Conflicts in understanding myself as a narcissist

Not only did I miss the souvenir shop on my way out, I also never received that complimentary spa kit I was promised on entry.

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?

We all do it to some extent dependent on what was placed before us in our formative years. Abuse and trauma and the whole goodie bag of awfulness is going to have a hugely adverse effect on our "wholeness." I'm standing firm in my belief that a Shadow Self is born from injury so deep it leaves a lasting wound. I don't believe there is a decision to reject authenticity by someone with NPD. In this case I think the authentic self was never given the chance to show itself. Let's just say the caregiver's mirror never reflected back the inborn self-esteem of the child, leading the child to believe there wasn't anything good in there to begin with. So there is no tether to the authentic Self. Though that doesn't mean the beautiful good stuff isn't there. It's just buried. Just because you don't know it's there doesn't mean it isn't there.

Not to say that if you don't feel it or know it or don't feel like dealing with it you must be Satan's foot soldier. It's really just for everyone's own path and opportunity for growth and increased quality of life. Until then, however, there's still the whole society thing and getting along in it and not getting arrested or hurting people or destroying things or being a general nuisance. And with regards to that I appreciate Euler and kaotik's point that the gooey metaphysical stuff isn't terribly interesting at the moment. And they have more important things to address in the here and now. And it may never be interesting. It's up to the individual and their needs. Believe it or not, not everyone enjoys our meta-meanderings.

Interesting, although I like the books and ideas presented from such thinkers there is a problem when its applied to the notion of normality and "masks".

Here's how I see it:

There seems to be an underlying tone regarding "universal" constructs. Such constructs are created by a dominant group that enjoys a level of privilege so vast so as to be in a position of hegemony. So, the thinkers presented are part of such a dominant group. Not only were they white, but Western European, and upper/middle class. Naturally, there views are going to be somewhat skewed. Now, I'm not critiquing their works but it does become problematic when applying such notions to PD's.

Whether you all agree or not there is a long standing history regarding privilege and having it challenged.

Such thinkers, including Freud wrote with the "universal" in mind only be correctly challenged on this by Feminists. Then came the following critiques of People of Color. Where it gets fascinating, is when both sub-groups challenged the privileged dominant group (upper/middle class white men) they were insulted at having to realize their privilege. This almost always takes the form by a privileged person facing his class/race/gender by the "other"....Hence "male bashing", being called whitey and the like tends to create a rather defensive position since such people have never had to realize that they are indeed white and male. Then other types of Feminism correctly challenged white Feminism for writing in "universals" and they too became somewhat insulted when confronted with their color.

This is the process of undoing privilege, and whether fellow posters agree or not with such progressive social theory, the term "normie" does seem to be the final frontier. So, no normies are in a privileged position...it is their society, with their social norms for the purpose of enriching them, and their rules that accompany their constructs. The rest of us, treated or not, have to blend in and tag along. Even with proper treatment, there really is little we have in common yet your (normies) stigma of us is considered the norm and there is zero attempt at any compromise. So, velouria you should feel some insult upon realizing your difference from us. Having the tables turned on you, even marginally, is nothing more than a healthy realization that everybody in the world is not like you.

Um. You're misunderstanding me if that is your message to me. And, I'd like to point out, not only for the sake of argument, that conjuring what you just conjured should bear further reflection on your part. A man using Feminism to discredit a woman. Mmm. Think about it. I'm not trying to tear you down. Please refrain from doing the same to me. Especially as though I'm some agent for a larger oppressor.

Even with proper treatment, there really is little we have in common yet your (normies) stigma of us is considered the norm and there is zero attempt at any compromise.

Likely so. I don't know you. Though this conversation has been an attempt, on my part at least (and likely medusa's and Normal's), to find that compromise.

Regardless. I appreciate the boundary you (and kaotik) established around what is you and what you intend to accomplish. It takes a significant amount of self awareness, beyond what most "normies" are capable of. I meant to edit my previous post with that statement but I'm putting it here since you've already read through.

Normal? wrote:

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?

Both your views hold ground only in a limited socio-cultural context, namely Anglo-Saxon protestant puritanism. Incidentally, that ethos became the driving force in modern, globalized society - still I resent to presenting it as universal.

Venetian carneval masks have absolutely nothing to do with naughtiness, modesty and mores - the whole thing is a play on mortality.

And you'll see many tablecloths on the paintings of Flemish Primitives.

velouria wrote: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.

In non-puritan, "classic" cultures (say, France or Italy), it would be your reputation as a civilized person at stake, simply by noticing and having an opinion on entirely private matters such as adultery (which there isn't regarded as anything out of normal at all. Never was in fact anywhere, until the emergence of Calvinism.)
_______
(edited to add - I've written it before seeing Euler's post above, so my use of 'universal' hasn't got anything to do with his, it was merely coincidental. And feminism is one of my pet-hates, so I better leave the conversation..)

Do you need me to do an interpretive dance inspired by the Mongo Zebola?

I haven't seen any references to universality here.

Um. You're misunderstanding me if that is your message to me. And, I'd like to point out, not only for the sake of argument, that conjuring what you just conjured should bear further reflection on your part. A man using Feminism to discredit a woman. Mmm. Think about it. I'm not trying to tear you down. Please refrain from doing the same to me. Especially as though I'm some agent for a larger oppressor.

There's that empathy thing. You had an overt emotional response to what I posted, especially the Feminist part of it and effectively you stopped listening. I was speaking of the generalities amongst systems of oppression, and by the way I'm bi-gendered so I can talk about Feminism thank you. Also, it seems that you took my point as me singling you out as an oppressor. That was not my intention. However, my intention was to state that you, in your normality, are in fact in a position of privilege. That doesn't require you to go lament yourself for it or anything, and there's no reprimands or anything of the sort...just the admission of the sheer fact that the world probably makes a lot more natural sense to you with your natural way of being than it does for any "disordered" person. To state that we're all the same, similar, or any such nonsense marginalizes the fact that its a royal pain in the a*s to deal with empaths when you're not one.

However, our end-goal is the same just each person has his/her own route and I think we perfectly agree on this.

Not to say that if you don't feel it or know it or don't feel like dealing with it you must be Satan's foot soldier. It's really just for everyone's own path and opportunity for growth and increased quality of life. Until then, however, there's still the whole society thing and getting along in it and not getting arrested or hurting people or destroying things or being a general nuisance. And with regards to that I appreciate Euler and kaotik's point that the gooey metaphysical stuff isn't terribly interesting at the moment. And they have more important things to address in the here and now. And it may never be interesting. It's up to the individual and their needs. Believe it or not, not everyone enjoys our meta-meanderings.

haha, that's awesome. Now some real common ground, and your humor is much appreciated. I also have to add, that if I appeared a tad confrontational, don't take it personal since that was not my intention. If I did though, I do apologize, consider it one of my "habits" that's a work-in-progress if you will.

There's that empathy thing. You had an overt emotional response to what I posted, especially the Feminist part of it and effectively you stopped listening. I was speaking of the generalities amongst systems of oppression, and by the way I'm bi-gendered so I can talk about Feminism thank you.

I didn't stop listening. In fact, I was following along in agreement until I got to those last few sentences where you actually were singling me out. What else am I supposed to think? I still see your point. I just don't appreciate being called out, especially with the stated purpose to insult me. No offense is taken. It just doesn't feel good and it's not a fair means of exchange.

I suspect I was a bit heavy-handed in my earlier statements and that I regret. I've pretty much agreed with you throughout the thread. The heavy-handed part was merely a spoiler that there is good stuff ahead. I get overt sometimes. It's the Romantic in me.

With that said, I'm clearly not a "value add" to this conversation so I will respectfully bow out. Cheers.

velouria wrote:Do you need me to do an interpretive dance inspired by the Mongo Zebola?

I haven't seen any references to universality here.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, it just came across to me as 'general', perhaps by the recurring use of "us", "we", "society" etc. I didn't mean to argue.

What is the Mongo Zebola?

There are many other things I'd like to be explained to me, for example "socially acceptable" - what is it about exactly, and why do you think it is so important for the individual? From where I'm standing, the majority of society (with its collective values, behaviours, demeanours etc.) is unacceptable for my standards. (With my mother's words, they (society-at-large) are the fly in the soup - just look away, put them aside politely, but don't make a scene with the waiter.) So why should I (or anyone) be bothered about society's acceptance, if society doesn't conform to my standards? If anything, I'd feel rather dismayed by being accepted to where I'd be ashamed to belong. (I'm talking in colloquial again, not about individual persons with a face - that's an alltogether different matter, involving basic courtesy, empathy, fairness & all that - you don't need to be a born philanthrope to function as a perfectly decent human being. Quite upon the contrary.) I'm talking about society 'en gros', with its collective drives and ethos - which, of course, shifts with cultures and the times, so for simplicity's sake let's define it as "modern" society, that more-or-less global phenomenon we live in. The stuff what pours out from the globalized mass-media if you happen to switch your TV on.

I have only anecdotal evidence of its existence though, as I hardly ever need to cross paths with it - if I do, it's mostly by witnessing the damage it impacts on its individual members' unsuspecting minds.
_______________
Rousseau & Thoreau I have some issues with, but I'm totally buying into Schopenhauer.

Sorry, I know I claimed bowing out but I have to dig into wooster's. And I have some time to kill before a reception.

What is the Mongo Zebola?

Awesomeness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIlO_vtBKV4

...for example "socially acceptable" - what is it about exactly, and why do you think it is so important for the individual? From where I'm standing, the majority of society (with its collective values, behaviours, demeanours etc.) is unacceptable for my standards. (With my mother's words, they (society-at-large) are the fly in the soup - just look away, put them aside politely, but don't make a scene with the waiter.) So why should I (or anyone) be bothered about society's acceptance, if society doesn't conform to my standards?

I actually pulled the term "socially acceptable" from kaotik and while I could be incorrect in my interpretation, I took it to mean behaviors that avoid persecution. If we're talking about NPD, we're talking about those behaviors that are deemed unhealthy. Euler provided the example of treating people like "toys." I could provide a list, but I'm assuming we know it.

I definitely understand your dismay re: "acceptance" since that is part and parcel to the whole PD conundrum: a need for acceptance so dire that it bears unhealthy behaviors.

I'll never forgive Schopenhauer for what he did to that cat. I simply cannot get past it. Oh, wait, that was Schrodinger.

And, Euler, I just found your edit:

haha, that's awesome. Now some real common ground, and your humor is much appreciated. I also have to add, that if I appeared a tad confrontational, don't take it personal since that was not my intention. If I did though, I do apologize, consider it one of my "habits" that's a work-in-progress if you will.

Thank you. I understand it's a fiery topic. I do think it's best for me to not partake if it turns political. Think of me as the White Dude bowing out from the RadFem planning committee. He just isn't a value add.

I didn't stop listening. In fact, I was following along in agreement until I got to those last few sentences where you actually were singling me out. What else am I supposed to think? I still see your point. I just don't appreciate being called out, especially with the stated purpose to insult me. No offense is taken. It just doesn't feel good and it's not a fair means of exchange.

Honestly, I think you misinterpreted. I wasn't attacking you or anything of the sort, I was giving you a critique on your previously stated assumptions...you stated you had strong issues to the term normie/normal and I stated my view accordingly. Also, you previously wrapped the notion of the false self into a form suitable for the normal population and equating it to our combined experiences. So, after some dialogue we agree on several things and agree to disagree on others which is pretty good I'd say. Naturally, pointing such assumptions out has a "calling out" aspect to this and that's okay as well. Nobody said diversity serve the purpose to make everybody comfortable you know.

With that said, I'm clearly not a "value add" to this conversation so I will respectfully bow out. Cheers.

why? I never said you weren't capable of contributing here. In fact, you strike me as rather open minded. Some "victims" here continue to post for years without a single thought to recognize any of the things you did within the past couple of days. So, I disagree again, you have much to offer here. In fact, a "normie" perspective without the lynch-mob mentality is actually useful.

Thank you. I understand it's a fiery topic. I do think it's best for me to not partake if it turns political. Think of me as the White Dude bowing out from the RadFem planning committee. He just isn't a value add.

okay, that was hilarious...thanks, that was the funniest thing I've read all week.