Which one I can think of three.
Julien, Thomas Henry, and Aldous
Not really about Christianity, though is it.
It is a failed attempt atfinding a “highest” common denominator to a series of incompatible religions, only to conclude with a sort of half baked atheism.
Grand father Thomas Henry mentions God only to dismiss him, coining the term agnostic.
2 Other notable Huxley’s were eugenicists, so probably not much use to the discusion.
Science can tell you more about them, beyond your own personal experience of them.
If you scroll up you will see that he was responding to a quotation by Aldous Huxley.
How did Aldous Huxley fail? What do you mean by “half baked atheism”?
That’s true. And you could know everything that science can tell you about them but without your own personal experience of them you wouldn’t know what they were essentially.
“Any entity whose essence is made up of existence, is essentially opposed to the possibility of our getting it in our grasp as an entity which is a whole.”
Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, H233, page 276
10 Simple Ways to Relieve Depersonalization
[size=85]By Shaun O’ Connor
Last updated: 14 Jan 2020
~ 4 MIN READ[/size]
1. Read Aloud. … I do sometimes, but not always.
2. Cut out Caffeine. … Not my morning coffee, No!!!
3. Listen to Podcasts and Music. … Music is the food of love, so I do listen on - podcasts… sometimes.
4. Avoid Drugs. … (I) Don’t do drugs, kids.
5. Get Up Early. … But not if I can’t…
6. Go to Bed Early. … But not if I can’t…
7. Practice Your Hobbies. … But not if I can’t…
8. Don’t Overreact. … I never do…
9. Don’t Avoid Any Activities. … But not if I couldn’t help, but to…
10 Be Social! But not if I couldn’t help, not to…
Detoxing, resting up well, exercising, hydrating, are also all good aids to becoming less derealised/more Whole again.
I’m glad you’re feeling more whole. The personal is the highest rung on the ladder of intelligibility below spirituality. Thus it is the fulfillment of all our mundane goals. But as such it is the level of ego anxiety. Depersonalization is a means of defending against that anxiety. When the psyche springs it on us involuntarily, it can seem strange. When it is consciously and voluntarily employed as method of coping it can temporarily be an effective strategy for dealing with stress. Used in this way it is a form of compartmentalization. The Buddha’s teaching about the five skandas employs this method as a means of relief from existential suffering.
Quote from “Phenomenology of the Human Person” by Robert Sokolowski -
“The conversational game… can be played on the things we speak about because things do present themselves as wholes and in part, as subjects with features. The ontology of things lets our speech and our language come into play.”
Oh, I don’t mind a bit of derealisation now and again… it can be quite fun and break up the monotony of existence every-so-often… a neural pause button, if you will. It takes One inward, to experience unique thoughts and feelings that One otherwise wouldn’t care to entertain. Being too grounded ain’t no fun, no fun… a balance was struck, between a private inner world and an outward facing sociality.
Sounds like detachment ^^^ ? from a reality that is difficult to cope with… especially if there are a few things that One is simultaneously having to cope with/adjust to. Makes sense… ensuring that stress, and cortisol, are minimised.
I suddenly came to a realisation just now, that I have to reacquaint myself with myself, in that my daily personal growth and me experiencing that growth in real-time had ceased, and so I now have to catch up with myself i.e. synchronisation… first, my thoughts needed de-buffering, now this.
Am I a mobile phone? 
…relative detachment from the ego to what is immediately presenting itself. In the past I have referred to it as decentering. Consciousness always has an object. The object of our attention speaks to us out of the background of the world. The Self is guiding our attention whether we’re conscious of it or not. So we’re free to focus on the small stuff that presents itself as proximal to us at the moment without worry about egoic concerns.
Wholeness (holiness), in the language of the brain, is homeostasis. Belief by analogy of mental content to physical reality is a field of study that has not yet arrived. Perhaps in the future we will be able to list and catalog beliefs and their physical underpinnings.
Homeostasis, is primarily and historically a biological concept. I read that the word was coined by Walter Bradford in 1926, but that the concept of regulation of the internal environment was already described by Claude Bernard in 1849. (Wikipedia). In 1932 Joseph Barcroft was the first to say that higher brain function required the most stable internal environment. So homeostasis is not only organized by the brain but serves the brain. As such homeostasis is an exclusively biological term referring to the constancy in the internal environment in which the cells of the body live and survive.
How homeostasis is related to experience is a question. It seems like it would be limited to experimental science where physiological states can be correlated with reports of mental ones. This might include fMRI scans of the brain while the subject reports mental states in a controlled environment. In any case it is beyond the everyday possibility of our phenomenal experience except as speculation.
In Being and Time Heidegger discusses the seeming impossibility of getting our being- a- whole into our grasp ontologically and determining its character. He asks whether the entity that we are can ever become accessible and it’s being a whole. There are important reasons which seem to speak against the possibility of having it presented in the manner required. The possibility of this being a whole is manifestly inconsistent with the ontological meaning of care and care is that which forms the totality of our structural whole. (page 315 of the Kindle edition) The primary item in care is the ahead- of- itself and this means that in every human being exists for the sake of itself.
So it would seem that our preoccupation with wholeness as an ideal is a case of our being ahead of ourselves. And it is one that can never actually be realized in this life though it is the goal and teleology of the archetypal self. How this relates to homeostasis is beyond the scope of our everyday unscientific phenomenological reflection.
In Jungian theory, the Self is drawing us to transcend ourselves. But we are always on the way, always moving in temporality. Life is never whole until it’s over.
Which is not to say that envisioning wholeness is without value. Victor Frankel talked about projecting oneself into the the future beyond this life and imagining looking back at ourselves when we’re making important decisions. Looked at from that imaginal highest vantage point, what would be the best choice?
I see homeostasis as a striving toward wholeness, not as the arrival which is our final destiny. Evolution, of which this striving is an aspect, appears to be both deterministic and creative. These experiences must have mental expression in order for us to strive toward wholeness and to be creative. The body is the temple of the indwelling God; And I find it hard to believe God would expect us to comprehend spiritual matters without giving us direct experiences as clues.
Sure. Homeostasis is another instance of the Tao–the principle of balance without which we couldn’t live. It’s built into us. It’s in us and we are in it. As the logic of being it is the logos upon which the world is modeled. We’re nested in it like a Russian doll. And so is it nested in us. It’s our inner ecology within our outer ecology. Without both inner and outer balance nothing can survive and thrive. Human language is another emergent manifestation of the logos. Humans didn’t invent it. It emerged as a phenomenon --linguisticality-- in which we exist. And as intrinsically goal directed and intentional, linguisticality points to the teleology of evolution which reductive science denies.
I think that our problem as a society is that we’ve been told that one thing followed another and this is how we arrived at where we are. Experience tells us that things are happening in stranger ways, and that the emergence of life and perception out of animal awareness is something that seems to have come from nothing. It is something we have difficulty getting our head around.
Who is to say that God is not responsible for chemicals coming together as DNA. thus starting the chain of living beings? Who is to say that God is not responsible for mind as an epiphenomenon of brains? Ecosystems suggest an ethical order for living beings as do cycles of nature (nitrogen, water, etc.) and the conservation of energy principle. What goes against the positive attributes for living is the lusts of the human mind, which will dissect and destroy to assert its supremacy. Humility is the antidote for ravages of human hubris. A humble person will not desecrate the biosphere.