Conflicts in understanding myself as a narcissist

But I'm glad we cleared up any confusion.

Actually, the confusion was not cleared up because what I expressed was misinterpreted. Possibly due to what I wrote re: the "standard" narcissistic injury representing the Self's introduction to society. Other than that, nothing I've written points to norms v. non-norms. In fact, my perspective stems more from the Romanticists (as Normal mentioned Rousseau and I'd like to add Heidegger) - there is nothing "normal" about the Self because it is individual. Another reason I am not inclined to think in terms of "normies" v. "non-normies." It's simply a construct I don't wish to take part in. Likely because it's not something about which I worry since I don't have a PD.

I now better understand the conflicting definitions of "mask" and the importance of the Euler-defined version to someone who faces persecution (or prosecution) without one.

I also understand what you write about feeling emotions somatically. I don't mean to say that I empathize, only that I understand what you're writing.

Have to run, more to come.

medusa wrote:Absolutely.

Ha! Does that mean no, it made no sense and what in the name of all that is holy are you waffling on about!

velouria wrote:I'd like to add Heidegger

V - will you tell me a bit about Heidegger please?

velouria wrote:Another reason I am not inclined to think in terms of "normies" v. "non-normies."

In terms of the true/false self the struggle is part of the human condition I think - whether you have a diagnosis or not?

OK.

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.

So I put my ugly, "demonic", disordered foot on the floor at such a preposterous notion and thankfully my therapists agrees whole-heartedly. Any thing otherwise is a symptom of an intolerant society that would lead to my detriment. I'm responsible for good actions and if it takes a "mask" to mimic everyone else to do it, then that should be okay as long as I'm meeting my authentic needs and following the rules. Everybody's real self will be a tad different given his/her situation and we all need to be okay with that.

"Living a false self without doing damage" is, to me, the definition of "normie," which is why I take issue with the term. But that is neither here nor there because the term is only bothersome to someone who doesn't have to concern herself with whether she is deemed normal. Persecution is not a real threat, though imagined at times due to my own Shadow.

That aside, it seems like "mask," for you, is not only a display of emotions but also a set of favorable behaviors. And, yes, everyone's Self is indeed a tad different. I think we agree more than we disagree though we might be approaching from opposite ends of the spectrum. You are doing your "work" and I am doing mine and that's what counts in the end. It's all about optimization (I still love that term).

And apologies if anything I have written in this thread derailed the original OP.

kaotik wrote:

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.

I see this might have been directed at what I've been writing and the interpretation is a bit off. The Self (true self) precedes the "socially acceptable self." I agree that the statement, whether correctly or incorrectly interpreted, is beyond the range of PDs. A PDers first task is to get to the social "acceptability" part. Though I don't consider that part a "self." Maybe I'm incorrect, but that part seems like a set of behaviors. And it may end there. Or not. Depends on the person.

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?

Not sure where you're finding that in my posts but I do agree with the society at large part, though there is an achievable balance in negotiating or debating from a "disagreeable" position. As I mentioned much earlier, this is why discourse exists.

My dear Normal:

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.

I'm thinking of even more recent times like the Victorian era during which people, when behaving naughtily, could get away with it as long as they wore a mask. An actual mask. If on retreat, I witnessed Mrs. So-and-so sneaking into Mr. Such-and-such's room, I'd have zero opinion on the matter, as long as she wore a mask. No mask, and her reputation would be a shambles.

Architecture also represented this idea of the social self and the private self. I used to live in a Victorian with a front room (parlor) for guests only. Guests only saw this space and the dining room. Everything else was off-limits and the home was designed to prevent nosiness.

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. <snip>

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.

Kohut, who I previously mentioned, is a psychoanalytic extension of the Romanticist philosophy espoused by Rousseau, Gothe, Thoreau, Shelley, Keats, Blake, etc. Post WWII he rejected Freud's system and developed his own that rings very similar to the Noble Savage theme. I could go on ad nauseum here thanks to my closet hippie, but I don't think it's appropriate for a NPD forum.

And Heidegger is only the grand-daddy of ontology.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9oc2BnZMCZgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=being+and+time&source=bl&ots=TV4iw1Usgo&sig=OKSrpzPsso1t1BTeqUavFZv_VMc&hl=en&ei=eXlQTPXKO8H88AaBiN3bDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=being%20and%20time&f=false

In terms of the true/false self the struggle is part of the human condition I think - whether you have a diagnosis or not?

Well. While that is true, that was not my purpose in expressing the opinion. The normie/non-normie dichotomy, as Euler also stated, sets us all up to create a false self. I'm saying there is no "normal." Euler and kaotikone, on the other hand, value the existence of "normal" so they can better navigate through society. From one empath to another: what they're doing, or setting out to do, is learn the skills one learns from the baseline narcissistic injury, when our in-born solipsism is shed and we learn to negotiate and relate to others. Whether this is authentic or not is beside the point. And this is not to put a value on authenticity. Only to say that by adapting "normal" behaviors in whatever fashion, they will be further optimizing themselves (or their Selves). What they do with those skills, once practiced, is up to them. Euler has been very vocal on the importance of doing good, of using seemingly negative traits for positive ends. This I appreciate greatly - at the very least because it meets the Social Contract (yet another Romantic notion ).

Correct me if I'm wrong, guys. And apologies for referring to you in the third for the previous paragraph.

Normal? wrote:

medusa wrote:Absolutely.

Ha! Does that mean no, it made no sense and what in the name of all that is holy are you waffling on about!

As in, yes, everything you said makes perfect sense. It's interesting to see it all in an historical perspective.

Also, I'd agree with velouria when she says she leans towards being a Romanticist.

And my waffling... hence my deletion. No one ever knows what I am talking about, and I was over-reaching the trajectory of this thread.

velouria wrote:I'm thinking of even more recent times like the Victorian era during which people, when behaving naughtily, could get away with it as long as they wore a mask. An actual mask. If on retreat, I witnessed Mrs. So-and-so sneaking into Mr. Such-and-such's room, I'd have zero opinion on the matter, as long as she wore a mask. No mask, and her reputation would be a shambles.

Yes - certainly. Your comment about the 'mask' reminded me of Venice and the carnivale - how the mask protected the 'innocent self' whilst the social you was off bedding courtesans and Casinova and the like:- a literal representation of the true and false selves that is very much in keeping with Shakespeare's comedies (he liked using masks and disguises and these always allow the characters to behave in ways that are socially inappropriate)?

And the Victorians were masters at this 'cover-up' job. They even invented the table cloth so that the table legs were covered - just in case they drove women wild with desire? Little wonder it was during this period that hysteria was at it's most prevalent - no one was ALLOWED to be their real self to some extent. Maybe it is in fact the supression of the 'noble' Rousseauean self that is the originator of mental illness?

This also points towards Freud's theories:- which must be seen in context? If his world was an oppressive one in which the true self was not permitted development then of course that self would turn to aggression, greed and perversion.

I have always been struck by the image of the Narcissist giving up his authentic self in order to 'conform' to the expectations and wishes of others - to be what he is asked to be, rather than who he is. It is a terrible deal to strike, and one borne out of fear. I wonder if this decision to reject authenticity is at the centre of the disorder?

velouria wrote:Kohut, who I previously mentioned, is a psychoanalytic extension of the Romanticist philosophy espoused by Rousseau, Gothe, Thoreau, Shelley, Keats, Blake, etc. Post WWII he rejected Freud's system and developed his own that rings very similar to the Noble Savage theme.

Thanks for the reference V:- because my specialism is Literature/Art I don't tend to branch out and read writers such as Kohut and Heidegger unless they relate specifically to a poet or novelist - I will be sure to look them both up and am embarrassingly excited at the prospect!

medusa wrote:And my waffling... hence my deletion. No one ever knows what I am talking about, and I was over-reaching the trajectory of this thread.

Medusa I meant my waffling - not yours! But I echo your sentiments and no one ever knows what I'm rattling on about either, least of all me.

Maybe it is in fact the supression of the 'noble' Rousseauean self that is the originator of mental illness?

Put Foucault's Madness & Civilization on your reading list, please. You will love it.

The notion of mental illness may date back to the Renaissance when there was no opportunity for any mere human to attain the perfection of God. So everyone was basically mad in that construct. And then there were the crazies who were believed to have come too close to God.

Try defining mental illness (or disorder). It's a hapless exercise. It's whatever society deems "out of order." Ugh, I hate to page Ken Kesey. But it is what it is. Or is not. Which is why "normality" and the whole "normie"/"non-normie" divide is distasteful to me. But that's all metaphysical mumbo jumbo. We are all just really trying to get through the day relatively unscathed. Like Sartre said, "Hell is other people."

Normal? wrote:and no one ever knows what I'm rattling on about either, least of all me.

Many prefer their logic served like a Happy Meal: convenient, and devoid of substance.

"Answers" aren't what most people lack. They're lacking an actual thought process. We learn by the quality of the questions we ask, and how we ask them. Better a well-thought error than a thoughtless fact. Which is why many people amount to little more than educated monkeys; smart talk rolling off of foul tongues. Instead of learning people walk away from the experiences with nothing more than cheap souvenirs. "I've been to Hell and back. And all I got was this #######5 attitude."

I enjoy your posts for the visible process.

velouria wrote:Put Foucault's Madness & Civilization on your reading list, please. You will love it.

Thank you V - I will. If you think of any others please send me a list!

velouria wrote:Try defining mental illness (or disorder). It's a hapless exercise. It's whatever society deems "out of order." Ugh, I hate to page Ken Kesey. But it is what it is. Or is not. Which is why "normality" and the whole "normie"/"non-normie" divide is distasteful to me.

Yes - I have felt this way ever since I heard about NPD/BPD. I found it seriously strange that someone's personality could be considered 'disordered':- I really didn't get it. Once we begin to characterise behaviour then it is clear that we are also speaking of cultural, societal, psychological, economic, racial 'normals' and then I always want to know:- 'Who says so'?

One thing I do remember about Foucault from my linguistics studies was his investigation of the term 'subject' in that he posits it has two meanings:- the identity to which an individual is 'tied' and 'subject to control or dependence'. He believes both are about power and subjugation. He is right isn't he.

When I joined this forum back in the mists of time I chose the User name 'Normal?' because I was wrestling with these ideas. What IS normal? What isn't? Who says! I am still wrestling with them to some extent. You are probably right - it is a question without a satisfactory answer?

Nightwing wrote:I enjoy your posts for the visible process.

Thanks Nightwing - I just wish the process would speed itself up sometimes!

Nightwing wrote:Instead of learning people walk away from the experiences with nothing more than cheap souvenirs. "I've been to Hell and back. And all I got was this #######5 attitude."

I've been learning this lately Nightwing. I knew man must suffer to be wise but I was happier reading about it in a book, it was easier. Now I've had a bit of a baptism of fire though there's no stopping me! Hopefully I will come back with a decorative fridge magnet at least?

They sell decorative fridge magnets in Hell?