Also, I was wondering to what degree you feel that you must ‘train’ yourself to function in ways that those around you insist are ‘normal.’ I would guess that for you a qualitative assessment of normalcy is difficult, and that for the most part you just have to trust what other people tell you.
This is where I think I lie closer to AS than more empathic beings. I often feel that my interactions with others are highly ‘trained’. Pleasantries and small-talk have become somewhat instinctual, and I can comfortably rely on mental reflex. I also am involved in martial arts, and equate this reflex to the mental state one experiences as a trained fighter - there is little conscious decision-making going on, but all of your actions are based on neural pathways that were very explicitly and deliberately built up over a long period of time.
Since Buddhism has been brought to the table, this also leads into my view of Karma. Given that I experience a greater degree of tabula rasa with respect to personal growth than I suspect most people do, it is positive intentions which direct the kind of person that I become. I have dedicated my life to relentless self-growth, and my perspective (which I think is likely not so far off from yours) is distinctly suited to the kind of self-awareness it requires to pursue this course. So long as all the ‘training’ I put myself through is premised on compassion, my growth should always be positive, and the more of this compassionate self-teaching I can move into the instinct and reflex, the more perfect the art of my being becomes. Is this the true meaning of becoming an ultimate warrior? An artist of the soul?
Cultivate truth and beauty in yourself and there will never be an enemy that can defeat you. There will, in fact, never be an enemy.
I’m not an epiphenominalist with regards to mind. Though I think this is a typical Buddhist view, I’m not sure if it holds for all Buddhists. Historically, there have been and continue to be both realist and idealist tendencies in the Buddhist tradition.
Tab’s response to you is classically Buddhist in attitude, but I think it is best understood with certain qualifiers - especially given your relationship to autism. There is a dialectic expressed in at least some Buddhist philosophy (I’m most familiar with the Tibetan tradition), between “relative truth” and “ultimate truth”. I think that continuously making the effort to see things in both ways, whether alternatingly or at the same time can be very helpful. Or one can be emphasized if your life shows an imbalance in the opposite direction.
Relative truth has to do with all the distinctions we make in order to function well in the world. For instance plastic is “unnatural”. This is an important relative distinction to make, because not making that distinction leads to a degraded world. Plastic is not the same as wood, and the choice to utilize one or the other makes an enormous difference to people. On the other hand, is plastic ultimately “unnatural”? This can’t be said. There is no barrier of any kind between what we consider natural and what we consider unnatural.
With regards to people, and minds, the difference is simply there. I can’t read your mind, you can’t read mine, and neither can a clever behaviorist or neurologist. Our minds may be of the same nature, and there may be no fundamental or substantial schism separating us, but here we are nonetheless, existing in our own place. Not respecting differences comes from a misunderstanding of ultimacy, and is corrected by emphasizing relativity.
This is a very general philosophical outlook, and I’m still not sure if it is helpful or not in relation to the issues you’re bringing up. You’ll have to let me know if it seems relevant or not.
Exactly so, yes! This is why ASD sufferers are more than capable, as you seem to be, of getting by, managing their own affairs without too much trouble - functioning. The problems arise in interactions, when the inevitable stresses of the social situations we inevitably find ourselves in bear down too heavily on the individual. This is, of course, also quite true of ostensibly “normal” people too.
In effect, I think Mr Shambles is right to point out that because autism and asperger’s are both examples of “spectrum disorder” that any attempts to pin down a definition are quite difficult, but what I would say is that there is no way for us to undo social conventions and the like. Certainly there are a number of ways in which society could make more of an effort to support those with emotional and behavioural difficulties (and I think education is probably the most fundamental), but there remain very good reasons why they are rightly seen as problematic. In essence, describing someone as “autistic” is a question of seeing them at a particular point on the spectrum.
It’s really interesting that you bring up language, given how central this is to our social interactions and how much difficulty ASD sufferers tend to have with it. I think these linguistic problems can more than likely point us to where the differences arise: rule formation, structure, idioms, usage, etc. Just abstract that a bit and you can see how tough society can sometimes be if you don’t grasp those factors intuitively.
Mr Shambles, I think I can picture what you are saying, but I have to say that I seem to be given to a somewhat different experience. There are so many things in the world that seem so disconnected to my way of understanding, and that I simply cannot take responsibility for. On the one hand I am often lost in the world, but even then it can be a fitful and out of tune experience. On the other hand, when I experience the break, it is not like I stand back and observe my surroundings, but either try desperately to reconnect or retreat completely into myself.
One thing I have found is that through my relationship with my wife, and somewhat with the few other persons I have a sustained connection to, I gain the impression that it is okay for us to be detached. I am often mistaken for being aloof and uncaring, and knowing that this is how people see me often causes me to attempt to overcompensate, but I do not even have the skills, really, to overcompensate so it is better that I maintain my aloof facade. My wife understands and allows this. That is my fortune. Is it a mistake to limit the extent of one’s perspective?
That is all I have to say at the moment. I will return to your thoughts and those of anon and matty soon.
Ya!! That’s a great example, at least potentially. I really don’t get the argument either, but it seems clear that it would involve something on the order of an epiphenomenal expression. If I might improvise a conjecture, perhaps the idea is this:
– With language considered the landscape upon which literary foundations are built, and perhaps oral traditions as the basic materials, structures of consciousness arise between humans through time
– Religious texts exemplify the process by becoming structures which create very direct reciprocal relations with the sub-foundations of language (e.g. humans)
– Yahweh, Christ, and the Holy Ghost achieve an extancy which is propelled by the feedback between dimensions.
– The feedback is experienced by humans and comes to be deemed present as confirmation of the Bible’s transcendent status
My question is this: insofar as I am you are he is she and you are me and we are all together, what is the “nature” of that which distinguishes us?
you are indeed fortunate to have a mate who understands and supports; what is ‘normal’ anyway,really? the distinction could be the ego/personality or rather the persona we ‘show’ the world or how others perceive us [the rising sign appearing above the horizon at moment of birth, the planet of which it ‘rules’, [probably elsewhere in another ‘house’] in the chart is an important archetype]. we can be blind to certain traits and so rely somewhat on ‘other minds’ for feedback. interesting thread and responses.
