Is this a kind of human

I think understanding what is happening and furthering your mind onto the events if the world is the way to change your own involvement in things like racism, poverty, homelessness, corporate greed, social media, slavery, and anything and everything.

To educate your self on these things is to allow you to move past these things so as not to be in need of having to have an opinion attached to them. You do this so you change your own world for the better, and hopefully meet others who are also understanding of things in a non dogmatic way.

So watching, yes. But also taking a stand. Even if its only personal, or in small ways.

Psymask wrote:Unusually someone would always think that they are completely separate from the world around them.

The question would be "are they separate?"

If your detached from social systems, do you regard your self as separate? In the sense that you have autonomy yes, but in the sense that you are dependant on the outer world, no.

What one thinks they know and what one feels can be different. I feel seperate at times but know I probably am not.

Wouldn't it be nice to fade into the inner psyche and play around with your subconscious. A kind of deep dive "ghost in the shell" style.

Sure. Dreaming is great, but impractical. We are still at the stage of evolution where survival depends on cognitively interacting with others, whether it is sincere at times, or not.

So, if you welcomed it would you admit your dependant psychologically on the outside world, or would you say you are inner diving enough?

Financially, we are all dependent on the outside world.
Spiritually?.. supposedly. Altho I do not feel it.
Psychologically, mentally, we can feel seperate, but who can know if that is a true feeling.

Are you relentless in your attempt into the psyche?

Relentless? I guess so.
Being creative lends itself to this.

I thought this might be interesting. I didn't check for similar topics.

I have read a little on the illusory nature of the physical world, ( eg variations of Maya and its different meaning) but do not feel it.
Also the Big toe theory and the simulation project argues life is virtual. Having watched it, made no difference to how I view reality. Even if I felt there is something to it, it would not practically alter my approach to life.

I have learned to dream while being awake when I am alone. But I focus when I have to, example at work.

In answer, the one who feels like it is not a matter of perspective anymore sees with certainty, and it is not left vague if he is inseparable from reality physically and psychologically. In fact those two are interwoven anyway.

Interaction can be there in varying levels of skill, it is necessary, and the kind of interaction that is useful is the kind with the self. Of course you can feel connected to people when making requests. At times transactionally, but casual interaction may not be needed at all times. I like interaction socially as the time spent with people who know and can share, broadens at times and at others entertains.

By "fade into your subconscious" I would of hoped to imply I would be bringing something back. Really thinking you meant to think it for entertainment. Humans share, so, understand "me" I understand "you". This is why the dive.

You don't feel it then. I see it in the world around me. Its not so much connection through lines drawn, it's more like it bubbles up from the vortex and manifests as form, and form follows to sources directions. Particularly any "I" that happens to meet another "I".

Yes relentless. You draw? Paint? Play?

And yes finally, reading or watching won't always bring realization, you have to burn for it to get to it.

Psymask wrote:Unusually someone would always think that they are completely separate from the world around them.

The question would be "are they separate?"

If your detached from social systems, do you regard your self as separate? In the sense that you have autonomy yes, but in the sense that you are dependant on the outer world, no.

Wouldn't it be nice to fade into the inner psyche and play around with your subconscious. A kind of deep dive "ghost in the shell" style.

So, if you welcomed it would you admit your dependant psychologically on the outside world, or would you say you are inner diving enough?

Are you relentless in your attempt into the psyche?

I thought this might be interesting. I didn't check for similar topics.

It's a life and death in cognitive aegis isn't it.

Compared to how I gauge the rest of society, I would say I'm tapping into the inner World AND outer World way too much. It's too much to handle much of the time. There's this deep fantasy World of my own that gets disappointed by the outer World all too often. Of course, the people I encounter are often the disappointments for me (not the outer World itself). However, I have learned to lower my expectations of others (though very difficult still).

Other men do not sustain my mind.

1201236 wrote:Other men do not sustain my mind.

Then you may be free of them then. Yet you reflect off of them or do you not?

Your original writing is obscure. How does a man sustain another mans mind? You ask me whether I have mind of myself in respect of other men or not. Well I suppose if a man remains alone then he will not intercommune much with other men. If he does not, then he will know little of them, but their fronts. If all he knows is the clothes that they wear and the tones of their voices, what is there to think on?

Because it is man and woman that builds the landscape within which you exist. This means you are the product of those who have gone before. Determinate it is that you are influenced.
We are mirrors for certain and so the obscurity of the writing allows for interpretation.

To be free means to be outside of influence by giving the notion of control up to a system of mirrors that we hold up to all people.

I guess you could say I'm interested in the interdependence that humans exhibit. Like absolutely everything else in this universe, schizoid seems to be an examination of cultural nihilism.

We are all together in timelessness and unity however.

That is to say, we are an expression of God, and God expresses himself to all but himself, as he is all that everything else is not. Being that that is nothingness.

So, God is the nothingness and we are his face.

The one faced God.

In your foremost post you asked whether my mind depended on other men. I answered that no other men do not sustain my mind. Now you are speaking of influence and men no longer living. I am thus disposed to believe that you used depend on in the sense of arise from or come of, as a servants mood depends on his masters bearing, than sustain or feed, as a servant depends on his master. Thus the subject must no doubt need be the thoughts rather than the mind. Even so my thoughts do not arise from other men either. I have no knowledge of men like me. Nature created the earth on which I stand. If you mean laws yes men made those, but not men like me as far as I conclude from my lifes experience, and they were not made for me either; for I demean myself righteously, heeding little of what men I do not know say should or should not be done.

Now you say you are interested in the interdependence of men. You speak of cultural nihilism, which word I had to seek in the dictionary. According to that, it is a fairly new word from industrial times telling of a certain moral sentiment of men. Well, distancing myself from this, which I am glad to do, I think it is wise to say that there are men that are not mirrors of other men. Your use of words such as nihilism uncovers why this is hard for you to understand or believe, whichever it may be. Further a schizoid is a kind of personality disorder, a disordered and unhappy malady; I would not credit it with any distinct end in life. I may have had a personality disorder when I was young, and sought things from others and in wrongful ways, but if I did it has ended and so the schizoid with it, though it is without doubt needless to say that no change on my mind or heart has been wrought by this other.

This thread feels like the compulsory online postings for a first year university philosophy course.

I think if we compare ourselves to any one other person on this planet, and we look hard enough, we can find psychological differences, even the ones most like ourselves.

I think that also, if we compare ourselves to any one other person on this planet, and we look hard enough, we can also find psychological similarities, even the ones most different from ourselves.

So, yes, in a sense, we are all our own special, noble snowflakes, different from everyone else, and we can choose to embrace that, or not.

And in another sense, we are all similar to every other human on this planet, through genetics, and through thousands of years of an evolved physical and cultural system, and no amount of othering will change it. We can embrace that, or not.

Do whatever brings you joy.