I tried asking my therapist about this but I don’t think they understood me very well, or I just didn’t explain it well. I wanted to ask if anyone here experiences a similar thing and maybe has a definition or term for it.
I feel like, from the outside, people are generally a more homogenous mixture of things. I.e, they have thoughts, opinions, actions that aren’t independent of the rest of themselves but are more the “average” of their personality. They might feel conflicted about things, but that’s more when they have two or more paths that diverge from their “average.”
But for me I feel like my thoughts are more like oil and water. They don’t really mix.
For instance, I can be really materialist [as in, Bourgeois materialism] sometimes. Like I fantasize about having things and being free and being a libertine.
Conversely I simultaneously fantasize about being a monk/nun/hermit, who’s existence is devoted to teaching people and having very little possessions.
Sometimes I love having money. I sometimes I go on impulsive spending sprees. Other times I hate having money and feeling like I have wealth, and want to donate a lot (unfortunately I can’t do that with my current lack of funds)
Or simultaneously lll have a very big and very small ego. Like having both a superiority complex and imposter syndrome at the same time. One minute I can be complimenting myself on my work and imagining how important I can be. Other times I’ll wish I was never born and think I’m less than useless.
It’s not that I don’t see these thoughts as obviously contradictory, because obviously they are. It’s like I’m constantly being pulled in two different directions. Like I have one personality that’s high ego, highly libertine and hyper independent who doesn’t want anyone, while at the same time I have another who has less than zero self esteem, wants to be a spartan or a monk or a nun, and is insanely fearful of doing anything without an authority figure’s approval. It’s not DID because i don’t disassociate and I don’t think they’re literally two seperate people, but I feel like this isn’t how thoughts are supposed to work…
can you elaborate on exactly what you mean by this?
Sure.
To begin with, I made a mistake. I meant “literal coherence”, not “logical coherence”, but my overall point still stands.
Literal coherence is a skill humans have. We develop when we develop the skill of language. Once we have it, we see the world through concepts, concepts that help us make sense of reality. This kind of coherence is lived, experiential, and situated in ourselves.
Here’s an example of how concepts help us make sense of reality and how they help us solve problems: “The car’s wiggling a bit. Oh. Maybe I’ve got a flat tire. I should stop, get out, and check. Oh, that’s definitely a flat tire. I should go to the trunk where I’ve got the spare tire and the tools to replace the tire.”
However, life is not that always that simple.
For example, some situations cannot really be solved.
Take as an example the death of a loved one. That hurts. So much. This pain is seen by our meaning-making machines and sometimes it tries to solve that pain. We may try to distract ourselves with videogames, or feel better with food or drugs— the options are endless. And yet nothing can truly solve that pain.
The alternative to literal coherence is to use both our meaning-making machines and our felt experience to notice what is useful. This is functional coherence. We may notice that it’s not useful to insist on feeling good all the time. We may notice that it’s okay to feel pain. We stop trying to make sense of pain so that we can solve it, and we start to accept life so that we can live it.
Another way in which we cannot make sense of it all is that reality is not an ordered system, at least not all of it. Some phenomena are chaotic, like brownian motion. Other phenomena is complex, like the teams at my workplace. We may be able to notice some features of these chaotic or complex systems, but we cannot understand them fully. Why can’t we understand them fully? Because if we could, they would not be chaotic or complex, they’d be ordered systems.
sure, i think it’s obvious that some people turn to unhealthy coping mechanisms when faced with negative emotions. but, i think this is actually done in the absence of conscious, practiced thought (i.e. “meaning-making machines”) rather than because of it. i think it takes a pretty strong, well-taught, and well-practiced meaning-making machine to be consciously aware of our emotions and to correctly recognize that oftentimes the best way to resolve a negative emotion is to process it. i also think it takes conscious, practiced thought to recognize whether or not a contradiction requires interaction with the external world (replacing a tire) or interaction with the internal world (processing an emotion). in this way i think it’s totally reasonable to say that people have the ability to “make sense of it all,” including themselves.
yes, there are inherently elements of literal (natural) and effectual (i.e. due to complexity) randomness to reality. but, i think claiming that because there is inherent randomness to reality that reality is necessarily not determined (i.e. ordered) is an undialectical, binary error. the dialectical approach doesn’t ask “is reality random or determined?” it asks “is reality more random or more determined?” in other words, is the randomness (and subjectivity, let’s not forget about relativity) inherent to the universe the exception to the rule, or is it indicative of the rule itself? i think the answer is that it is pretty clearly the exception: how would scientific advancement in either the natural sciences or in socialism be possible/likely if reality was more chaotic than it was ordered?
as far as not being able to understand things fully (whether due to inherent internal or external limitations), frankly i don’t really understand the problem. why does not being able to understand something fully make it impossible for you or anyone to “make sense of it all”? we use simplifications of complex phenomena to understand them and to be able to function in the world. in other words, we intuitively and structurally prioritize general over specific knowledge, we prioritize laws over their exceptions. sure, this is not a complete understanding of the world, but it certainly is functional, is it not? furthermore, the increasing specialization of knowledge allowed by the development of society enables us to understand things on a more and more complex/specific level. in other words, in multiple ways i do think we can “make sense of it all,” at least to the greatest extent possible.