therapists agrees whole-heartedly.

I would imagine this would take one hell of an open-minded and imaginative therapist to do this without consciously or unconsciously superimposing a "normal" or majority-accepted "healthy" set of guidelines for you.

Not necessarily- While it appears to be difficult for ANY individual to step outside of their own predilections and preconceptions... it CAN be done by almost anyone (and with very little effort at that).

I am glad this topic came up- I'm beginning to see that there are, in fact, people out there that do not think like I do. Quite the eye-opener for me.

kaotikone wrote:

Euler wrote: The only solid, real felt emotions, are hate I know I'm not unique in this. There are some other overt (really felt) feelings but they're hollow and leave within a very short duration. Even the anger is hollow and short-lived. The cold emotion. I know I get anxiety and other things because I can feel a sensation in my body, much in the same way I know when I have a runny nose.

I believe this entire statement answers the question you raise. Anything I feel (and I believe Euler will agree with this, though forgive me if I overstep in that assumption) is entirely transitory. I may feel INTENSELY angry, or INTENSELY euphoric.... for a minute or two, then it fades to nothing. A non-emotion. So in situations where some moderation, or extension of those feelings is required, I pretend.

No, it doesn't answer my question. He says the only "solid" feeling he has is hate. But he doesn't define the "other overt", hollow and transitory feelings, except for anger. This is what I'm asking about.

kaotikone wrote:

medusa wrote:Yes! Very well put. Although I would say that this can extend beyond any so-called PD and be applicable to a certain sector of extremely self-aware people.

Bingo! This is the crux of Euler's position. You (medusa) seem to be saying that "true self" and "socially acceptable self" are synonymous. Euler is pointing out that your position is... untenable to say the least.

Actually, I am not saying this at all. Where are you getting this from? Perhaps you are confusing me with velouria? Though even she is not quite saying this either. Euler and I haven't even discussed anything directly with each other throughout this thread.

To be honest, I don't really believe in a "true self", in any pure sense of the word. Most of what I have said in this thread is just posing questions and feeling things out, not describing how I personally conduct myself, think of things in terms of my own life, or any personal opinions.

kaotikone wrote: Its amazing how society at large (and yourself in this post) seems to feel that to disagree with consensus reality or majority thinking is a psychological flaw that can be rectified?

Again, where are you getting this from?

kaotikone wrote:Maybe... just maybe... individuals such as Euler and myself are not "covering" any true self with "disordered thought"... maybe, our "true self" is different from you, so it's just best for all parties concerned if we learn to play along and act nice. The "mask" is not the symptoms, the mask is what we put on to avoid prosecution.

I recommend that you re-read the thread. I never used the term "disordered thought". And I only described the mask as that which is used to avoid pain (which you call "prosecution [sic]").

kaotikone wrote:

medusa wrote:

Euler wrote:So I put my ugly, "demonic", disordered foot on the floor at such a preposterous notion and thankfully my therapists agrees whole-heartedly.

I would imagine this would take one hell of an open-minded and imaginative therapist to do this without consciously or unconsciously superimposing a "normal" or majority-accepted "healthy" set of guidelines for you.

Not necessarily- While it appears to be difficult for ANY individual to step outside of their own predilections and preconceptions... it CAN be done by almost anyone (and with very little effort at that).

But most people don't. That is my point.

medusa wrote:

kaotikone wrote:

Euler wrote: The only solid, real felt emotions, are hate I know I'm not unique in this. There are some other overt (really felt) feelings but they're hollow and leave within a very short duration. Even the anger is hollow and short-lived. The cold emotion. I know I get anxiety and other things because I can feel a sensation in my body, much in the same way I know when I have a runny nose.

I believe this entire statement answers the question you raise. Anything I feel (and I believe Euler will agree with this, though forgive me if I overstep in that assumption) is entirely transitory. I may feel INTENSELY angry, or INTENSELY euphoric.... for a minute or two, then it fades to nothing. A non-emotion. So in situations where some moderation, or extension of those feelings is required, I pretend.

No, it doesn't answer my question. He says the only "solid" feeling he has is hate. But he doesn't define the "other overt", hollow and transitory feelings, except for anger. This is what I'm asking about.

Hmm. I suppose that's what I was trying to shore up a bit with my response. If you want a detailed list of emotions, I can't help. I have never taken the time to catalogue them to be honest. I just keep it short by saying I feel certain things INTENSELY but very briefly... and that is only on occasion as well.

medusa wrote:

kaotikone wrote:

medusa wrote:Yes! Very well put. Although I would say that this can extend beyond any so-called PD and be applicable to a certain sector of extremely self-aware people.

Bingo! This is the crux of Euler's position. You (medusa) seem to be saying that "true self" and "socially acceptable self" are synonymous. Euler is pointing out that your position is... untenable to say the least.

Actually, I am not saying this at all. I think perhaps you are confusing me with velouria? (Though even she is not quite saying this either.) Euler and I haven't even discussed anything directly to each other throughout this thread.

To be honest, I don't really believe in a "true self", in any pure sense of the word. Most of what I have said in this thread is just posing questions and feeling things out, not describing how I personally conduct myself, think of things in terms of my own life, or any personal opinions.

Ah, do forgive, perhaps I have confused you with velouria. I'll try to be more thorough before replying in the future. Thanks for pointing that out.

medusa wrote:

kaotikone wrote: Its amazing how society at large (and yourself in this post) seems to feel that to disagree with consensus reality or majority thinking is a psychological flaw that can be rectified?

Pray tell, where are you getting this from?

Experience. (Well, the bit about "you" I think was meant to be directed at velouria, but I have already apologized for that.) The entire field of popular psychology is based on the premise that "if only these poor souls could be made to recognize their "true self" they'd be "better" people". I will admit to being a bit anti-psych, but that's my own worldview.

medusa wrote:

kaotikone wrote:Maybe... just maybe... individuals such as Euler and myself are not "covering" any true self with "disordered thought"... maybe, our "true self" is different from you, so it's just best for all parties concerned if we learn to play along and act nice. The "mask" is not the symptoms, the mask is what we put on to avoid prosecution.

I recommend that you re-read the thread. I never used the term "disordered thought". And I only described the mask as that which is used to avoid pain (which you call prosecution).

Again, the confusion with velouria.

kaotikone wrote:

medusa wrote:

Euler wrote:So I put my ugly, "demonic", disordered foot on the floor at such a preposterous notion and thankfully my therapists agrees whole-heartedly.

I would imagine this would take one hell of an open-minded and imaginative therapist to do this without consciously or unconsciously superimposing a "normal" or majority-accepted "healthy" set of guidelines for you.

Not necessarily- While it appears to be difficult for ANY individual to step outside of their own predilections and preconceptions... it CAN be done by almost anyone (and with very little effort at that).

medusa wrote:But most people don't. That is my point.

Point taken.

kaotikone wrote:If you want a detailed list of emotions, I can't help. I have never taken the time to catalogue them to be honest. I just keep it short by saying I feel certain things INTENSELY but very briefly... and that is only on occasion as well.

That's quite alright, as I was asking Euler.

But I'm glad we cleared up any confusion.

Can you give an example of this? Would it be something like the experience of listening to music (sans lyrical content), for example? Or a beautiful landscape? Or having a gun pointed at your head?

Well actually, kaotikone summed it up pretty well. I rarely get angry by itself but when I do its actually rather nice. I get pissed, perhaps slam my desk or something and then its over. I can get a sincere intense crush, if you will, but after a short time its back its just kind of over. Stuff like that, fear...I don't process fear, in fact with my unique blend I get the complete opposite but that's a different deal. Like I said, I can have legitimate connections in a way, although extremely rare, but I have to pay attention to what's happening in my body. Honestly, trying to explain this would be like explaining what its like being a guy to a woman and expecting them to get it. It doesn't really work.

I would imagine this would take one hell of an open-minded and imaginative therapist to do this without consciously or unconsciously superimposing a "normal" or majority-accepted "healthy" set of guidelines for you.

No, just this therapist is worth a damn. He doesn't get it but he's super mindful that what I experience is uniquely mine. Many would simply brush off my life experience as a set of disordered rationalizations only to pat themselves on the back when I'd ditch 'em saying, "you know...they never take treatment seriously so why bother". Although, I'm much better in my book it took such an approach to get anywhere with me.

Glad you concur kaotikone.

.

(Please don't quote any of the above, as I will likely delete it.)

I know this is a bit random but reading back over the posts in this thread it was really interesting to consider all the different 'views' of the true and false self (if that's what we like to call it). It reminded me of an excellent book I read some time ago called 'On Being Authentic' by Charles Guigon.

Guigon charts the development of our ideas about being 'authentic' - or the true self - from a historical and literary perspective. He points out that 600 years ago there was no conflict between the ideas of true and false because 'false' just meant social (or occupational) and true meant the person you are at home. Hence Jacques phrase in As You Like it:- 'All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players'. Around the same period Faustus is described by Marlow as selling his 'true' self to Satan in order that his 'false' self (the self that is in the world, the social self) can thrive. In this sense everyone had a self that was split.

By the 17/1800s our ideas about authenticity were radically challenged by philosophers such as Rousseau and his notion of the inherent 'goodness' of man. For Rousseau and others the true self was good and noble (the Noble Savage) and only society made him bad or false:- 'Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains'. For the Romantics therefore being the 'true self' means being non-conformist. Indeed authenticity and conformity are diametrically opposed in his view. For a good explanation of this see Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Industrialisation makes man false - to himself. Certainly we can see this in the rise of materialism and the 'every man for himself' attitude fostered by Capitalism.

This is what Freud tapped into later - but unlike Rousseau he saw the 'true' self as full of aggression, evil, sexual tension and a competitive spirit that cannot be quashed simply by being good. In Freud's view therefore the 'true' self is bestial and we spend our whole life trying to mask it with good deeds and civility, only for it to remerge in our dreams and in mental illness. This is clearly a departure from the Romantic ideas about the true self being close to God - or even the voice of God INSIDE us. Now it is more the voice of the devil within!

Fast forward to the modern (or post-modern) era and the subject or self has become so fragmented, alienated and polymorphous that we can't even speak of a self as such - certainly not a true self. Nietzsche suggests that it is right to 'assume a mulitplicity of subjects whose interacting and competing forces is the basis of our thinking and our consciousness'. In the post-modern era we are thus well aware of all the parts that we play:- daughter, mother, worker, teacher, musician and we are also aware that in each situation or context we may be a different 'self'. Which one is really us? To suggest that behind all of these selves is a 'Wizard of Oz type character (the true self) controlling all others is a fantasy.

Recently theories of authenticity have concentrated on the idea that we are not a 'self' per se, but that we are in the process of making a self - that is the purpose of life. This is a more narrativistic approach - our self is something that we find during the story of our life, not something that we are. The story is in our hands as it were. The self in this schema is a work in progress - and that work is finite. We all die and we all must make our own stories between now and then. These will define our 'true' self or authenticity. It is a little like T.S. Eliot describes in Little Gidding:

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, unremembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover
Is that which was the beginning;.....
And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well

With this in mind it may well be that the difference between the 'normal' and the PD attitude towards the 'true' self is not so different in real terms. What IS different is the anxiety provoked in the PD individual when they feel that they do not know who they are. For the normal this means that you are working through your story - finding out who you are if you like. For the PD individual maybe there is a belief that this is not possible because their identity has not been acknowledged as autonomous and succint by care-givers. We define ourselves against what we are not. If laying the foundation of learning about the self has been dysfunctional then maybe this is when the panic arises.

Did any of that make any sense?

Absolutely.