The Divided Self

[Mole]

I have only stolen one book in my life so it is significant. It was The Divided Self.

And the book spoke to me. This is surprising because the book is about schizophrenia, while I don't suffer from schizophrenia. But still, I do have a divided self.

And interestingly, as I worked on the Japanese Desk for the Australian Government, I discovered the Japanese were also divided between tatemae: the face we show the world, and honne: how we really feel.

So I am closer to the Japanese rather than schizophrenics, but each of us shares a divided self.

So I am divided between my social self and my inner self. And no matter what the situation, and no matter what the temptation, I always cling to my inner self.

My ambition is to marry my inner self with my social self. Occasionally I manage to do that and the result is ecstatic.

I am surprised that it seems to me that most other people are not consciously conscious of their inner self, not seeking to preserve it in the face of all the rewards for a successful social self. I am possibly wrong in this perception but it seems to me they have committed suicide of their psyche under social pressure. But they don't seem to suffer psychologically for this so perhaps I am wrong. Or perhaps not, as next to Iceland, Australia has the highest consumption of anti-depressant prescriptions in the world.

Is this because we fail to acknowledge our divided selves, and so fail to bring the two together. And as a result we fall into depression and are prescribed anti-depressants.

Is perhaps the cure for some depression the rediscovery of our psychological integrity?

I don't suffer from schizophrenia or depression and perhaps this is because I constantly struggle against social pressure to abandon my inner self.

So perhaps some depression is a result of an abandoned inner self. Abandoned children can fall into depression, so perhaps our depressed inner self is like an abandoned child.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

I have only stolen one book in my life so it is significant. It was The Divided Self.

And the book spoke to me. This is surprising because the book is about schizophrenia, while I don't suffer from schizophrenia. But still, I do have a divided self.

And interestingly, as I worked on the Japanese Desk for the Australian Government, I discovered the Japanese were also divided between tatemae: the face we show the world, and honne: how we really feel.

So I am closer to the Japanese rather than schizophrenics, but each of us shares a divided self.

So I am divided between my social self and my inner self. And no matter what the situation, and no matter what the temptation, I always cling to my inner self.

My ambition is to marry my inner self with my social self. Occasionally I manage to do that and the result is ecstatic.

I am surprised that it seems to me that most other people are not consciously conscious of their inner self, not seeking to preserve it in the face of all the rewards for a successful social self. I am possibly wrong in this perception but it seems to me they have committed suicide of their psyche under social pressure. But they don't seem to suffer psychologically for this so perhaps I am wrong. Or perhaps not, as next to Iceland, Australia has the highest consumption of anti-depressant prescriptions in the world.

Is this because we fail to acknowledge our divided selves, and so fail to bring the two together. And as a result we fall into depression and are prescribed anti-depressants.

Is perhaps the cure for some depression the rediscovery of our psychological integrity?

I don't suffer from schizophrenia or depression and perhaps this is because I constantly struggle against social pressure to abandon my inner self.

So perhaps some depression is a result of an abandoned inner self. Abandoned children can fall into depression, so perhaps our depressed inner self is like an abandoned child.

Everyone suffers from schizophrenia and depression in our society. There is not a person who is free of these. What is true though also is that we fall on different areas of the spectrum for these conditions.

Let me explain to you how we all suffer schizophrenia and depression...we are all divided.

Let me give you a metaphor because explaining this requires symbol, since symbol goes beyond what language can capture.

A man is convicted of murder. He is given a life sentence. He has done the deed with his hands and he chocked his wife's man on the side when he discovered she was cheating.

Another man, he wears a white suit, is responsible for the murders of thousands of African babies every day. He makes decisions which determine the fate of children starving to death. Every day he kills 1,000 kids. He crushes their skulls with his briefcase.

Meanwhile, a common person goes to work. They work their hardest. They have values and integrity. The keep the system that crushes baby skulls functioning perfectly. This sort of person believes in grit, hard work, and that one determines their own fate. He is in denile and depressed.

All three are schizophrenic. The man who killed his wife's lover is the most saintly of the three, but still all are doomed and vile.

The man who wears the suit believes he is doing gods will for only in believing this can a man commit the evil which he perpetrates on his brethren, making murders of people, or murdering them, it does not matter he is the killer of all killers - and he hallucinates in believing that he is correct...he is literally seeing things that are not there.

The common person who goes to work is hallucinated as well. He or she believes that he is doing what is right...this is laughable...this like a storm trooper blowing up a planet and feeling closer to god for it. Anything this person does is nothing short of murder too...he knows it in one part of himself, and that is why he resorts to eating fast food, smoking cigarettes, and drinking beer. It isn't becuase he is lovesick...no...it's because deep down he knows his lifestyle is built on a base of dead baby skulls.

So you see...all of us are hallucinating. There is too much death on this planet and too much apathy for any of us to be considered anything short of insane.

 

[Mole]

So you see...all of us are hallucinating. There is too much death on this planet and too much apathy for any of us to be considered anything short of insane.

This is nihilism. It is a narcissistic fantasy. It is the rationalisation of hatred. On the other hand, the divided self is hopeful because there is the opportunity of understanding and integrating the two selves.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

This is interesting. Our self has many potentialities. It is affected in part whom we choose to spend time with. Your removal from social forces that attempt to squelch your inner self reminds me of the cautions of sages to mind who you choose to spend your time with. Another person does not necessarily control who we are unless we give that power over to them. I agree with you that to be whole is necessary for happiness. Not everyone has this capacity however. Oh, not necessarily because it is something they inherently lack, but because it has been uncultivated for many years. If they could be taught to tend their own inner garden they would find a beauty within the self that would in time motivate them to spend more time in its cultivation. But because their practices are not geared for the self-cultivation or through other limitations the self remains undifferentiated.

 

[Kerik_S]

I've always (well, since age 11) felt a sort of "bifurcation" that was even apparent in my internal dialogue. Very distinct "voices". Never dissociated from my sense of self, but just different.

And one would come out more often when I was alone-- the other when I was socializing.

I made it my goal to "integrate" the two, and even gave one of them a name: "Kerik", hence the username.

　
I got pretty good at sensing what was a "K"[erik] moment, what was a [birthname:we'll_say_"S"] moment, and what was an "SK moment".

Eventually, the just kinda blended together and only bifurcate when I face a complex problem, usually associated with my ego boundaries needing to be navigated: Usually a self-comforting thing, like "Yea, objectively that sucks, but you're okay [subjectively]"-- kind of a navigating of Fe and Fi for my psyche, and probably also super-ego and ego as well.

　
The only thing I haven't been able to change is how activated certain cognitive functions get when I'm socializing: I rarely access Fe/Fi in combination with Ni when I'm alone, for instance. I used to agonize over my "dependence" on other people for activating certain faculties, but in studying Socionics in particular, I managed to let that go.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

This is nihilism. It is a narcissistic fantasy. It is the rationalisation of hatred. On the other hand, the divided self is hopeful because there is the opportunity of understanding and integrating the two selves.

That's actually quite interesting...it does seem to be nihilism if we stop there. Although I don't think it is narcissistic because it came from an unconscious place, not from the ego.

Perhaps there is room for a little nihilism in our happy soup? A little treasure in the shadow?

 

[GarrotTheThief]

This is interesting. Our self has many potentialities. It is affected in part whom we choose to spend time with. Your removal from social forces that attempt to squelch your inner self reminds me of the cautions of sages to mind who you choose to spend your time with. Another person does not necessarily control who we are unless we give that power over to them. I agree with you that to be whole is necessary for happiness. Not everyone has this capacity however. Oh, not necessarily because it is something they inherently lack, but because it has been uncultivated for many years. If they could be taught to twnd their own inner garden they would find a beauty within the self that would in time motivate them to spend more time in its cultivation. But because their practices are not geared for the self-cultivation or through other limitations the self remains undifferentiated.

Not to mention that society demands we are good at one thing, and one thing only, and the only thing society needs are endless droves of bots for administrative paper work...hence the cubicle hell me and my friends all live in.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

I recommend you spend some time in Nature friend.

 

[Rambling]

I think it is well described by Enneagram 3 - the professional mask and the true self.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

I've always (well, since age 11) felt a sort of "bifurcation" that was even apparent in my internal dialogue. Very distinct "voices". Never dissociated from my sense of self, but just different.

And one would come out more often when I was alone-- the other when I was socializing.

I made it my goal to "integrate" the two, and even gave one of them a name: "Kerik", hence the username.

　
I got pretty good at sensing what was a "K"[erik] moment, what was a [birthname:we'll_say_"S"] moment, and what was an "SK moment".

"Eventually, the just kinda blended together and only bifurcate when I face a complex problem, usually associated with my ego boundaries needing to be navigated: Usually a self-comforting thing, like "Yea, objectively that sucks, but you're okay [subjectively]"-- kind of a navigating of Fe and Fi for my psyche, and probably also super-ego and ego as well.

　
The only thing I haven't been able to change is how activated certain cognitive functions get when I'm socializing: I rarely access Fe/Fi in combination with Ni when I'm alone, for instance. I used to agonize over my "dependence" on other people for activating certain faculties, but in studying Socionics in particular, I managed to let that go.

Hi The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes | Julian Jaynes Society

Jaynes wrote that ancient humans before roughly 1000BC were not reflectively meta-conscious and operated by means of automatic, nonconscious habit-schemas. Instead of having meta-consciousness, these humans were constituted by what Jaynes calls the "bicameral mind". For bicameral humans, when habit did not suffice to handle novel stimuli and stress rose at the moment of decision, neural activity in the "dominant" (left) hemisphere was modulated by auditory verbal hallucinations originating in the so-called "silent" (right) hemisphere (particularly the right temporal cortex), which were heard as the voice of a chieftain or god and immediately obeyed.

Jaynes wrote, "[For bicameral humans], volition came as a voice that was in the nature of a neurological command, in which the command and the action were not separated, in which to hear was to obey." Jaynes argued that the change from bicamerality to consciousness (linguistic meta-cognition) occurred over a period of ten centuries beginning around 1800 BC. The selection pressure for Jaynesian consciousness as a means for cognitive control is due, in part, to chaotic social disorganizations and the development of new methods of behavioral control such as writing."

 

[Mole]

Hi The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes | Julian Jaynes Society

Jaynes wrote that ancient humans before roughly 1000BC were not reflectively meta-conscious and operated by means of automatic, nonconscious habit-schemas. Instead of having meta-consciousness, these humans were constituted by what Jaynes calls the "bicameral mind". For bicameral humans, when habit did not suffice to handle novel stimuli and stress rose at the moment of decision, neural activity in the "dominant" (left) hemisphere was modulated by auditory verbal hallucinations originating in the so-called "silent" (right) hemisphere (particularly the right temporal cortex), which were heard as the voice of a chieftain or god and immediately obeyed.

Jaynes wrote, "[For bicameral humans], volition came as a voice that was in the nature of a neurological command, in which the command and the action were not separated, in which to hear was to obey." Jaynes argued that the change from bicamerality to consciousness (linguistic meta-cognition) occurred over a period of ten centuries beginning around 1800 BC. The selection pressure for Jaynesian consciousness as a means for cognitive control is due, in part, to chaotic social disorganizations and the development of new methods of behavioral control such as writing."

Yes, this is very interesting. There does seem to be a biological basis for the divided self. And it seems to me we dissociate under stress, so that one part is hidden from the other part. This seems to me to be a psychologically defence mechanism against stress or against logically incompatible demands.

And although it can be difficult to integrate the divided self, the result is gratitude and joy.

 

[Mole]

I think it is well described by Enneagram 3 - the professional mask and the true self.

It maybe that when we remove the professional mask, we find we are in the Garden of Eden of the true self.

 

[Kerik_S]

Hi The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes | Julian Jaynes Society

Jaynes wrote that ancient humans before roughly 1000BC were not reflectively meta-conscious and operated by means of automatic, nonconscious habit-schemas. Instead of having meta-consciousness, these humans were constituted by what Jaynes calls the "bicameral mind". For bicameral humans, when habit did not suffice to handle novel stimuli and stress rose at the moment of decision, neural activity in the "dominant" (left) hemisphere was modulated by auditory verbal hallucinations originating in the so-called "silent" (right) hemisphere (particularly the right temporal cortex), which were heard as the voice of a chieftain or god and immediately obeyed.

Jaynes wrote, "[For bicameral humans], volition came as a voice that was in the nature of a neurological command, in which the command and the action were not separated, in which to hear was to obey." Jaynes argued that the change from bicamerality to consciousness (linguistic meta-cognition) occurred over a period of ten centuries beginning around 1800 BC. The selection pressure for Jaynesian consciousness as a means for cognitive control is due, in part, to chaotic social disorganizations and the development of new methods of behavioral control such as writing."

I think I'm somewhere in between the two types of minds described here. It's cool to know there may be some process to describe the transition or de-transition from one to the other, and any gradation between.

I personally like the idea of bouncing back and forth, in stable phases, and embracing the change and seeing what beneficial/comforting/illuminating thoughts can come from simply allowing my mind to operate in whatever way works best for the moment.

I tried doing the "aim [but, {rhetorical_"Don't_Actually_Aim"}] for the former 'Big Self' at all times" (they would use "strive" commonly in Zen chants to emphasize that practicing would lead to the "aim" without you having to get attached to the aim itself).

But, I found that very vacuous and boring. I like the meta-conscious faculties of my mind a lot more actually, which is supposed to be some kind of "trap" but I've only heard people who simply prefer 'Big Self' more to make that charge.　I believe it's a matter of preference, and it's more of a "ambidextrous" shifting between 'nonduality' and 'dualistic thinking' that works best for me.

　
The only benefit (for people who don't naturally enjoy the process) to abiding in nondualistic cognition is the amount of unbiased processing you can engage in, which can help you make corrections to any ethical problems you perceive in yourself. Outside of this discipline, however, I think the importance is way too over-inflated in "New Age" culture.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

Yes, this is very interesting. There does seem to be a biological basis for the divided self. And it seems to me we dissociate under stress, so that one part is hidden from the other part. This seems to me to be a psychologically defence mechanism against stress or against logically incompatible demands.

And although it can be difficult to integrate the divided self, the result is gratitude and joy.

That is a very good point. For example, if we go without sleep, drink, do not eat, and very physically active, abstain from sex, etc our body builds up a tension and the highest self is... much more difficult to access.

 

[Mole]

That is a very good point. For example, if we go without sleep, drink, do not eat, and very physically active, abstain from sex, etc our body builds up a tension and the highest self is... much more difficult to access.

Yes, but I think I prefer to use the words integrated self rather than highest self. It is only a preference and they are both interchangeable.

To me integrated self suggests that parts of ourselves are reachable in this life, while highest self suggests to me that it may only be reachable in the next life or with the help of supernatural beings.

And integrated self suggests the value of integrity, a lovely virtue to have, while highest self suggests an authoritarian hierarchy.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

I way thinking more from a multiverse perspective. Which self has the greatest computational complexity

 

[1487610420]

I way thinking more from a multiverse perspective. Which self has the greatest computational complexity

can't get any higher than the divine soft female touch

 

[Mole]

I way thinking more from a multiverse perspective. Which self has the greatest computational complexity

Neither self is created by a computer. A computer can only create an ersatz self. The homo sapiens self is dasein or being in the world.

Both the face we present to the world and the way we really feel are both dasein, or being in the world of being.

 

[Pionart]

I noticed recently that my mind has two basic voices which communicate with each other. Furthermore, each voice has two basic modes of seeing the world, which are divided between the left and right eyes. I realised that this bears a striking parallel to the 4 function spoken of in Jung.

In fact, the 4 modes I described are: the literal, the emotional, the analytical and the metaphorical. The literal and the emotional are on the same side of the mind, and the analytical and metaphorical are on the same side of the mind, but I cannot remember at the moment which ones are linked to which eye (I could just check, this is true). So, given that my functions in the MBTI are Ni-Fe-Ti-Se, this corresponds to the introverted and extroverted sides of my self. This is also further backed up by the fact that the metaphorical aspect is the most powerful of the four.