Who has a "Self?"

Post Reply New Topic

Wow, how did I miss this thread all this time? I finally found it last night, and it took me so long to read that I had no more time to write anything. Actually, there probably isn´t much that I can contribute, seeing as you all have the topic pretty well covered! But, I´ll just write out a few of my impressions about "selfness":

I think I have always recognized that I have a self. I recognized my internal world, my thoughts, my impressions and experiences, as well as the things I loved (like my interests) as being my self. It´s big, vast and complicated, and I guess I expected that; in fact, I wouldn´t have it any other way. I have always been interested in the details of my own psyche; in fact, as an adult, it came as a revelation to me that other people are not as interested in "me" as I am, if that makes any sense.

I remember when I was in school, in Math class I discovered that not only do numbers go on for infinity, but the space between numbers- for instance, the (numerical) space between the numbers 5 and 6 is also infinite. I found this concept fascinating, and it gave me a revelation about my "self". I decided that the "outer infinity"- likened to the fact that numbers are infinite- is like God, the Universe, "the infinite"- whereas the "inner infinity", something like the space between the numbers 5 and 6, was like my "inner infinity", or infinite self. I was so thrilled with this analogy that I went around telling the other students in my school all about it: (probably one reason why they thought I was weird)!

However, having said all that about my self, I am afraid that I am also guilty of spending much of a lifetime negating, denying, and not accepting myself. I think this is probably common with many on the spectrum: partly because of the social echolalia thing, as was mentioned, but also because people tell us how we "should" be, even going so far as telling us what kind of things we "should" like to do! I think I spent more than half of my life up till now negating various aspects of myself, and now I´ve finally started the process of retrieving all the lost parts of myself. My guess, actually, is that most people go through this process, to some extent.

I think also the idea of negating the self is where addictions come in. An addiction is an extreme denial of self. I, too, have had addictions which I´ve gotten over: I was anorexic for awhile- (I think of anorexia as being like an addiction, as the mindset is similar, and it is a denial of the self). I was also a workaholic. That may not sound like much of an addiction to many people, as it´s sort of accepted in our society (though more for men). My work was my special interest, and there were times when I was extreme, to the point of being unhealthy. Interestingly enough, when I finally gave up my various addictions, is around the same time that I started to look within, and accept all those parts of me that I had repressed. My guess is that this is probably true for many older adults who didn´t have the benefit of a diagnosis when they were younger, and who discovered AS later. (I know many of you have talked about similar things).

Well, I guess this has ended up being a ramble. I guess this concept is so vast, it´s sort of hard to contain it in 1 post...

Interesting discussion; I remember reading one autistic (Donna Williams) claiming that Multiple Personality was related to her autism, and wondered if she had a point. Clearly, pronoun reversal in autistics suggests that our minds have not been faced with the need to present an integrated face to a world of other inegrated faces.

I'd caution against any desire to claim the arts, philosophy, or esoterica as our own - They belong to every1 who can be described as human, though not every aspect will be relevant to every1's life-path all of the time. Let's not forget that certain fields of science and art (biology and literature in particular) are less weighted towards auties than others, though there are others that seem to draw those who sense they have no other niche (e.g. psychology; computing).

Although I have AS, what I appreciate in art is its way of clarifiying emotional states to approach a unity in all things, rather than bypassing the whole self to approach the infinite series of information-bits through which reality is displayed. {I do realise, though, that 'unity of all things' is a somewhat fascistic conceit }

I side with oblio in viewing the NT self as a cobbled-together, even illusory system that is never fully present in autistics. But, as I mentioned in another thread, what most of us agree on to be that which auties and NTs have in common is 'being human', yet no1 ever suggests what that might entail - What is the foundation or core of any self? I have a few ideas, but would be fascinated to see what others come up with. .

Something else I've noticed in this thread is that people seem to be looking for satisfaction in unexpected places, and as I've pointed out before, we choose to be satisfied when we realise there's no better satisfaction available to us elsewhere. NTs often say things like "don't get too wrapped up in yourself/self-absorbed/self-centred", but then there are atleast other things for them to focus on. However, most ppl wouldn't even find a historical great like Napoleon Bonaparte as interesting as this:

I'm going to jump back in here real briefly. I find it so hard to get my thoughts out on this subject in a form that's not a novel, as my reality of time doesn't fit with such an endeavor.

I hope this isn't a downer, but it is my own POV. I am very cautious to say that I'm fragmented, or more than one. I feel like I am only person. However, I don't feel like my emotions define me, nor do I define my emotions. They aren't entities of their own, they're just simply part of what it is to be alive, and to experience life. I, like many others here, have a very difficult time being able to define, and express my feelings emotionally..It may seem to me that they exist apart from my core, my self, but they don't. They're just...mysterious at times. Even more mysterious to my psych is other people's emotions.

I wonder if this has more to do with the fact that we think about this sort of thing, as opposed to most NTs that probably never do. We concentrate on self, because that's all we have. I have not ever identified myself as a collective part of any group. Coming to WP, and discussing AS is probably as close to feeling a part of a group as I'll ever get. I remember long ago chatting with a group of of my teenaged peers that were from a different area then I was from. They asked me what group do I belong to. I had no answer, as I couldn't figure out what they were even talking about. They were speechless at the fact that I had not chosen a clique to belong to. It was unheard of. they said "well then who are you?" as if that was such an integral part of being a person that I was almost not a person without that sort of collective grouping.

I still talk to myself, constantly. I answer myself, too. But, it's me navigating the whole thing. I don't ever feel as if someone foriegn is inside of my brain having a chat with me. I find this kind of back, and forth monologue more interesting than talking to most people. I get to have control, and discuss what I want, how I want, and explore different angles to situations. This is easier then dealing with another person, who will inevitably say something, or do something unexpected. I like things predictable. With others, I have to take all kinds of things in account that take up all of my mental energy while talking to them. This is why I had mentioned ToM, and the whole third person thing. Connecting with other people is hard work, and I find it rare that i do, at least genuinly.

I read in a book some years ago that defined what your soul is. To me, my core self is best defined by this definition. If you were to take away your career, spouse, friends, children, and possesions what is left is your soul ( core self). That resonated with me, because I don't seem to connect with those things in a way that it makes up my identity the way most people I know do. Those things are transient. They can come, and they can go. My core self is what was before that, and what will be after that.

sad intermezzo off topic

1 post back as oblio, fro other computer
(no longer waiting for that pasword, thanks alex)

however, i would now very uch lke a computer

i have been locked in by ubuntu
no way out, nor any way to connect with the net

cannot even get to vista in the same bloody system
to get in touch with anyone

sorry, no idea how this is gonna get solved

to no one here in particular
i cannot live like this

I will waste MY time, YOU waste YOURS

What an interesting topic. I've not got a very strong sense of self at all and it gets even weaker when I'm with other people. I feel like a reflection of what others expect but that varies a lot depending on who I'm with. I feel like a performing seal sometimes. The sense of my real self is very small and quiet and intense. (Probably she wouldn't post at WP)

I've always had a very strong sense of self centered around my own sensory experiences and what I like doing.

I've never needed to be part of a social group to define myself because I've always been myself. This is why I've never succumbed to peer pressure: I've never felt it.

The problem comes when other people don't like my definition of the self and criticise me for my actions.


My sense of self: Detail, solo task and object focus

Other people's sense's of self: People's faces, psychological and group focus


My sense of self seems to be different and based on my own experiences interacting with the physical environment. I can feel emotions too, but they are my emotions in response to other people's. I've had friends and have family, but I've never defined myself by them. I see myself as a separate entity observing other people's emotions/actions and the physical environment. My sense of self is closer to Hume's idea.

There may even be people who's sense of self is a combination of of both.

I have a very focussed consciousness (zooming in on details in the environment) like other posters have alluded to. This seems similar to the Jungian idea of a "focussed consciousness".
If someone for instance was waving a brightly coloured object such as a red handkerchief, my eyes would be focussed on the handkerchief first.

I wonder if "normal" people would actually focus on the person's face first and not the handkerchief (if the person was within close range)?
Perhaps other so called normal people have a more panoramic (wider angle of view) consciousness meaning that they are able to keep track of complex social situations more easily? Could this in fact be Jungian "diffuse consciousness" at work?

I wonder if one day the degree of focus of one's consciousness could one day be measured quantitatively?

Could someone's style and focus of consciousness ever be observed?
Do different people really have different observational styles and different consciousness focussing abilities?

sunshower: I think you explained yourself very well! Yes, I always liked that quote, "I think, therefore I am". This pretty much sums up how I would describe the self.

Don´t remember too well, I think I need to look at some old pictures of myself.

But I do kind of remember finding cameras quite fascinating when I was a child. (That, and tape recorders). I always wondered how those things could record your image, or sound; they seemed like magic to me. So, in that case, I do think I looked at the camera pretty often, because it was interesting...(and I was looking at a camera, not a face). But it probably just depends on what thing you find interesting.

I too have noticed how much the children I am entertaining focus on my face as opposed to other parts of the surrounding environment. I was minding someones child one afternoon, and I found her constant attention on me very daunting and quite exhausting.

Often when I'm around children (although I love children) I find myself feeling quite uncomfortable/uneasy by the way they are constantly watching me, it's almost like being constantly under a bright light.

When I was a child I would never spend any amount of time looking at faces, rather I'd look at all different aspects of the environment around me and judge them of equal importance.

I think it's highly likely NT children, when observing faces, are actually learning the subtle social cues and body language (from imitating adult role models) that AS children miss out on.