I was just reading a chapter from Ed Podvoll's brilliant book The Seduction of Madness. I specifically read the chapter called "Recovery from Medication." I had this response:
I have deleted this post, in order to contemplate the topic further. I wasn't satisfied with the original post.
Showing posts with label Beyond Spirituality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beyond Spirituality. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
The Three Selves
This blog entry is about an idea I call the Three Selves. In the constant conflict of the psyche, Carl Jung said that we must make the conflict conscious, otherwise it will be forced to impress itself upon us through our external world. It seems also that he believed that this conflict will not disappear when one illuminates the conflict within but will be seen as the conflict within. A conflict that I see clearly is between three ideas of what we view as our self.
The first self, is the self as we want it to be. This is the self that plagues us, it is the self that we have pieced together through our projections on other people. It is the idealized self, the self constructed both through our parental internalized messages, through the societal messages that are sometimes universal archetypes, and sometimes culturally specific, and through our personal social cues regarding our specific circumstances of growing up. This is our source of striving, of self criticism, and is the sense that our very experience is in some way deficient, inadequate, and uncompleted.
The second self, is the self we fear we are. This an aspect of what Jung called the Shadow, though what I refer to here is not just the unconscious negativity, but the things we have learned to abhor, the things we fear. In essence, the opposite of the idealized self.
The third self, is the self as it is. In this natural self, there is a lack of substance which could be mistaken for simple lack, as the self as it is, is in constant motion and lacks at times the coherence that we associate with the idealized self. As Jung pointed out, every person is looking for a sense of value intrinsic to their nature, and not derived from the outside. Without it, they will continue to project their sense of lack onto the other. In the natural self, is the only experience possible, the only numinous experience, the only experience of value. And yet the conflict between the three selves must be brought to light. The creation of the three selves as a conflict can only be the individual's search for value within their intrinsic existence, and the mistaken belief that this value will come from an external source.
No person is exempt from the trappings of the idealized self. This is the self which our parents and society, for the various reasons that exist, was attempted to be created within us. An interesting point, though not the subject of this post, is each individual's interpretation of that idealized self. Each is of course different, and so creates the conflict between individuals.
Much of the idealized self is unconscious for most people, as they will not be confronted with the loss of it. For instance, an aspect of the idealized self is a functional self, which in society maintains consistency and blends prettily with the others. For those of us who were confronted with the lack of this, such as myself who had a mother with mental illness, we became slightly if at all more conscious of this as an aspect of conflict.
For myself, I was very affected as a child by the media, and the idealized self images that were a part of the message of this media. For instance, I found the image of the seductress to be a part of my idealized self, in a very strong way. This was a result most likely of the combination of messages I received as a child growing up. My value I believed (and still tend to believe) was inextricably linked to my ability to seduce and hold the attention of the people around me. Without this, I became invisible, even to myself.
Interestingly, much of my experience of growing up was feeling invisible to a family that was perhaps too preoccupied with their own issues to look and see someone outside of themselves. This, and seeing the same tendency in others to magnify that which was missing in their childhood and possibly adult experience, leads me to believe that the pattern is somewhat like this: The individual seeks to understand success in personhood through their own sense of lack or failure. The achieving of success of personhood would then be illusioned to come from the attainment of characteristics which matched the idealized self. But this is an impossible goal, for an idealized self requires an experience of self from the outside. Which is not an experience of self at all. This could be said to be the origin of the conflict of the three selves. For then, the idealized self is constantly met with the self as it is.
And what of the self we fear we are? The self we fear to see? The truth of the three selves, is that they are all who we are. The self we fear we are, is the self that we see that opposes the idealized self. Within this view then there is no reason to fear the idealized self or its opposite, as they are like two children tumbling on the playground. They will fight each other until the end of time. And behind them lies the actual self, which includes both our fears and accomplishments. Interestingly, from this point of view, accomplishments are equally unimportant, but what is important, is the intrinsic value we place on ourselves as we are, and the way that our conflict displays itself to our consciousness.
The first self, is the self as we want it to be. This is the self that plagues us, it is the self that we have pieced together through our projections on other people. It is the idealized self, the self constructed both through our parental internalized messages, through the societal messages that are sometimes universal archetypes, and sometimes culturally specific, and through our personal social cues regarding our specific circumstances of growing up. This is our source of striving, of self criticism, and is the sense that our very experience is in some way deficient, inadequate, and uncompleted.
The second self, is the self we fear we are. This an aspect of what Jung called the Shadow, though what I refer to here is not just the unconscious negativity, but the things we have learned to abhor, the things we fear. In essence, the opposite of the idealized self.
The third self, is the self as it is. In this natural self, there is a lack of substance which could be mistaken for simple lack, as the self as it is, is in constant motion and lacks at times the coherence that we associate with the idealized self. As Jung pointed out, every person is looking for a sense of value intrinsic to their nature, and not derived from the outside. Without it, they will continue to project their sense of lack onto the other. In the natural self, is the only experience possible, the only numinous experience, the only experience of value. And yet the conflict between the three selves must be brought to light. The creation of the three selves as a conflict can only be the individual's search for value within their intrinsic existence, and the mistaken belief that this value will come from an external source.
No person is exempt from the trappings of the idealized self. This is the self which our parents and society, for the various reasons that exist, was attempted to be created within us. An interesting point, though not the subject of this post, is each individual's interpretation of that idealized self. Each is of course different, and so creates the conflict between individuals.
Much of the idealized self is unconscious for most people, as they will not be confronted with the loss of it. For instance, an aspect of the idealized self is a functional self, which in society maintains consistency and blends prettily with the others. For those of us who were confronted with the lack of this, such as myself who had a mother with mental illness, we became slightly if at all more conscious of this as an aspect of conflict.
For myself, I was very affected as a child by the media, and the idealized self images that were a part of the message of this media. For instance, I found the image of the seductress to be a part of my idealized self, in a very strong way. This was a result most likely of the combination of messages I received as a child growing up. My value I believed (and still tend to believe) was inextricably linked to my ability to seduce and hold the attention of the people around me. Without this, I became invisible, even to myself.
Interestingly, much of my experience of growing up was feeling invisible to a family that was perhaps too preoccupied with their own issues to look and see someone outside of themselves. This, and seeing the same tendency in others to magnify that which was missing in their childhood and possibly adult experience, leads me to believe that the pattern is somewhat like this: The individual seeks to understand success in personhood through their own sense of lack or failure. The achieving of success of personhood would then be illusioned to come from the attainment of characteristics which matched the idealized self. But this is an impossible goal, for an idealized self requires an experience of self from the outside. Which is not an experience of self at all. This could be said to be the origin of the conflict of the three selves. For then, the idealized self is constantly met with the self as it is.
And what of the self we fear we are? The self we fear to see? The truth of the three selves, is that they are all who we are. The self we fear we are, is the self that we see that opposes the idealized self. Within this view then there is no reason to fear the idealized self or its opposite, as they are like two children tumbling on the playground. They will fight each other until the end of time. And behind them lies the actual self, which includes both our fears and accomplishments. Interestingly, from this point of view, accomplishments are equally unimportant, but what is important, is the intrinsic value we place on ourselves as we are, and the way that our conflict displays itself to our consciousness.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
We Have a Self, Whether We Need One or Not
I am in therapy, and I have reached an interesting point with my therapist. I am feeling as though I must disagree with him on a basic philosophical point. He has told me many times a quote from a meditation teacher which says, "You need to have a healthy self in order to lose it." I can appreciate this sentiment in as much as it points to the unfortunate reality of spiritual bypassing, when we attempt to skip over the issues of our "self" and attempt to realize non-existence without realizing the full manifestation of our existence, which is, of course, disasterous.
But is this whole thing actually as linear as this quote implies? I doubt it.
I have been contemplating this as of late, and wondering if in fact the process of developing a healthy self cannot exclude an understanding of no-self. Let's start with why one has an unhealthy self to begin with.
We can agree - hopefully - that no one has a completely healthy self, as long as they are completely indentified with their individuality. Because, if we are contemplatives, we know that the self is based to some degree on a basic anxiety which is the fear of death. Beyond that, most people have basic styles of neuroses for dealing with this anxiety. Like being too controlling, being too much of a push-over, tending toward anger, tending toward smoothing over things with fake happiness, whatever, you name it, humans do it.
Beyond that, there are much more serious problems. I think these problems are more along the lines that the statement "you need a healthy self in order to forget it," are referring to.
Many of us, due to a variety of circumstances, did not develop a healthy, separate , and distinct sense of self. Perhaps we experienced trauma, abuse, or enmeshment. Perhaps we did not attach properly to our primary care-givers. There are many causes which can lead to a sense of self which is fragmented. Where the person may not understand where they begin and end, where the person may not be able to track their own emotional states, where a person may not feel connected to themselves in a wholesome fashion. There are many forms of this, and as I said, many causes, and it is rather common. So the implication of the statement in question is that one must solve this fragmented self, heal it, fix it. And then that person can go about learning the "true nature" of the self as empty, without inherent existence.
There is a fallacy in this theory, and perhaps more than one.
The first is that from a contemplative perspective, the reason that the sense of self can get fucked up, fragmented, etc. is that it does not exist in the first place. Most people who experience fragmentation of their self, are simultaneously experiencing non-existence.
Non-existence is tricky. It is not like a disappearing act, where the self is gone. No it is not that simple. It is seeing through the self. Seeing that the self is in fact a sort of dance, a play if you will, a set of actors wearing costumes, and when the costumes are taken off, they fall to the ground, with nothing to hold them up.
When a person experiences trauma, they experience and unexpected break in the self. Our survival mechanism is strong, and so this causes extreme fear.
In order to heal this fear, the person must begin to understand that what they are experiencing in terms of fragmentation and fear is not abnormal. It is in fact, completely normal, predictable, understandable.
Perhaps though, a contemplative person on a path of meditation in this situation, could also be helped to understand that their experience of no-self, is also in fact, completely normal, predictable, understandable. This would seem to ease the tendency of the self to hide from its own reality. To hide from its own fear of death by hiding from death itself. By normalizing non-existence, the fear of it could be partially quelled. By thinking that we can by-pass non-existence for the self, must also be wrong. They both happen simultaneously.
We cannot build walls between ourselves and death. The reality of non-existence surrounds us. Many practitioners with an "unhealthy" sense of self actually know this better than those practitioners with a "healthy" sense of self. To ask a practitioner in this situation to not pay attention to non-existence seems like more of the same, more smoke and mirrors leading in a sense to a greater potential for re-experiencing trauma.
Now, lets look at another aspect of this discussion: The "healthy" self.
What is a healthy self? If you google "healthy sense of self" (most DEFINITELY not the best source for psychological info - but it is late and I am lazy) you will get a lot of pages talking about self-esteem. Thinking highly of yourself. I would take this to a somewhat deeper level and say that a healthy sense of self includes a sense of intrinsic self-worth.
In addition, the healthy self includes the ability to move through emotional states and situations without getting deeply stuck or caught in fear and doubt, allowing the human exchange to be fluid, largely positive, and imbued with some degree of clarity about ones own experience.*
(*This is most obviously my definition. I promise to do more citing in my next post).
Where does this type of self come from? Ideally, It comes from great brain chemistry, excellent endocrine function, and kick-ass healthy loving parents with great boundaries. But, if we did not or do not have these things, then what then? Obviously, relearning relational things is important, re-organizing thinking patterns, repatterning relationships, healing old trauma in the body, these are all important, vital things.
I would add however, that a healthy self is an evolving self. In order to truly be a healthy self, the self must not be in fear of itself. It must know that it can look at all aspects of its own experience, without hiding from itself. This is where fragmentation comes from.
To not hide, is to evolve. Evolution of the self, comes from deeper and deeper seeing of things as they are, not just as we want them or think we need them to be. Things as they are, are inherently paradoxical, and through paradox, we become larger, and more complex. Simultaneously, evolution of the self allows us to become more simple, as we develop a greater trust in basic reality. Evolution is vital to the healthy self. Without it, the self must actually create false walls in order to hide from reality.
But where does evolution lead? Why, funny you should ask, evolution leads to non-existence! Evolution inherently points directly at the universal identity that has no preference. There is a road to get there, obviously, but each point of evolution identified by the self, includes a greater understanding, a nearer understanding of this ultimate point. This ultimate point is of course glimped along the way, but each glimpse is colored by the degree to which the self has evolved. The self itself must understand both its existence and its non-existence, healthy or not, in order to become whole. Wholeness in the psychological sense may not actually be the ultimate no-preference of non-existence. But even psychological wholeness specifically could not hide from non-existence, as that would be fragmentation. No, wholeness must point to non-existence as a possibility, as non-existence also points to the self, "healthy" or not.
So the statement "you have to have a healthy self in order to lose it," may in fact not be completely true. It depends on ones view of enlightenment. But regardless, I don't think any path to healing and wholeness could possible preclude reality itself. This would be a further step into madness.
Singning off-
Jenna
But is this whole thing actually as linear as this quote implies? I doubt it.
I have been contemplating this as of late, and wondering if in fact the process of developing a healthy self cannot exclude an understanding of no-self. Let's start with why one has an unhealthy self to begin with.
We can agree - hopefully - that no one has a completely healthy self, as long as they are completely indentified with their individuality. Because, if we are contemplatives, we know that the self is based to some degree on a basic anxiety which is the fear of death. Beyond that, most people have basic styles of neuroses for dealing with this anxiety. Like being too controlling, being too much of a push-over, tending toward anger, tending toward smoothing over things with fake happiness, whatever, you name it, humans do it.
Beyond that, there are much more serious problems. I think these problems are more along the lines that the statement "you need a healthy self in order to forget it," are referring to.
Many of us, due to a variety of circumstances, did not develop a healthy, separate , and distinct sense of self. Perhaps we experienced trauma, abuse, or enmeshment. Perhaps we did not attach properly to our primary care-givers. There are many causes which can lead to a sense of self which is fragmented. Where the person may not understand where they begin and end, where the person may not be able to track their own emotional states, where a person may not feel connected to themselves in a wholesome fashion. There are many forms of this, and as I said, many causes, and it is rather common. So the implication of the statement in question is that one must solve this fragmented self, heal it, fix it. And then that person can go about learning the "true nature" of the self as empty, without inherent existence.
There is a fallacy in this theory, and perhaps more than one.
The first is that from a contemplative perspective, the reason that the sense of self can get fucked up, fragmented, etc. is that it does not exist in the first place. Most people who experience fragmentation of their self, are simultaneously experiencing non-existence.
Non-existence is tricky. It is not like a disappearing act, where the self is gone. No it is not that simple. It is seeing through the self. Seeing that the self is in fact a sort of dance, a play if you will, a set of actors wearing costumes, and when the costumes are taken off, they fall to the ground, with nothing to hold them up.
When a person experiences trauma, they experience and unexpected break in the self. Our survival mechanism is strong, and so this causes extreme fear.
In order to heal this fear, the person must begin to understand that what they are experiencing in terms of fragmentation and fear is not abnormal. It is in fact, completely normal, predictable, understandable.
Perhaps though, a contemplative person on a path of meditation in this situation, could also be helped to understand that their experience of no-self, is also in fact, completely normal, predictable, understandable. This would seem to ease the tendency of the self to hide from its own reality. To hide from its own fear of death by hiding from death itself. By normalizing non-existence, the fear of it could be partially quelled. By thinking that we can by-pass non-existence for the self, must also be wrong. They both happen simultaneously.
We cannot build walls between ourselves and death. The reality of non-existence surrounds us. Many practitioners with an "unhealthy" sense of self actually know this better than those practitioners with a "healthy" sense of self. To ask a practitioner in this situation to not pay attention to non-existence seems like more of the same, more smoke and mirrors leading in a sense to a greater potential for re-experiencing trauma.
Now, lets look at another aspect of this discussion: The "healthy" self.
What is a healthy self? If you google "healthy sense of self" (most DEFINITELY not the best source for psychological info - but it is late and I am lazy) you will get a lot of pages talking about self-esteem. Thinking highly of yourself. I would take this to a somewhat deeper level and say that a healthy sense of self includes a sense of intrinsic self-worth.
In addition, the healthy self includes the ability to move through emotional states and situations without getting deeply stuck or caught in fear and doubt, allowing the human exchange to be fluid, largely positive, and imbued with some degree of clarity about ones own experience.*
(*This is most obviously my definition. I promise to do more citing in my next post).
Where does this type of self come from? Ideally, It comes from great brain chemistry, excellent endocrine function, and kick-ass healthy loving parents with great boundaries. But, if we did not or do not have these things, then what then? Obviously, relearning relational things is important, re-organizing thinking patterns, repatterning relationships, healing old trauma in the body, these are all important, vital things.
I would add however, that a healthy self is an evolving self. In order to truly be a healthy self, the self must not be in fear of itself. It must know that it can look at all aspects of its own experience, without hiding from itself. This is where fragmentation comes from.
To not hide, is to evolve. Evolution of the self, comes from deeper and deeper seeing of things as they are, not just as we want them or think we need them to be. Things as they are, are inherently paradoxical, and through paradox, we become larger, and more complex. Simultaneously, evolution of the self allows us to become more simple, as we develop a greater trust in basic reality. Evolution is vital to the healthy self. Without it, the self must actually create false walls in order to hide from reality.
But where does evolution lead? Why, funny you should ask, evolution leads to non-existence! Evolution inherently points directly at the universal identity that has no preference. There is a road to get there, obviously, but each point of evolution identified by the self, includes a greater understanding, a nearer understanding of this ultimate point. This ultimate point is of course glimped along the way, but each glimpse is colored by the degree to which the self has evolved. The self itself must understand both its existence and its non-existence, healthy or not, in order to become whole. Wholeness in the psychological sense may not actually be the ultimate no-preference of non-existence. But even psychological wholeness specifically could not hide from non-existence, as that would be fragmentation. No, wholeness must point to non-existence as a possibility, as non-existence also points to the self, "healthy" or not.
So the statement "you have to have a healthy self in order to lose it," may in fact not be completely true. It depends on ones view of enlightenment. But regardless, I don't think any path to healing and wholeness could possible preclude reality itself. This would be a further step into madness.
Singning off-
Jenna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)