Conflicts in understanding myself as a narcissist

velouria wrote: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.

No, I don't know it.
Say, for example, not buying into society's mass-delusions is deemed unhealthy?

As for treating people like toys: that's another concept I fail to understand. Unless you are a particularly social animal, all the people you have at hand are family (kids, spouse, parents), a lover perhaps, and a minimally sufficient amount of friends - say, 2 or 3. Treating any of these as toys or such would be highly detrimental to your own self as well, in every possible way, as you mutually depend on one another - emotionally and all kind of the way -, otherwise you wouldn't be attached to each other to begin with. Any ill deed inflicted on these people would amount to self-harm, resulting in pain via various means (abandonment, guilt, shame, etc.) (Maybe I'm not a narc after all..?)

On the other side, I find society (with its values and expectations) treating its individual members as toys and retards, brainwashing them into harmful and malignant behaviours (talk about modern organized religions, ideologies, consumerism, popular culture, spiritual fads, etc. etc. etc.)

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

LOL! Schrödiger indeed. I'd never give a second glance to Arthur if he did such a thing to a cat! (I've 3)

velouria wrote:

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.

A-ha! I was just about to post the same thing before I read your post. Can't stand his writing style... but it is interesting how he traced the man-made idea of "mental illness" back to leprosy and sanitariums.

Euler wrote: the books and ideas presented from such thinkers... 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.

I'm sorry Euler but I find it utter total BS.
(So much so that I even thought I'm missing a joke somewhere, but even upon several re-reading I couldn't find one...)

Euler wrote: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.

Hmm... I wouldn't quite classify velouria as a "normie". The first few posts from her are yes, maybe, from a somewhat normie perspective, relatively speaking, but the more recent ones are neither here nor there. Perhaps it depends on your definition of normie. Does it mean anyone without a PD? Or does it mean people who cannot see beyond the socially acceptable? Personally, at least right now, I'm going with the latter.

wooster wrote: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 think the point is that you have to weave your way within reality, unfortunately. PD or not, normie or not. It is perfectly fine if you want to conduct your day to day completely by your pure standards, to hell with "socially acceptable", but have a fun time doing that, unless you are fine with being a complete hermit or risking your life, or not being able to get anything "worldy" accomplished. Also when trying to communicate, as we are within this thread, you have to deal with the limitations of language, which in itself, by definition, is a socially accepted contract.

This is about reality, not principles. How things are right now, not as you personally would prefer them to be. If we were all %100 true to ourselves (whatever that really means), and not just assimilating to varying degrees and for varying reasons to what is "socially acceptable", everyone would be dead.

No man is an island. Unless you live by yourself on that island and never speak to anyone ever again. Even then, you might be plagued by having thoughts in English. Even then, a good portion of your thoughts would come from your previous experience with other people and pre-existing ideas, like it or not. Unless you were born on that island, were immediately abandoned, and never left. But even then, you would have to deal with the limitations and laws of nature.

Euler wrote: the books and ideas presented from such thinkers... 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.

I'm sorry Euler but I find it utter total BS.
(So much so that I even thought I'm missing a joke somewhere, but even upon several re-reading I couldn't find one...)

I never said you had to agree, but you cannot disagree that such a discourse with the above stated implications didn't happen. You said somewhere that you have schizoid traits. I've noticed that most schizoids, in their profound isolation, tend to not get the realities of various social theories. Also, the way you frame your views of society is similar to that other schizoids. As a person with schizoid traits myself I know when something sounds familiar.All of which is okay, just own it like I own my bag so to speak.

Basically we agree on some things in part, but you disagree with my direction, and that's perfectly within your right.

medusa wrote:I think the point is that you have to weave your way within reality, unfortunately. PD or not, normie or not. It is perfectly fine if you want to conduct your day to day completely by your pure standards, to hell with "socially acceptable", but have a fun time doing that, unless you are fine with being a complete hermit or risking your life, or not being able to get anything "worldy" accomplished. Also when trying to communicate, as we are within this thread, you have to deal with the limitations of language, which in itself, by definition, is a socially accepted contract.

This is about reality, not principles. How things are right now, not as you personally would prefer them to be. If we were all %100 true to ourselves (whatever that really means), and not just assimilating to varying degrees and for varying reasons to what is "socially acceptable", everyone would be dead.

No man is an island. Unless you live by yourself on that island and never speak to anyone ever again. Even then, you might be plagued by having thoughts in English. Even then, a good portion of your thoughts would come from your previous experience with other people and pre-existing ideas, like it or not. Unless you were born on that island, were immediately abandoned, and never left. But even then, you would have to deal with the limitations and laws of nature.

Apologies for answering with questions, I can be a bit dim at times.

What would be your definition of reality? Last time I looked there wasn't a valid concensus out there (nor ever will be; say, for example, according to Proust "what we call reality is a certain relationship between sensations and memories which surround us at the same time" - blah blah, you get the gist. At best, it's personal (at worst it's delusional). What you perceive as reality might be a lurid nightmare from planet Zorg for me (or vica versa). But to hell with definitions, I do tread my way within common-or-kitchen "reality" quite well, thank you (not saying that it couldn't be improved by a significant amount of money, but still...) The trick is trying to make the best out of whatever cards you're dealt with.

My standards are not "pure" (heck, they are not even 'high' or anything), the only distinction is that they are mine. They are not qualitative in any way. They may clash with with certain segments (the majority?) of society, but may strike a chord with another. Which brings me to 'hermit':

medusa wrote:unless you are fine with being a complete hermit or risking your life, or not being able to get anything "worldy" accomplished

- sorry to say, none of it applies to me entirely.
Hermit - okay, sometimes it takes a longish drive (or a short flight) to have fun time with company, but in return I have pretty killer views from my window (lambs & horses frolicking, green hills & stuff) and a stress-free bucolic life - so things could be worse I guess, give or take the crappy weather.)
Risking life - ??? (LOL even though I'm said to be a bit of a wild driver, but nowhere near to reckless or dangerous - I'm quite good at the wheel.)
Worldly accomplishments - could you please elaborate on that? Success? Money? Fame? So far I was under the impression I'm doing okay there for my own means & merits (apart from the money-part of course, I can't afford traveling enough which is indeed debilitating) - but maybe I'm grossly mistaken.

medusa wrote:Also when trying to communicate, as we are within this thread, you have to deal with the limitations of language, which in itself, by definition, is a socially accepted contract.

Again, I need your help here - English is not my mothertongue (in fact I've never officially learnt it), so I need every possible input to improve my language. I detect many differences between British and US English (should have/should of, definitely/definatley, withdrawal/withdrawl, weird/wierd etc. just to bring a few common examples) but my knowledge stops there (their?) more-or-less. So I will be genuinely thankful if anyone points out my inconsistencies, both in grammar and syntax. Thanks in advance.

medusa wrote:If we were all %100 true to ourselves (whatever that really means), and not just assimilating to varying degrees and for varying reasons to what is "socially acceptable", everyone would be dead.

This I find somewhat exaggerating. Might hold some ground in certain scenarios though (tribal societies perhaps?)

medusa wrote:No man is an island.

Again, it's a phrase everyone knows and uses, but I don't get the meaning of it. Can you please elucidate?
As I mentioned before, I haven't the slightest problem connecting with individual members of society (if that's what you call 'islands') on a face-to-face basis - it's the concept of society as an abstract entity with its colloquial baggage and agenda I not going to ever give a sh*t about.

- sorry, I just saw your edit on the 'island'-theme - I was still writing mine re: the unedited version in the meantime, so just submit it now anyways...
_____
Edit, to the Island thing:

medusa wrote:No man is an island. Unless you live by yourself on that island and never speak to anyone ever again. Even then, you might be plagued by having thoughts in English. Even then, a good portion of your thoughts would come from your previous experience with other people and pre-existing ideas, like it or not. Unless you were born on that island, were immediately abandoned, and never left. But even then, you would have to deal with the limitations and laws of nature.

[/quote]
- point taken, but my thoughts may not be in English. In fact they may not be verbal at all, as the VAST MAJORITY of all the things going on inside my head is purely VISUAL. Memories and images of places/things I've (or haven't) seen; mostly in architectural context. Another big part is music, then there's a lot of smell and taste and texture, and most of the verbal stuff is built upon things I've read, instead of what I experienced with other people. (It's not that I haven't experienced enough verbal conduct with other people, it's only that it tends to fall out of my head immediately, unless it's worth enough to hold onto - which doesn't happen every too often.)

Incidentally I happen to live on an island BTW...

Euler wrote: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.

wooster wrote: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.

I apppreciate the point you raise here chaps - but I do think there is an overapplication of the homogenous nature of the group of philosophers mentioned. Of course it would be folly to suggest they were not influenced by the social and historical context in which they were writing but there are 500 odd years and 1,000 of miles between them! To speak of 'Anglo Saxons' and 'Western Europeans' as if you are referring to the same things is a vast underestimation of the diversity of both. You only need consider the Romantic group mentioned by Velouria to appreciate this diversity. It is not strictly true that they are all middle to upper class either.

What is also interesting is that almost all of the philosphers mentioned were considered radical thinkers in their day:- in fact this is where they locate their 'authenticity' in many cases. They are certainly not representative of their respective societies. To say that the Vienesse shared Freud's theories about hidden agression or Rousseau's regarding the Noble Savage is simply not true.

Even more interesting is that Narcissistic traits are clearly not a phenomenon or theory or 'illness' if you like that is time-bound or dependent for meaning on the predominant social and cultural values of the time. The Ancient Greeks commented on it and so have writers, artists and philosophers throughout the ages. Since our ideas about what is 'normal' have shifted so much in the last 2,000 years it is interesting that attitudes towards Narcissism per se have only shifted relatively recently and only in countries such as America, where it could be argued (and is argued by Christopher Lasch) that Narcissistic traits are desirable and celebrated?

Normal? wrote:it is interesting that attitudes towards Narcissism per se have only shifted relatively recently and only in countries such as America, where it could be argued (and is argued by Christopher Lasch) that Narcissistic traits are desirable and celebrated?

Your country isn't much different than mine in this regard. But I suspect you know that and are writing slightly tongue-in-cheek to see what kind of responses you get.

Euler,

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.

Assumptions regarding...?

My issues around the "normie/non-normie" thing are these:

• I don't believe us/them (or hierarchical structures, for that matter) is an affective approach regardless of where one falls into the dichotomy or the ladder (if we're thinking in terms of hierarchy). It foments struggle. And in other ways, not relating to this topic, I am indeed "othered" and I still don't appreciate that dichotomy.
  
• The existence of a "them" stimulates, yet again, the false self. I believe, in all honesty, that this is something you've already brought up in this thread.

I don't take the label personally. I understand your position and have followed that line of thinking many times in the past, it just simply never worked out for me. Possibly due to some traits and goals I possess all on my own. There are places I, as an individual, need to go and the us/them thinking will never work, especially because my path requires some systemic change for there to be any tangible success.

Don't get me wrong, I falter. A lot. That's the problem with ideals. Call that "encompasser" ideal in me a mask along the lines of your definition. A way in which I can navigate through society most effectively. From my perspective it's actually a trait of my true self.

Not telling you how to think. Only offering why I take issue with the term. I also understand why it's important for you. If my opinion counts for anything and if I'm following you correctly, I think it's smart. And I am happy to provide the perspective if, indeed, the information is used for good.

Lady wooster:

On the other side, I find society (with its values and expectations) treating its individual members as toys and retards, brainwashing them into harmful and malignant behaviours (talk about modern organized religions, ideologies, consumerism, popular culture, spiritual fads, etc. etc. etc.)

Totally agreed.

On the flipside, we all, as individuals, form society. So the greater the population of people who engage in it while not bowing to its emotional and intellectual retardation effects, the better. This is from where my lofty Heidegger-ian "Be who you are" blatherings stem. I am also starting to understand why such blatherings are actually negatively impactful for NPD sufferers.

medusa: I was totally blown away by the leprosy/sanitarium connection as well as the history behind the "ship of fools."

I think the point is that you have to weave your way within reality, unfortunately. PD or not, normie or not. It is perfectly fine if you want to conduct your day to day completely by your pure standards, to hell with "socially acceptable", but have a fun time doing that, unless you are fine with being a complete hermit or risking your life, or not being able to get anything "worldy" accomplished. Also when trying to communicate, as we are within this thread, you have to deal with the limitations of language, which in itself, by definition, is a socially accepted contract.

Well stated though I wouldn't use the term "reality." I would just call it "society." If you want to live on an island (which I do because I agree with Sartre), you don't have to worry about standards and practices outside basic survival skills. But to exist in society, which the majority does, begs the "socially accepted contract" to some degree. The Social Contract itself calls for doing good just for the sake of doing good. For no other reason.

Now, those of us with a healthy amygdala actually reap a tangible reward for doing good. We get a dose of oxytocin. We are hormonally rewarded for good behavior. Unfortunately, not everyone has the same access to this hormone, so the tangible reward is not reaped. But the contract still asks that we behave ourselves, if only for the good of society. I especially admire people here who speak to doing good even if the reward is delayed and/or intangible. I've seen this from Euler and from searchfortruth.

The thing about the Social Contract is that it trusts the goodness in every individual. It trusts that we all know right from wrong and that our intentions are good if flawed at times. Another ideal. Regardless, it relies on society to punish, either publicly (prosecution) or privately (persecution), those who defy that trust. This isn't to place a quality on those who defy the trust. It's only to describe the system. And, yeah, there are a lot of #######5, stupid people out there under the guise of "normie" who are deemed socially acceptable. One of them was even the POTUS. I pray I'm not one of them.

What is also interesting is that almost all of the philosphers mentioned were considered radical thinkers in their day:- in fact this is where they locate their 'authenticity' in many cases.

Some of them even started a revolution.

Even more interesting is that NPD is clearly not a phenomenon or theory or 'illness' if you like that is time-bound or dependent for meaning on the predominant social and cultural values of the time. The Ancient Greeks commented on it and so have writers, artists and philosophers throughout the ages. Since our ideas about what is 'normal' have shifted so much in the last 2,000 years it is interesting that attitudes towards Narcissism per se have only shifted relatively recently and only in countries such as America, where it could be argued (and is argued by Christopher Lasch) that Narcissistic traits are desirable and celebrated?

Normal, a hesitant criticism: you've wrapped this up way too neatly. I don't believe NPD can be considered relative to narcissistic traits (in the classical sense of the concept). Just a momentary thought.