People here have been trying to help Ecmandu for years without progress. It merely feeds his need for attention. CBT could help if he felt the need to change, but I don’t see that he does.
Me, I’ve been working on getting to a mutual human greeting with ‘eye contact’. But I’m about to give up. I suppose a side effect of his trying to do that might have helped him. But it wasn’t a goal.
He’s talking at things (us/statistics). Or he’s actually merely pretending to do that to teach us - he later claimed. It all comes off very I-It, not I-You.
I can get I-It from telephone sales callers, so it’s time to move on.
When you’re a god talking to ants, it’s hard not to sound like that.
1 Like
Jung called that phenomenon “ego inflation”. He thought it led to Nietzsche’s madness in the end.
Not to put words into her mouth, but it reads to me like she’s trying to save him, in both a Christian and a secular sense. So she encourages him to keep talking, so she can understand him and help him understand himself. I have my critiques, but it seems like she’s trying to help.
This reminds me of the Buddhist idea of Nirvana. Have you tried letting go of your attachments?
And it’s interesting that I see a Buddhist influence, where @Ichthus77 sees a different tradition:
I mentioned earlier about a “taxonomy of delusions”, and in such a taxonomy I would expect to find certain delusions to be common across cultures and traditions, because ultimately the delusions are generated by human brains that have a lot in common.
I was explaining pareidolia to my daughter yesterday, in the context of a conversation about ghosts. I suggested that people see ghosts because we’re hard-wired to find meaning, and in particular to find agency, to find other humans. Delusions probably make use of some of these hard-wirings. Delusional beliefs often involve pareidolia-like misattributions of meaning and agency.
The fact that we find patterns that can be interpreted as aligning with many religious traditions could just be pareidolia all over again, or it could be that the delusions are triggering a hard-wired spirituality module, so the delusions have the shape of things common to human spirituality.
I see where you’re coming from, and I agree to an extent, but this seems harsh. For one thing, even taken at face value, calling self-absorption theft is too strong. It’s bad cooperation, it’s a bit parasitic, but it’s not taking anything that isn’t freely offered.
But also, compare the behavior to that of a child. Children demand a lot, they’re frequently self-absorbed in remarkable ways, but they aren’t stealing. They see the world differently, and often their self-absorption is just a failure to properly model others or the world. They’ll selfishly demand that you lie still on the floor while they play pretend to put you to bed, but in their lives the routine of bedtime and being put into a cozy, safe bed by a loving parent may be one of their best experiences, and in their play they are giving you that experience. They are self-absorbed in failing to see how much they’re asking of you, or how differently you see the world, but in the context of their understanding, their actions are kind and generous.
So too here. Taken at his word, Ecmandu is teaching and caring and protecting the people he talks to. The only humanity he explicitly denies is his own. It’s a love language, misguided as it is.
I’m not defending the behavior per se, I agree with the gist of your criticisms. But I don’t see them as a moral failing in the way you seem to (please correct me if I am misunderstanding you on that point).
I’ve used this technique as well. I noticed that a friend had made their fears a part of their identity, like “I’m so scared of X, it’s one of my quirks that makes me me!” And it was easy to see how that line of thinking was self-reinforcing, spinning up a genuine fear reaction because they identified as someone who is scared right now.
Noticing it in others was easy, but it helped me to notice that I was doing similar things, and to get over them.
But related to what I describe in Rational and Arational Emotions, I think this method has its limits. Getting over minor fears, giving up a moderately unhealthy drinking habit, and in particular breaking the feedback loops that cement them in your life, those can be reached by a conscious reidentification. Other issues arise at a lower level, at best you can catch them in conscious thought and struggle against them, but the change never becomes natural and you can’t be rid of them just by identifying differently. (I recognize the danger in this thought: identifying as someone who can change is important to changing. Still, it’s true, and recognizing it can help find a different way to address the things that can’t be changed)
1 Like
My favorite meditation technique is to erase all my knowledge and see what sticks.
It’s a quick way to learn.
People hold on to their knowledge without erasing it. So they can’t see what actually exists.
And by the way Carleas …. Ghosts exist. Don’t discard a child’s mind as easily as you do.
Vedanta calls those “samskaras” the residue of Karma picked up in this or past lives. They can be observed arising spontaneously in detached meditation— the products of desire based on the illusory ego. The witnessing consciousness that you ultimately are is unattached to all this.
1 Like
If I were the father of Carleas daughter. I’d go on a spirit walk with her. I wouldn’t be using psychological terms to dismiss her.
Ghosts do exist Carleas. You’re daughter should feel lucky that the spirits have chosen her.
It might have been harsh. However I wouldn’t call it mere self-absorbtion. If your spouse doesn’t talk much and isn’t so interested in communicating or intimacy, that might be self-absorbtion. But if this spouse wants to talk and be heard talking her/himself, we have something more complicated.
Now you’re quite right when you say that it’s consensual. But I was trying to feed back what was happening in a pretty short interchange. As I saw/felt it of course. And without what I would prefer in an interaction then I’ll leave interacting with him. But just because people consent, and continue, doesn’t mean that some kind of theft isn’t happening. A taking. I’ve seen him claim to be helping people and I don’t think that fits with what is happening. And you can have long term friendships and other kinds of relationships where one person takes more and the other(s) put up with this, often driven by a variety of motivations and sometimes values. It’s still taking even if those people are putting up with it as free adults.
I’ve worked with children a lot, had one, and I have never met one who put him or herself in the Christ position. They want to be free from control, sure, they expect their desires to be met, but generally speaking they OWN their desires. They don’t tell you they are teaching you, or that they are giving to you only… essentially telling you that you are too stupid to notice. Those of us who spend time with children are going into a relationship either for pay or because we in fact get a lot from the relationship even when the child is not giving in the ways adults do to each other.
The adult here is repetitive, taking the authority role, not being open about his needs, pretending that his getting what he needs is actually him giving to us.
And given the unique nature of his beliefs, there could be some side effects that do this. It’s a version of certain kinds of spiritualities and metaphysics I’ve encountered before. If I hadn’t and it wasn’t coupled with a messiah role-taking, it might be interesting for me.
I saw the BPD posts and reacted to that and then tried to get some kind of mutual respect, we’re two humans here talking and couldn’t get it. There were some revelations in the later part of the discussion. He doesn’t really mean what he says, it’s to trigger us towards healing with is the desire, it seems, not to exist. And I can see where Buddhism came up as a topic, though I suspect it is some something more about the cessation of experiencing rather than the release from the ego. But I don’t know.
Explicitly he called us statistics. And in context it was to make it clear of how he wasn’t viewing us, relating to us. I can’t see how he could be more explicit He also denied that he needed us in any way and in fact wanted to get away from us. We have a negative value to him. I also think he makes a lot of statements that imply he is the most human, if not the only human: in terms of suffering, kindness, understanding. Implicitly he denies our humanity, I think, by the way he interacts. He’s hardly alone in that, but that can lead to harshness on my part.
When the pattern is pointed out to him, he tells us it is for our own good. He is triggering us towards healing. Apart from not making much sense - because then it would be best not to let us in on this, it’s just so facile.
You obviously know him better. I would guess he is suffering a lot and it’s kind of you, me guessing again, to want to protect him.
I’m not going to chase him around to try to get him to admit anything - like even something so basic and I think obvious that he needs people and likely, given his life now, the people who are here. I met him, got curious, didn’t like how he related to women and then also didn’t like how he was relating to me and my posts. So, I reacted, trying to see if I could get him to, in a sense. realize there is a person behind these words on the screen. It was and is unclear how aware of that he is. He might well get it right on a test, but I’m not sure he really gets it.
I’ve pretty much decided to leave it there.
In whatever sense my being harsh could be seen as a moral failing, sure I’d see his way of relating as a moral failing.
But I’d put it like this, just to pull out a sort of analogy. Let’s say I go physically to a philosophy club. I meet people who are mingling there and there are some short conversations. One guy says something interesting that I disagree with while I am walking toward him and he’s talking to someone else. So, I join and -as seems to be the culture of this philosophy mingle - present my reaction about this. It happens to be what I would consider sexist. So, I present a short reaction. The person pontificates more and doesn’t really interact with what I am saying. It’s as if he’s responding, but actually what he says doesn’t integrate anything I asked, criticized or said. My words are triggers for repetition or more pontification of related beliefs the person has. Of course I could walk away immediately, but to be honest I am fascinated with human dynamics and also people’s self-relation, self-knowledge. So, I engage, pointing out what I think is happening in his beliefs about women and in relation to me and the other person he is lecturing (short lectures).
I think the whole batch of his OP combined with his way of interacting with people is actually pretty harsh. If he was my brother-in-law and continued interactions were pretty much a given, I’m going to maintain a pretty harsh stance in response to this - and let my sister know what’s up. But here I am in the same space at the philosophy club mingle. He’s getting a fairly honest, not too insulting response.
So, what ends up happening. He gets a response from yet another person, perhaps slightly differently, that he’s being disrespectful, both to women, in this thread, and then the people who respond to him. A number of people tell me this has been going on for years and nothing will change. That seems like the worst outcome and one that remains unchanged by getting this feedback from me.
The guy at the mingle can go on finding people to pontificate to.
And by the way my goal was not to help. I think it could possibly have made an impression and something, perhaps not him, might have reconsidered something about women and BPD or about how to interact with people or even, perhaps, that there is something going on in the dynamic they don’t want to look at. But my reaction was much more to just hold my ground in relation to someone pulling the stuff he is pulling. What happens then?
Out in the real world there are people, many in positions of authority, who engage in similar patterns that I see happening here, coming from him. I find it interesting and also useful just to see what happens: in me and in the other person, when you simply point out what is happening (as you see it). I can’t always do that in real life, and it’s especially hard if it’s a boss or a government official, etc.
But, now, my sense is it would be a broken record from here on out. So, I’ll stop interacting with good old Ecmandu. Not because of what you said. I’d already decided a couple of posts ago.
I’m used to being rejected. I ignore no one.
If you ignore me, you still have my attention.
You recognized Ecmandu’s humanity and attempted to communicate with him on that basis.
Just because you’re replying to people doesn’t mean you’re not ignoring them. If someone speaks to me, and no matter what they say, I hand them a pamphlet and say “nice to meet you, please join my church”, I may be talking to people, but I’m still ignoring them. I’m ignoring them if what they say doesn’t matter. You’re a lot like that.
Felix. It’s ok,
I’m trying to unexist …. That’s a monumental super really hard task.
What’s the easiest way to explain this to a human?
You still want to be here. Therefor you ignore me. I ignore nobody. That’s how you get out of here.
This entire post is a perfect example of replying to someone while ignoring what they said. These words have nothing to do with what you’re replying to.
Wisdom says you will fail. But, I wish you luck. 
If people can’t endure my words . They want to exist. It’s on topic. You do realize existents don’t mean anything to me, right?
All of you are using existents to make your debates. I’m teaching you my dharmas.
That post used existents. You can’t escape existence by bothering people.
You can’t escape existence by making everyone happy.
You’re doing exactly what I described.
Nonexistence has never been demonstrated.
Not to put words into her mouth, but it reads to me like she’s trying to save him, in both a Christian and a secular sense. So she encourages him to keep talking, so she can understand him and help him understand himself. I have my critiques, but it seems like she’s trying to help.
Well she sure weren’t trying to save him this time last year when she was verbally-abusing him and myself and Magnus had to step in and report her, and she has actually made him much more worse, not better… fact! - Why do you make statements, that you have no verification of?
_
He has said why he does what he does, which is to simply mentally-divert unpleasant disturbing thoughts, which any CBT therapist can help resolve, so the man can either: a) drink himself to death, or b) seek available solutions to resolve his ‘disorder’.
There really isn’t any more to it/this situation, than that.
You’re wrong about that Felix.
Non existence is demonstrated to all of you.
When you’re in such a deep sleep that you’re not in dream states. You don’t exist.
Everything is right in front of you Felix.
Then you wake up if you’re me, and immediately think “what spirit do I have to protect today to get out of here?”
It’s not fun to put this all on one person.