[Guest]

Just want to add something. I'm working on how to explain/clarify this concept, but I'm convinced that there is a STRONG connection between dp and narcissistic states of consciousness.

That is NOT as simple as saying "oh, you're just so narcissistic" lol

I'm talking about Clinical Narcissism and that is much much more complicated than the "regular" uses of the word that have become mainstreamed now. Self absorbed, vain, grandiose fantasies, demanding of attention, etc...that's not what I'm talking about. Those traits may be in us (or in a more complex version where the person SECRETLY holds beliefs of being special, etc. while on the outside acting very humble)

BUt the connection to dp is about what goes on behind the scenes in these disturbances, not in the simple "personality traits" we can all see. Underneath all that grandiosity lies a feeling of Non Self, more than self loathing, a true need to destroy oneself if/when there are parts of it we cannot tolerate. It produces a self that tends to assess its actions as "me" and "not really me"

Narcissistic disorders involve very powerful primitive defenses - detaching feelings from actions, mask wearing, having many different facades/selves we show to different people, and most importantly, a kind of "split" in our ability to know and not know something at the same time. Those traits set the stage for something like dp. It was true in my case, and I'm working on a paper that explains all this in detail with examples.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify a bit briefly, so I didn't hurt any of my narcissistic friends' feelings, grin.

Love you all,
J

 

[Guest]

Just want to add something. I'm working on how to explain/clarify this concept, but I'm convinced that there is a STRONG connection between dp and narcissistic states of consciousness.

That is NOT as simple as saying "oh, you're just so narcissistic" lol

I'm talking about Clinical Narcissism and that is much much more complicated than the "regular" uses of the word that have become mainstreamed now. Self absorbed, vain, grandiose fantasies, demanding of attention, etc...that's not what I'm talking about. Those traits may be in us (or in a more complex version where the person SECRETLY holds beliefs of being special, etc. while on the outside acting very humble)

BUt the connection to dp is about what goes on behind the scenes in these disturbances, not in the simple "personality traits" we can all see. Underneath all that grandiosity lies a feeling of Non Self, more than self loathing, a true need to destroy oneself if/when there are parts of it we cannot tolerate. It produces a self that tends to assess its actions as "me" and "not really me"

Narcissistic disorders involve very powerful primitive defenses - detaching feelings from actions, mask wearing, having many different facades/selves we show to different people, and most importantly, a kind of "split" in our ability to know and not know something at the same time. Those traits set the stage for something like dp. It was true in my case, and I'm working on a paper that explains all this in detail with examples.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify a bit briefly, so I didn't hurt any of my narcissistic friends' feelings, grin.

Love you all,
J

 

[person3]

Oh. I thought by the title you were going to apologize or something for calling us narcissists.

 

[person3]

Oh. I thought by the title you were going to apologize or something for calling us narcissists.

 

[Guest]

LOL...well, I guess my explanation/apology didn't go over too well.

I DID mean it as SORT of an apology, in the sense that the word "narcissism" has a pejorative meaning to most people, but clinically in the sense I'm using it, it's not a terrible "label" - just a very interesting one that comes along with lots of fascinating and potentially harmful inner workings.

I'm one, too! grin

Love,
J

 

[Guest]

LOL...well, I guess my explanation/apology didn't go over too well.

I DID mean it as SORT of an apology, in the sense that the word "narcissism" has a pejorative meaning to most people, but clinically in the sense I'm using it, it's not a terrible "label" - just a very interesting one that comes along with lots of fascinating and potentially harmful inner workings.

I'm one, too! grin

Love,
J

 

[dalailama15]

Hi Janine,

I'm assuming you have read Karen Horney -- Neurosis and Human Growth. If not. . .

I think everybody here can take about anything, but I am hesitant to even mention this book -- I think it has the capacity to do harm.

I have a lot to say about this book -- it is the subject of a long post/essay ostensibly responding to some of your ideas, but essentially something I have wanted to get down in one place for some time. This began:

Janine, what you are describing was all worked out by Karen Horney in the second quarter of the last century. This was kind of important to me in my formative years, and so, although it's a little long, I'll try to explain why. It is a large subject, and I have thought I should get it down in one place, at least as an introduction, and suddenly have the motivation to actually try.

I still don't feel like cleaning it up and finishing. Who knows, though.

Anyway, for your project in general, and for your concepts of human nature specifically--I'm going to be bold enough to say that you have to read this book. Read Neurosis and Human Growth before anything else of Horney's; it contains her mature theory (And is still, I'm sure, in print.)

If, of course, you haven't already (I can imagine you haven't because I have never heard you mention Horney, but it is also difficult to believe that you haven't because I see your views as in many ways similar.)

I have been on the edge of mentioning Karen Horney a dozen times. But I have been, I guess, a little afraid. I'm not sure why now. (Perhaps because of a recent personal difficulty--a kind of frightening hopelessness--again, who knows.)

Sorry if I am being too bold or pedantic. :shock:

Looking forward to your response. ( I am really curious about this--and thank you, btw, for all your time and effort here.)

Sincerely and with many good smileys:

dl etc. (peter)

 

[dalailama15]

Hi Janine,

I'm assuming you have read Karen Horney -- Neurosis and Human Growth. If not. . .

I think everybody here can take about anything, but I am hesitant to even mention this book -- I think it has the capacity to do harm.

I have a lot to say about this book -- it is the subject of a long post/essay ostensibly responding to some of your ideas, but essentially something I have wanted to get down in one place for some time. This began:

Janine, what you are describing was all worked out by Karen Horney in the second quarter of the last century. This was kind of important to me in my formative years, and so, although it's a little long, I'll try to explain why. It is a large subject, and I have thought I should get it down in one place, at least as an introduction, and suddenly have the motivation to actually try.

I still don't feel like cleaning it up and finishing. Who knows, though.

Anyway, for your project in general, and for your concepts of human nature specifically--I'm going to be bold enough to say that you have to read this book. Read Neurosis and Human Growth before anything else of Horney's; it contains her mature theory (And is still, I'm sure, in print.)

If, of course, you haven't already (I can imagine you haven't because I have never heard you mention Horney, but it is also difficult to believe that you haven't because I see your views as in many ways similar.)

I have been on the edge of mentioning Karen Horney a dozen times. But I have been, I guess, a little afraid. I'm not sure why now. (Perhaps because of a recent personal difficulty--a kind of frightening hopelessness--again, who knows.)

Sorry if I am being too bold or pedantic. :shock:

Looking forward to your response. ( I am really curious about this--and thank you, btw, for all your time and effort here.)

Sincerely and with many good smileys:

dl etc. (peter)

 

[Guest]

Yep, I've read Horney. And agreed, much of what I'm saying is similar to her theory (esp. the Moving Away From/Moving Against, etc...)

I don't mean that I've invented a theory, lol....much of what I'm formulating is from Jacob Arlow as well (infamous analyst and excellent writer, recently passed away). My objective is to find a way to describe HOW the depth therapies can work. I've never read it explained well, and it's my new goal, grin.

Karen Horney did an excellent job of "bringing to the masses" some of the more complex analytic ideas - and that's also similar to what I enjoy in the writing process. She had a remarkable grasp of how the mind can heal.

The thing I'm continually amazed by is that nearly all writing (written for the layperson) makes it sound like intensive therapy works mostly with the CONTENT of someone's thoughts (the material, their story, their facts, their impressions...their words). The real "magic" in treatment comes when from keen listening to HOW we think, the process itself, what kinds of thoughts turn into other ones and what type of content we suddenly shift to or from depending on mood, or when we feel cornered, or when we feel desire, or anger, etc....

"normal" minds have much greater leeway - a larger playing field of possible associations/connections, links from thought to thought. We, those "other people" grin, think in a very narrow maze. We are cramped, we have so little navigation room, and nearly every bend in the maze's rows leads back again and again to the same symptom producing roadblock.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on Horney and what ways her work affected you.

Peace,
J

 

[Guest]

Yep, I've read Horney. And agreed, much of what I'm saying is similar to her theory (esp. the Moving Away From/Moving Against, etc...)

I don't mean that I've invented a theory, lol....much of what I'm formulating is from Jacob Arlow as well (infamous analyst and excellent writer, recently passed away). My objective is to find a way to describe HOW the depth therapies can work. I've never read it explained well, and it's my new goal, grin.

Karen Horney did an excellent job of "bringing to the masses" some of the more complex analytic ideas - and that's also similar to what I enjoy in the writing process. She had a remarkable grasp of how the mind can heal.

The thing I'm continually amazed by is that nearly all writing (written for the layperson) makes it sound like intensive therapy works mostly with the CONTENT of someone's thoughts (the material, their story, their facts, their impressions...their words). The real "magic" in treatment comes when from keen listening to HOW we think, the process itself, what kinds of thoughts turn into other ones and what type of content we suddenly shift to or from depending on mood, or when we feel cornered, or when we feel desire, or anger, etc....

"normal" minds have much greater leeway - a larger playing field of possible associations/connections, links from thought to thought. We, those "other people" grin, think in a very narrow maze. We are cramped, we have so little navigation room, and nearly every bend in the maze's rows leads back again and again to the same symptom producing roadblock.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on Horney and what ways her work affected you.

Peace,
J

 

[Guest]

I have read everything here and it is just logic that dp people have the narsissistic traits you, Janine, describe.

I mean, dp is indeed a detachment of the self in a extreme way, so to say a form of non existence.
Obviously, dpers are very good in denying their feelings, and I think the denial is so automatic in a lot of cases that the sufferer isn't even aware of the denial- so the denial is not even behavioral, but something like chemically, I mean it is just there.

Not feeling or not expressing it (how can a person who seemingly doesn't even have feelings) gives in fact rise to the narsissistic trait, like
"detaching feelings from actions, mask wearing, having many different facades/selves (-cause there is no "real" self= detachment) we show to different people, and most importantly, a kind of "split" in our ability to know and not know (kind of getting a breath of what we feel=knowing, and thinking about what we should be instead=not knowing= denying the breath ) something at the same time".

And Janine, you are referring to dpers as "the other people"- but I don't think that non dpers are different- they have the same problems, they just don't carry them to such an extreme state, that is their state of detachment isn't so deep.

As for the "narrow maze": Since dpers have denied the majority (or even all) of their feelings, they kind of have to get them back. If someone doesn't know exactly what feeling there is to get back, they have to find analogies to their denied feelings and try to get the analogies back.
That explains the narrow maze: dpers have to expect certain results or have to operate narrowly within their mind to get the exact feeling- sort of trying to think their feelings. But that is detachment reinforcing cause either one feels the feeling or one thinks thoughts- there is no thinking feelings that isn't troubling.

 

[Guest]

I have read everything here and it is just logic that dp people have the narsissistic traits you, Janine, describe.

I mean, dp is indeed a detachment of the self in a extreme way, so to say a form of non existence.
Obviously, dpers are very good in denying their feelings, and I think the denial is so automatic in a lot of cases that the sufferer isn't even aware of the denial- so the denial is not even behavioral, but something like chemically, I mean it is just there.

Not feeling or not expressing it (how can a person who seemingly doesn't even have feelings) gives in fact rise to the narsissistic trait, like
"detaching feelings from actions, mask wearing, having many different facades/selves (-cause there is no "real" self= detachment) we show to different people, and most importantly, a kind of "split" in our ability to know and not know (kind of getting a breath of what we feel=knowing, and thinking about what we should be instead=not knowing= denying the breath ) something at the same time".

And Janine, you are referring to dpers as "the other people"- but I don't think that non dpers are different- they have the same problems, they just don't carry them to such an extreme state, that is their state of detachment isn't so deep.

As for the "narrow maze": Since dpers have denied the majority (or even all) of their feelings, they kind of have to get them back. If someone doesn't know exactly what feeling there is to get back, they have to find analogies to their denied feelings and try to get the analogies back.
That explains the narrow maze: dpers have to expect certain results or have to operate narrowly within their mind to get the exact feeling- sort of trying to think their feelings. But that is detachment reinforcing cause either one feels the feeling or one thinks thoughts- there is no thinking feelings that isn't troubling.

 

[Guest]

Just wanted to add an inane reply cause for some reason my username didn't appear under "last post".

 

[Guest]

Just wanted to add an inane reply cause for some reason my username didn't appear under "last post".