How does one cope with depersonalization?

[Little One]

*depersonalization

I don't think I'm a real person, not like other people are. There's a disconnect between {the things I do, the things I say, the things I think,} and who I am. I feel like I watch myself live, but that I don't live, that I'm not here, where all of you are. I find it impossible to have strong opinions because my opinions aren't quite real, they're only as important as the next guy's, and as there are a lot of those it doesn't seem worthwhile to think anything. How do I become me? How does a person be a person?

 

[Paranoid Android]

Re: How does one cope with depersonization?

I have sometimes the same problem. It usually happens after a traumatic dream or "too much" thinking alone, just sitting in my dark room. What helpes me is talking to a friend, or talking to people who I find interesting. Once it was a course at the university what helped me, sitting with others, discussing the topic which we was learning about. Though sometimes I feel it doesn't matter what opinions I have, because I could have as many as I want to, I can understand them all, and see the truth behind them. I could be like anyone, with any characteristics, it doesn't matter. This is a strange feeling.

I think a psychologist can help (not the medicine man psychiatrist but a therapist maybe a hypnotherapist, although there are cases when medicine can help WITH a therapy). I think sometimes depersonalization is because of traumatic happenings or some problems behind the surface you couldn't cope with.

Also I have a transcendent theory about it. I'm close to the holistic theory (God is everything and everyone) and that theory that we don't exist as individuals but we are just the part of the One.

Though this is just a theory, and I know it is really hard to live like this happily. It can be terrible. So I think you should go to a psychologist, try a therapy or something, or I don't know... Maybe meditation and stuff like that could also help a little bit. Or that would just make this thing worse?

 

[defghi]

Cool, thanks for convincing me that I'm not real.


I don't actually have any experience with this but maybe talk to yourself in the mirror? That always clears my head

 

[Da Blob]

*depersonalization

I don't think I'm a real person, not like other people are. There's a disconnect between {the things I do, the things I say, the things I think,} and who I am. I feel like I watch myself live, but that I don't live, that I'm not here, where all of you are. I find it impossible to have strong opinions because my opinions aren't quite real, they're only as important as the next guy's, and as there are a lot of those it doesn't seem worthwhile to think anything. How do I become me? How does a person be a person?

What is described is often associated with traumatic experience (PTSD). It can be seen as a type of prolonged shock, a defense mechanism of the Freudian type. It is akin to Denial, but more pervasive...

"How do I become Me?"
IMO, there is a simple solution, abandon "I", the one letter word symbolizes the POV of self as object, that which is seen in the mirror. How can a reflection consider its self real?.
Instead of constantly maintaining the POV of Self as an object, an "I", a reflection without substance. Return occasionally to being "Me" the indirect object, the passive observer, the target of abuse, the subject of criticism. However, the transformation of one's POV from 'I' to "Me" is transitional, not permanent, for the next stage is to transcend from 'Me' to 'We'.

When one graduates from 'Me' to 'Us', only then does one have the POV necessary to become "ME" as a subset of a greater sense of self, self as "WE". WE can be seen as a depersonalization of a constructive, not destructive, sort.

 

[nanook]

the spiritual process of waking up ("i'm in this world, not off this world") has so much parallels with depersonalisation, that i would assume, the wisdom traditions around waking up (meditation, but also how to think about one self) are equally suited to guide through de-personalisation.

i'm pretty sure you can find interesting youtube videos on the topic. by affected individuals, some of which interpret the situation with a spiritual framework, meaning they try to become free of the world entirety, some with the opposite goal.

i assume, the question would be, which side is closer to you: could you pull it off and become the egoic type, or is that totally against your process. also: is it an expression of your development, or some accident (traumatic reaction).


as for the "my opinions are not real", well congratulations, you are a sensitive individual to my liking. it's not valued by the world, but it's definitely the sane approach to thoughts.


nobody is really real the way he thinks he is. the self is illusion, meaning its different from the appearance that it creates of itself, when it creates that appearance, which it doesn't completely in your case.

the illusion should be coherent though. whether transparent (in awakening) or solid (as egoic state of mind)

awakening is two things: a) realisation that the self is illusion and that nothing in consciousness is really separate from anything else (like inside and outside) and b) a state of being undivided in terms of functionality. one is at one with himself, at peace, if you want. a state of big confidence, in a way, but at the same time humble or smooth, highly responsive, in interaction, in life.

now you describe a state of having partially realized a) but you don't seem undivided.

that's not optimal. but it's not uncommon in transitions of development either.

the spiritual model is just about the goal, not about a theory of absolut truth, awakening is a subjective phenomenon that is utterly real, no matter what it implies, in objective terms (just another level of illusion inside the brain or more than that?). so don't reject it because of opinions about world-views.
a typical therapist has the opposite goal in mind, though: he is supposed to want you to get a solid type ego, the way of separation that creates most of the suffering in the world. that can be the right thing as well. coherency of state is most important.


i don't know how to find out which way is right for you. i'm not sure you have a real choice though. which ever direction you are headed, your only options are probably holding on or speeding it up.

 

[nanook]

i'm obviously just speculating around.
i'm wondering what effect hemi-sync could have, not the crazy OBE type of binaurals, but the ones that ought to achieve a concentrated state of mind, for "learning" or so. hemi-sync implies synchronisation of brain hemispheres. that could help with feeling divided, no?

 

[Da Blob]

i'm obviously just speculating around.
i'm wondering what effect hemi-sync could have, not the crazy OBE type of binaurals, but the ones that ought to achieve a concentrated state of mind, for "learning" or so. hemi-sync implies synchronisation of brain hemispheres. that could help with feeling divided, no?

Most definitely, there is a correlation between the subjective POV with the right hemisphere and the objective POV with the left hemisphere.
(Re: Ekman and Davidson's research with facial expressions)

I will disagree, with the statement that "Self is a delusion", rather the reality is that most views that humans have of their own selves are illusionary, for Self is a chimera composed of various reflections of one's actions from various reflective 'surfaces'.

Obviously, then one needs access to a higher consciousness/spiritual awareness to become aware of 'true' self as something more than a collection of reflections.

 

[Words]

I guess I'll always have to be the functions-perspective guy. Pro-tip: use your auxiliary...extroverted function.

 

[Little One]

I tried not to be a person, when I was younger (I think because before that point I tried and failed.) I saw what people were, and I decided it wasn't for me. They didn't see anything, they didn't see themselves, they could act but never inwards. I always preferred inwards, the exploration, delving down, knowing/destroying each impulse, each bias, each beam in the house of my mind. But I think I've gone too far, because I can't find my way back. I don't want a spiritual awakening. I used to. Now I just want to get out before the house that is my mind topples down around my head, but I can't find the exit, it's been so long since I've seen it, since I've gone outside.

I've done therapy, a lot, and it generally proves quite useless as I have always been more intelligent than my therapist to such a degree that things got lost in translation too often for my liking. They were knowledgeable, even intelligent sometimes, but never intellectuals, less familiar with the workings of a mind (my mind) than I was. Maybe I expected too much.

I thought self-destruction would mean nirvana. Now I'm nothing, especially not a smiling buddha.

I want to never think these things. I want to be the most basic of human animals, with no trouble about identity, only reaction from an undivided self to the external world. The armies of themselves can do anything because they are undivided. My army has sat down and refused to fight; only a few out of genuine pacifism, many out of apathy and cowardice. And they've been running away, one by one, and I don't know what will happen when there aren't any left.

I envy the egoic types. I reject the wise.

Growing up is hard.

 

[nanook]

hm, i trying to say something, but my poor english becomes a problem with a subtle topic like this. i mean in reading what exactly you say. anyhow, for the most part my mind is probably an echo of my main man adyashanti, or my own inner teacher = that wisdom, that i keep rejecting. actually, no, there is no I to reject something, the wisdom just keeps bouncing off of the army of my mind, those morons keep making jokes about wisdom and showing with their fingers at it.

excuse me if i try to do some elementary level advaita math with you anyway:

who is the one, who wants no awakening? the not-wanting is that egoic I. but in getting what it wants, that 'want' which is the egoic I hopes to get rid of itself. every I wants to be free of wanting, which implies it wants to cease existing. and who or what is IN that I, who want's to be free of it? that one is already free of it, that one can't be pointed at though and his freedom is unknown.

so you just want to be, without having to want anything, be it 'wanting awakening' or 'wanting to prevent it'. but 'just being' IS that awakening.

yes, waking up seems so much like dying from the "outside", right? it does to me, especially when my ego gets all transparent and gas-like during altered states, when the mind/world is broken down.

but it's not the house that dies, die mind, the relative self.

it's just this joke, that keeps lingering in the mind, having thoughts like this: "Now I'm nothing, especially not a smiling buddha."

who is that I, that thinks it is nothing?
and you may not be smiling, but nirvana means cessation, or so its translated by adyashanti, and if it were not for those lingering thoughts, there would be cessation.

"and I don't know what will happen when there aren't any [soldiers of ego-land] left."

that's just the thing.

there can't be any more knowing, all that knowing stuff is part of the ego complex and it's what creates that division, that struggle.

the knowing mind claims to know something about you, like 'man are you doomed'. those jokes are passing out. and then there is life. and you won't even "know" it. so awakening might become complete, as gradually as those soldiers of ego have been passing out so far.

>only reaction from an undivided self to the external world

hm, we might be using the word undivided differently? the external world is in the big self, next to the little self, the little self is undivided against the external world, they are hugging and dancing without tension.

i'm wondering which of my voices has written all of that and i don't know, i can't know, pointing at voices, isolating them, would seem like fraud, but it seems, fraud doesn't want to occur here, at the moment, and so it doesn't/didn't. the author is the unknown.

you can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep

 

[Paranoid Android]

Maybe you should go to a buddhist sanctuary. Not joking.

 

[polar]

I was afflicted with this when I was 14 until I was 16, last summer. It was horrific. I think it's the worst thing anyone can go through, mentally, especially if you're very resistant to it. I 'recovered' from it by taking citalopram, I was lucky enough to find a wonderful and inexpensive therapist, I took a trip to Yosemite which was incredibly healing and grounding and I read the Power of Now. Now I don't so much like the book but it showed me that way of thinking. It's easy to read. And while I read that in Yosemite, I steadily came out of the DP bubble. Now I'm totally free of those thoughts, I feel normal and human.

If you want to recover or just talk about it feel free to message me.

 

[skip]

That doesn't sound good, Little One. I'd try to talk to a counselor type. Also, don't discount volunteering. Giving to others on a personal level is an excellent way to connect with them.

 

[addictedartist]

inside we are all dying to live on the outside, go look at some art, listen to some music, watch a movie , meet new people. you are lost because you refuse to see where you are, who you are is for us to know and you to find out, you are reflective but you must dig deeper to find the missing person in the mirror, dont stand in shadows expecting to see the light because it will be fleeting. you wont feel anything when you turn cold, which why its so easy to lose yourself when your so used to letting go. you should first try and cope with personalization, it makes depersonalizing yourself so much easier.

 

[Da Blob]

Silent voices sound the same! Tell them all to shut up for none are one's own voice, the One who would speak if given the opportunity would plead, Just Let Me Be!

Emptying the mind of thought is possible, but when one does so it becomes filled with something else, something that is not nothing.

 

[Architect]

I've found it is important to get out to prevent isolationism. Photography provides this, as does some traveling and whatnot.

 

[nanook]

inside we are all dying to live on the outside, go look at some art, listen to some music, watch a movie , meet new people. you are lost because you refuse to see where you are, who you are is for us to know and you to find out, you are reflective but you must dig deeper to find the missing person in the mirror, dont stand in shadows expecting to see the light because it will be fleeting. you wont feel anything when you turn cold, which why its so easy to lose yourself when your so used to letting go. you should first try and cope with personalization, it makes depersonalizing yourself so much easier.

resonates a lot with me. albeit i'm not the radical DP'er but shizoid/eros-phobic nevertheless. i'm like hardwired to be looking for the objective view on the self - actually the transcended view, but before i understood that, i often misinterpreted it, and hoped to find a literally objective view on my self with models such as typology and developemental psychology but also with dreams, i mean i hoped to find objective 'instructions' in my mind, on what to do later.

insisting on that transcended perspective may cause you to end up watching over a corpse, because to animate your self creatively, existentially, you may have to loose yourself in doing so, because creativity happens in real time, not in advance of acting out. and i mean loose your self in identification, that odd place or event, wherein other people claim to 'find' themselves.

it's a pity, because i am not all that bad in transcending the living creativity of myself. to the contrary, the more creative i am in monologic manner (acting out immediately), the more i feel both transcendence and (being one with) "little self".

the problem for me is with interactive live: i can't transcend what happens inside of that extroverted process. because i am doing something wrong, within that process. haven't figured it out exactly, but it's one of those ego things.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

*depersonalization

I don't think I'm a real person, not like other people are. There's a disconnect between {the things I do, the things I say, the things I think,} and who I am. I feel like I watch myself live, but that I don't live, that I'm not here, where all of you are. I find it impossible to have strong opinions because my opinions aren't quite real, they're only as important as the next guy's, and as there are a lot of those it doesn't seem worthwhile to think anything. How do I become me? How does a person be a person?

Opinions purported to be true are either true or they are not. If you value truth over falsehood then that which is true should hold greater value than that which is not. As for importance? That depends on the effect that something has measured against some criteria.

Now, idea/opinions are not all equal. Some ideas or opinions amount to nothing more than claptrap. Ideas or opinions if implemented would bear results which are the antitheses of preferred outcomes. Or in other circumstances some idea or opinions are complete claptrap because they're simply wrong. As in, they don't conform to reality. Counterpose to what many people try and purport, there is something called reality which ideas or opinions, in the long run, are ultimately measured against.

 

[kamari rised]

I was just thinking about this today.
It usually happens when Im alone and trying to figure something out. The deeper I go into it, the more i notice that my senses are enhanced, when I go outside to smoke a cigarette, I am in the present. Deep trance. I guess the Psychological term "flow". I go back and then fall right back into it, and than it's time to TRY and go to bed but since your such higher thought you have to come down. relax the mind. So when your trying to relax the mind by analyzing everything I think it's like fighting your conscience of how you view the world.
But than when you wake up back up usually, your up and ready to do everything of nothing.

well thats my thoughts. Your not alone dude.

 

[Da Blob]

resonates a lot with me. albeit i'm not the radical DP'er but shizoid/eros-phobic nevertheless. i'm like hardwired to be looking for the objective view on the self - actually the transcended view, but before i understood that, i often misinterpreted it, and hoped to find a literally objective view on my self with models such as typology and developemental psychology but also with dreams, i mean i hoped to find objective 'instructions' in my mind, on what to do later.

insisting on that transcended perspective may cause you to end up watching over a corpse, because to animate your self creatively, existentially, you may have to loose yourself in doing so, because creativity happens in real time, not in advance of acting out. and i mean loose your self in identification, that odd place or event, wherein other people claim to 'find' themselves.

it's a pity, because i am not all that bad in transcending the living creativity of myself. to the contrary, the more creative i am in monologic manner (acting out immediately), the more i feel both transcendence and (being one with) "little self".

the problem for me is with interactive live: i can't transcend what happens inside of that extroverted process. because i am doing something wrong, within that process. haven't figured it out exactly, but it's one of those ego things.

I will object to the concept that a transcendent POV, is necessarily, one that invokes depersonalization, in fact, I suggest that the opposite is more likely to occur.

Each of the personal pronouns can be seen as symbols of distinct transcendental POVs of Self, with the possible exception of the word, ME.

The word, I is in reality an abbreviation for the first person, It, I(t). I(t) is a transcendental observation of Me, by Me. I(t) can be viewed as a third person entity, whereupon I and me, become separated and thereby 'depersonalized', being Subject-Or-Object, instead of Subject-And-Object.

The problem with using Cogito, Ergo Sum as the Origin of a Cartesian system, is that it does not account for the transcendental Observer. That is to say the foundation of That-Which-Can-Not-Be-Doubted, is a bit more complex than many assume.

Cogito, Ergo Sum could be translated as I(t) thinks, Therefore I(t) IS (not AM) for it is merely the observation of an object (I) by a subject (Me).

Me Am, I(t) Is is really That-Which-Can-Not-Be-Doubted, nor is it a mere dualism - being comprised of three elements, The Observer, The Observed and the Observation. The Observation is a relationship, that in itself requires a transcendental POV, of the Observer and the Observed, simultaneously.

Martin Buber had the right of it, to a great extent, There is I/Thou/Between or Me/Between/I, at the foundation of being/experiencing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber



EDIT: "I" is what "ME" sees in a mirror...

EDIT 2: Imagine two fuzzy sets, one labeled 'Me' the other labeled "I", they overlap, with set boundaries in common at the two poles of the ellipse that is the overlap. draw line segments between the two poles and One's point of view of them in a third dimension. The resulting transcendental triangle, is a fuzzy set in itself, so that the most simple model of That-Which-Can-Not-Be-Doubted is a multidimensional universe containing at least 4 fuzzy sets.

Dualism in philosophy, may indeed be an error, but monism in philosophy is a greater error...

 

[Cognisant]

Don't take anyone's advice, there's nothing wrong with you.

How do I become me? How does a person be a person?

I don't know

You can always play a character, I wasn't always Cognisant, I became him as a matter of habit, but deep down, beneath the mask, there's still nothing inside, no me to be, but when I'm lonely I put my mask back on and get back on stage with my "friends" and we play pretend.

You're welcome to play with me.

 

[Da Blob]

Don't take anyone's advice, there's nothing wrong with you.


I don't know

You can always play a character, I wasn't always Cognisant, I became him as a matter of habit, but deep down, beneath the mask, there's still nothing inside, no me to be, but when I'm lonely I put my mask back on and get back on stage with my "friends" and we play pretend.

You're welcome to play with me.

Unfortunately this could be true, Cog is an invention of preCog, an innovation of self awareness that came online at the age of 10 to 12 months. I suppose it is remotely possible for preCog to have withered away into nothingness, leaving Cog remaining as a satellite orbiting nothing but the burnt out remains of preCog.

It seems like a rather dismal existence, perhaps preCog can be brought back from the dead, born again in a manner of speaking?

 

[PhoenixRising]

I agree with many of the posts I've seen on here, there's nothing wrong with you. I think you need to let go of the concept of "being a person". You are a person, you're just more flexible and non-biased, and less into all the crap that society deems as "reality" as many people are. Reality is reality, no matter what you think. Something that helps me when I get lost in my head is just to stop thinking. Then all that's left is the real world outside. Just be in the real world and take it for what it is for a while, without having any thoughts about why it's the way it is or how it could be better. It just is. And so are you, you just are.

As far as being empty inside, that's kind of a fallacy as well. You think you're empty inside, but what do you expect to be inside of "you". At the innermost level, you are conscious. That's it, the rest of who/what you are is made up in your head. So as long as you are able to perceive the world inside and outside yourself, you exist. Try not to impose social expectations on yourself, especially when it comes to your existence. Best of luck.

 

[BigApplePi]

Hi Little One. I take it you want to go from what you said to what I'll call, "personalization." That is, you want to become some kind of a person, unique, so you can say, "This is me." I'm assuming this is correct so if it isn't, I'm off base and you can skip the below.

I am going to quote some posters and comment. By the way I have fun with this kind of stuff, but if I say something wrong and find out about it, I feel embarrassed. That is me ... or at least a part of me. I'm just saying this so you can know I do believe I am some kind of a person.

I agree with many of the posts I've seen on here, there's nothing wrong with you. I think you need to let go of the concept of "being a person". You are a person, you're just more flexible and non-biased ... Just be in the real world and take it for what it is for a while, without having any thoughts about why it's the way it is or how it could be better. It just is. And so are you, you just are.

As far as being empty inside, that's kind of a fallacy as well. You think you're empty inside, but what do you expect to be inside of "you". At the innermost level, you are conscious. That's it, the rest of who/what you are is made up in your head. So as long as you are able to perceive the world inside and outside yourself, you exist. Try not to impose social expectations on yourself, especially when it comes to your existence. Best of luck.

I wanted to add to that if one is empty or feeling empty the solution is to fill up with something. You can start with anything and can take good suggestions from others. Bad suggestions won't turn out so well. If you can't tell the difference, try either and decide.

I've found it is important to get out to prevent isolationism. Photography provides this, as does some traveling and whatnot.

I like that. It is something concrete. If that works for Architect, something else will work for you. If you do something outside of yourself, whether it be visiting a museum or taking up a sport, you can add that to what you are. If you don't like what you try, then you can add that although a positive is better than a negative. BTW you call yourself, "Little One." Does that mean little in stature, age or psyche?

inside we are all dying to live on the outside, go look at some art, listen to some music, watch a movie , meet new people. you are lost because you refuse to see where you are, who you are is for us to know and you to find out, you are reflective but you must dig deeper to find the missing person in the mirror, dont stand in shadows expecting to see the light because it will be fleeting. you wont feel anything when you turn cold, which why its so easy to lose yourself when your so used to letting go. you should first try and cope with personalization, it makes depersonalizing yourself so much easier.

I thought that a real good post. It names more things to do to make you you. Add games, cleaning your room, drawing, reading some article that satisfies your curiosity. Stuff like that.

 

[reddie]

*depersonalization

I don't think I'm a real person, not like other people are. There's a disconnect between {the things I do, the things I say, the things I think,} and who I am. I feel like I watch myself live, but that I don't live, that I'm not here, where all of you are. I find it impossible to have strong opinions because my opinions aren't quite real, they're only as important as the next guy's, and as there are a lot of those it doesn't seem worthwhile to think anything. How do I become me? How does a person be a person?

When I first started reading what you are saying , it all sounded so familiar - not as detailed- but so familiar.
I am not sure if your always feeling that way but I sometimes do.
While writing this I made a lot of opinions and seemingly solutions but non of them made sense to me for a cause and its cure.
Perhaps it is simply the -you- you are looking for? or maybe it is just a crappy moment or 2?

 

[nanook]

@Da Blob


actually Me correlates with It, in that both are third person.

when i ask you: do you hurt me? then i picture: 'you hurting me' - that's like picturing: 'you hurting the It which i have named 'me'.

I AM looking at THIS 'me' in imagination or memory.

Me is third person, just like "mine": IT, my body.

I "sense a limb" (first person) but I remember having a body (imagination=third person), i call that imagination MY body.
Me is a concept, like imaginations, not an experience.
however i admit, that it catalyses imaginations of the first person.
when say "he hurt me" it evokes a memory and inside that memory
"I am hurting" again (fist person) - if i go into it deep enough. but this happens long AFTER i used the me word.


and I is first person. unless you are "depersonalized" in a certain sense (!!!), then you "mistake" I for third person, but this is done through the egoic mind: the mind is the first person I, but it looks at itself (creating a fake copy in memory/imagination) and pretends that it's not itself.

however, this mindsplit (mind getting lost in memory) is not nescerarily and not even likely the spiritual phenomenon that a person with depersonalisation actually experiences.

i do not believe that the linguistic mind has the power to create such a distinct experience, as it's described by these people.

yes, the cartesian stuff isn't aware of transcendence. also i don't see how this is relevant in this thread.

the catesian thing goes:

I think, therfore I am [the mind].
which is an acurate fact about the egoic mind.

"the mind" is a third person thing only when imagined or memorized.
but WHILE I think, there is no acute experience of such a mind, as a whole.
so, whenever the egoic I-thought thinks that it thinks, meaning it thinks "hey look i am thinking this" it has made itself into a real and undoubtable experience of first person. and the mind can't stop thinking like that.

so the MIND can not doubt the I, in that exact moment, when it is thinking that way!

this mind considers the third person imagination of a think called the mind to be a mere fiction, created by itself. that is it's experience.

"I think, that i memorize a whole lot of thinking, i theorize there must be a mind and I must be it, however i can doubt my memory of a whole lot of mind, therefore i can doubt this theory of having a mind, but i can not doubt that I, first person, AM thinking at this exact moment"

this egoic mind can not take into consideration transcendence, because transcendence is never honestly created by and maintainded within the mind itself. it's not even ever comprehended in real time.

all our comprehension of transcendence is only the "comprhehension" of a theoretical model of transcencence, that exists in imagination/memory.


saying that "I is an IT" that is is an illogical lie of sorts, when it's said by the mind, because the mind does not actually experinece the I as an IT, ever! it only theorizes or imagines an I, which is supposed to be an IT.


only, when a person has experienced actualy transcendence, they don't have an issue with such illocial lies ("satsang talk"), and they will talk of the egoic self as an IT. but this is allways paradoxical or illogical.

whenever you say I, you experience the first person. in that moment transcendence, if it is established, would withness this first person "from a distance of sorts". but it's still first person!

and to call it IT, is not an accurate report of what is witnesses at this exact moment, nor is it the experience of the mind.


it's just a way of thinking about it in retrospect, which can never creates a genuine experience in the presence, let alone trancendence, saying that I is IT is never more than a mere thought, another opinion, an imagination, it has no acute reality.

no one who has never experienced transcendence would ever doubt the I of the egoic mind, in that exact moment!

unless they get lost in extra-thoughts without recognizing that they are no longer in touch with the present facts.

everyone can think the sentence: "I MIGHT be an illusion of sorts, created by this theoretical entity called mind and if i was, i would call it IT, THE illusion of the mind" but it's just a thought.

the egoic mind has no knowledge or experience of this thought being true. it's a fake doubt, not a true doubt arrived at through logic!

just a play of words!


only those who have "seen" the whole mind from the outside, through real transcence, if only for moments, doubt every content (!!!) of the mind, so that includes the doubt that there is anything substantial in the minds meaning of the I-thought.

first person is still fistt person, thinking "I" will still create that I sensation in the mind (oh yea, i can feel how i am thinking this), but it's seen as empty: that is to say: it no longer implies any sort of real sepparation from anything other, because all other "persons" (IT or YOU) are ALSO seen to be part of the same mind, that features the first person.

the mind can no longer fool itself.

only then "doubts" about I can become real, accute, honest, but it's stil not a doubt that comes from within of the logical world of the mind itself.

it's another brand of doubt alltogether.

so professionally logical philosophers like cartesians (silly T dominants) have to remove it from their wordlview for the sake of logical coherency.

they want to get paid for their work by kings who don't comprehend transcendence.

you can never "see" the I thought in the mirror. the I thought is when you think: I am thinking this shit. when you look in a mirror you think: I think this is must be me. however one could say: ME IS thinking this thought "I think ....". but again, this is not a report of any experience!

this is an analysis of one'S memory, wherein the mind is looking at the memory of the thought "This must be me" through third person perspective, thereby rewriting (lying) the first person I into a third person fiction named Me. Me is never a direct experience.

when i say "you are hurting me" then i am dissociating myself through the minds means of imagination, i distract myself with this imagination, but while i am doing that i am no longer speaking from the true fact, i am speaking about memory. the true fact is: I am hurting. however i prefer to indulge in memory to distract my self. so I like to make a drama and accuse you of how you are hurting me, a story that exists deep inside imagination.

the mind can descend into the body. the mind is sensation. thinking in first person: "I am hurting" can really hurt! it makes you feel like you are melting with the suffering. childs have to go throu that. they cry a lot. grown ups can distract them selves with imagination: "motherfucker, THIS hurts like a bich". the mind can avoid it's first person I thought, but only for a couple of seconds. the next sentence will certainly have some I inside of it.

 

[Da Blob]

The ego, is the I, the Id and ever other sort of consciousness is the Me.

Me is the passive Observer in a quantum universe, itself, an unobservable and invisible subject.

I is the Observed, along with all the other objects that are observable and visible.

Relationship is an Observation created by the passive Observer...

Again, Self and Identity, as cognitive constructs, evolve as the human brain matures and thus so do the meanings of 'Me' and "I".

I don't know if the the point I am trying to make can be made using the English language for That-Which-Can-Not-Be-Doubted existed before the invention of language and words such as Cogito, Me and I. That which one symbolizes must be symbolic, so that much of pre-symbolic thought seems to beyond the realm of the ego and Its words/symbols (?)

 

[nanook]

the transcended witness (that which deserves to be called "observer") (that which begins to witness dreamless deep sleep) is a part of the ego. it's created from the mind, that's why the mind has to meditate so hard to create it, and you can see it in brain-scans as an organic reorganisation. it may be argued that it's the last contraction of an immortal soul. however it's not awakened spirit.

if your mind would refuse to call that infamous witness by it's name and prefer to call it "Me" instead, that would just be arbitrary re-labeling, not a fact of how language naturally works in the mind, also it's probably a trick to "justify" the separation of this witness in such a way, that it doesn't seem so "egoic" or "contracted into artificial illusory separation", but it is.

and truly awakened/undivided spirit (without any contractions) is not this witnessing mind (albeit of course all contractions are made out of spirit)

this awakened mind is not anything like a "me", it is NOSELF, and it's that which can not be known or named. (the witness can be known and seen through, NOSELF can't)

and why on earth would you call NOSELF "me"????
that's worse than calling it SELF.

the word ME already has a function in language, it can not be used again, to mean something else, namely NOSELF.

even calling NOSELF "SELF" with upper case capitalisation compared to regular self makes more sense than calling it "Me".

of course the mind would love to believe, that the impersonal SPIRIT is a me of sorts.

way to avoid drowning in it!

this way the ego will always have a barrier against recognizing, that the IMPERSONAL SPIRIT is right there, always, and that it's everything that is, including all contractions.

the I-thought is created and experienced by the mind, exactly simultaneously. experience is created by the mind, it's content (the I thought) is created by the mind. it's the same thing.

i think you call it separate observer, i don't see how it's separate from anything, it's just pre-conscious from the perspective of egoic experience itself.

and this whole experience (of contraction, folding of consciousness against itself) is made out of and created by and known by SPIRIT.

i think thats what you mean by: "relationship (experience, or contraction, folding against itself)" is created and observed by consciousness or spirit, only you call it "observer"

but consciousness (NOSELF) can't be called observer, because it's the creator and the substance as well. you can't reduce it to observation. the word observation implies separation.

also: NOSELF can be doubted!!!! more than anything. obviously. or else all of humanity would be awake. it can not be KNOWN. how could something that can't even be known be knowable beyond doubt? the word "doubt" deals with knowledge, right? using it differently is illogical, it's satsang-talk. i'm not against satsang talk, to the contrary i love it, but you have to label it accordingly: this is an illogical paradoxical satsang talk.

or else i am assuming that you are trying to convince me with logical arguments of sorts ... you speak of "making a point" after all. points are logical stuff, no?

of course, and i think thats what you mean, when you claim that SPIRIT cant be doubted: that which can not be known can't be "argued" with logically. it can and must be "ignored", logically. i think, by "doubting" you meant arguing with. once one has attained SPIRIT, the illusion of contraction has become penetrated like a ships hull, logic goes to hell, all argument die sooner or later.

 

[Da Blob]

Agreed! there is no word, ME or any Other
that can capture that Beyond Word

The Knower can't be Known
The Observer can't be Observed
The Worker is hidden in the Workshop

Rumi called the ego a counterfeit
that proved the existence of the real

Ego, as Self awareness, is invented at the age of 10 to 12 months
in most human infants.

The consciousness that exists before Ego
Is Me/We

To re-experience this primal consciousness is the goal
of some Eastern meditation techniques.

Self awareness is a curse as well as a blessing
Perhaps The Original Sin

The Universe without self awareness is an interesting place TO BE

On a clear night the stars are not up in the sky, but instead, all around, One

 

[kamari rised]

^^ experiance and re-experiance is the key to perception. Than from everything you learn. put that process in reverse and find the nature of the cause. Than rebuild with more experiance.

 

[BigApplePi]

Has Little One become so little as to have

Spoiler

vanished

?

 

[rattymat]

I tried not to be a person, when I was younger (I think because before that point I tried and failed.) I saw what people were, and I decided it wasn't for me. They didn't see anything, they didn't see themselves, they could act but never inwards. I always preferred inwards, the exploration, delving down, knowing/destroying each impulse, each bias, each beam in the house of my mind. But I think I've gone too far, because I can't find my way back. I don't want a spiritual awakening. I used to. Now I just want to get out before the house that is my mind topples down around my head, but I can't find the exit, it's been so long since I've seen it, since I've gone outside.

I've done therapy, a lot, and it generally proves quite useless as I have always been more intelligent than my therapist to such a degree that things got lost in translation too often for my liking. They were knowledgeable, even intelligent sometimes, but never intellectuals, less familiar with the workings of a mind (my mind) than I was. Maybe I expected too much.

I thought self-destruction would mean nirvana. Now I'm nothing, especially not a smiling buddha.

I want to never think these things. I want to be the most basic of human animals, with no trouble about identity, only reaction from an undivided self to the external world. The armies of themselves can do anything because they are undivided. My army has sat down and refused to fight; only a few out of genuine pacifism, many out of apathy and cowardice. And they've been running away, one by one, and I don't know what will happen when there aren't any left.

I envy the egoic types. I reject the wise.

Growing up is hard.

I have definitely been in this position before, where any opinion you have seems like it is operating on some sort of false bias and thus one is left opinionless. (One can replace opinion with 'idea' or 'theory', since these words are better). Perhaps you are realizing that life cannot be entirely objective, and that indeed is a hard truth to come to terms with, though not impossible if you handle it properly.
My advice in overcoming this is to be more trusting of the viewpoints you have already formed. Whether you realize this in your current state, you have formed opinions, and given the nature in which you have formed them (through careful observations and analysis), has created a more accurate depiction of reality. Granted, it is not entirely accurate, but do not back down from all that you have already developed. Expand upon development, innovate, re-arrange. Yes, there is destruction involved, but it seems your destruction process has become unproductive for the time being.
Basically, have more confidence in what you have worked hard to become, and continue evolving from that point on.

 

[algorithm]

As a DP sufferer myself who stumbled upon this thread, I signed up just to have a punt at why Little One might not be replying.

You guys are heroically unhelpful. While I'm sure your hearts are in the right places, your love of intellectualising over offering practical advice and, in some cases, complete misunderstanding of the condition aren't useful to someone in that position. If this were my thread and I saw it spiraling off into metaphysical debate interspersed with comments implying that depersonalisation might not be a bad thing or that I should care about high-minded spiritual concepts in order to get better, I'd have fucked off too.

That said, there are a few genuinely insightful and helpful posts scattered about but the sum of the parts is infuriating.

Anyway, like I said, just a punt.

 

[Duxwing]

Don't take anyone's advice, there's nothing wrong with you.


I don't know

You can always play a character, I wasn't always Cognisant, I became him as a matter of habit, but deep down, beneath the mask, there's still nothing inside, no me to be, but when I'm lonely I put my mask back on and get back on stage with my "friends" and we play pretend.

You're welcome to play with me.

That really hit home, Cog. I can't really help with that using reason, but here, have a *hug*. If you ever want to take the mask off and try to talk to someone, go ahead and PM me; I'll do my best to soak up whatever's eating away at you.

-Duxwing

 

[algorithm]

As a DP sufferer myself who stumbled upon this thread, I signed up just to have a punt at why Little One might not be replying.

You guys are heroically unhelpful. While I'm sure your hearts are in the right places, your love of intellectualising over offering practical advice and, in some cases, complete misunderstanding of the condition aren't useful to someone in that position. If this were my thread and I saw it spiraling off into metaphysical debate interspersed with comments implying that depersonalisation might not be a bad thing or that I should care about high-minded spiritual concepts in order to get better, I'd have fucked off too.

That said, there are a few genuinely insightful and helpful posts scattered about but the sum of the parts is infuriating.

Anyway, like I said, just a punt.

I'd just like to add that I hope this post is taken in the meaningful, constructive way it was intended. I wasn't attempting to troll or being harsh for the sake of it.

I'm an ENTJ (just in case anyone wonders) though the extroversion is so heavily borderline that I could be considered both (or neither, if that's your thing!) I hope being an ENTJ isn't a ban-able offense!

Take care, all, and if you read this topic again, Little One, then send me a PM or something. I'll try and post something useful later. If an admin would be willing to help me get in touch with Little One, I would be extremely grateful. This topic and the one about using drugs to avoid unhappiness resonate very heavily with me and I think my experience of the same situation could be helpful.