• 💖 [Donate To Keep MyPTSD Online] 💖 Every contribution, no matter how small, fuels our mission and helps us continue to provide peer-to-peer services. Your generosity keeps us independent and available freely to the world. MyPTSD closes if we can't reach our annual goal.

Structural Dissociation - Psychotic 'part'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe you would relate and find some understanding in the comments below this video. I ran into it, as the guy has some nice video's; this video is not worth it, but when I read the comments, I found them to be valuable comments as if they could have been posted here. These relate more to your specific history that we not all share with you, but these people do.

youtube.com/watch?v=QCfZxa7oT_g

PS. I left out the Link Removed. otherwise the video is inserted and the video is not what it is about.
 
Link Removed Would you remember what the source was of the quoted text by vd Hart in your OP?

Yes, it came from here.
https://www.ggzdrenthe.nl/wp-content/uploads/Summary.pdf

This part of 'The Haunted Self' speaks to the proposed criteria for the next DSM
https://books.google.ca/books?id=0s...q=dissociative psychosis van der Hart&f=false

And a couple more links, in case you are bored this morning ;-)
Link Removed

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/crips/2014/425892/

Hope this helps Born!
 
Okay, so Saturday I am going to play with the devil again. My first 'psychotic like' episode happened a few weeks ago (or a month???). I am shoring up and going to try it again. I have done a bunch of work, you guys have helped me with this posting, lots of new stuff. If you don't hear from me for a while it is because I have miscalculated and they have picked me up and put me in the rubber room.

Seriously though. This is scary. On the upside, this whole adventure could be called something like...... EP Go Home. :eek:
 
I can't believe that there is a place for me.
I like Scout's approach. Could you believe there is not a place that is not for you? Or rather "wherever you go, there you are." There is no "ought" or "for" about it. Places aren't "for" people. Places are just places. Places are sometimes inhabited by someone. Mostly not tho. Places aren't against people either, for that matter - to mix the metaphor.

I love "What the Bleep do we know?" And as someone who is actually pretty fond of going down rabbit holes (and then popping back up "Here we are! Pismo beach and all the clams we can eat!") I would say that while we can't be certain about what is real or not, we can have more and less likely theories. The thing is, that when we have some sets of perceptions that are just... discontinuous from the rest, and not well ordered it is really really hard to know WHAT to make of them. Or if we should even try to make anything of them at all past - "Wow. That was really strange (fill in the blank). Huh."

Hume said that emotions don't refer. Thus they cannot be true or false. They are original existences. Complete in themselves. They don't have to correspond to anything. Ideas about the world can refer to something about the world and so have the potential to be true or false. I've always found this very helpful to remember. Emotions are original existences.

Perceptions too, just ARE. We don't have to believe all of them. And in the usual run of things we filter our and ignore a great deal of the potential information about the world that is coming at us. Mostly I don't hear the dogs barking on the hill across the street. I just filter it out. Sometimes I do hear it. In this case I think the dogs really are barking. Sometimes I wake up and only think I heard the dogs barking... but I'm not sure. Out of the collection of all the sensations I'm getting plus my past experience I make up my current interpretation of the world. And then I respond to that as best I'm able right now.
 
"Wow. That was really strange (fill in the blank). Huh."
I REALLY like this! (No big surprise, I suppose. LOL) Is this, somehow, similar to "radical acceptance"? I ask because I'd never heard of that idea before I heard it discussed here, yet I had the feeling that I'd known the idea for years.

@shimmerz can you be sure to leave a trail of breadcrumbs, so you can find your way back?
 
There's a nice bit somewhere in the first 100 pages of Mises' "Human Action" where he points out that all actions are rational, it's just that sometimes, with our imperfect knowledge, we choose the wrong means for the action to result in the desired end.

He then goes on to do what Kant etc couldn't and links our reason to what goes on in the universe outside of our heads, through action. If our actions achieve the desired results, then we must be getting something approximately right.

going slightly OT, I've been meaning to look through "human action" again, there's a wonderful section in those first 100 pages which applies to the racists thread (and also demolishes the class war folks too), it goes something allong the lines that no one ever set out a system of racial or class based logic, and no one ever defined how an aryan or a marxist chemistry or physics might differ from anyone else's.
 
nice bit somewhere in the first 100 pages of Mises' "Human Action" where he points out that all actions are rational, it's just that sometimes, with our imperfect knowledge, we choose the wrong means for the action to result in the desired end.
Just downloading now @Anarchy. Thank you so much for the reference. I will check it out! :hug:
 
Seriously though. This is scary. On the upside, this whole adventure could be called something like...... EP Go Home.

How's it going?

I'm so far mostly like 'guys we're doing this emotional personality thing wrong, you're not emotional to warrant the name' so just in case some kind of a trade worked with this? I'd do a change for a time :P

I have a sign ((don't I for everything)) saying 'home', when everything else is too confusing... home is wherever the hell that sign says it is. It's a very travelly sign so here ya go, in case you need it and don't have your own yet. (puts the sign here and waves cheerfully... how do I do this writing-actions-texts)
 
@Eleanor, to summarize, we were talking about if psychosis is merely a different needs state and out look on reality and if reality itself is objective or merely a paradigm product, poking fun at public officials, wondering how psychosis and regression work together in dissociation and childhood trauma, and confusing @scout86 with all this 'parts stuff' being back on the table.

Did I miss anything? Aside of Kant, I can't chew that well as reading Kant, marxist writers are easier digestible with sandwiches ;)) (a.k.a. I'm still reading through @Anarchy's posts' content)
 
SOOOOOO... psychosis? When someone is psychotic they still operate in space and time, right? Is there causation? (Glomming onto the Kant here...)

Thank you for the summary @Cashew !

I'm in there "there is a reality independent of us out there" school of thought. I'm with Kant that "objectivity" can only mean "full (or as full as possible) intersubjectivity." So... yeah. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top