BPDFamily.com

A lot of the idea that I see circulate on these boards is self love and compassion for oneself to heal. I realize what got a lot of us into this mess was the "need" for validation outside ones self.  As we are here we are once again seeking validation of our situation to heal. I seek it as well here it helps tremendously just like it did in my relationship with my ex.  This provided a sort of paradox.  Essentially any guide or outside help recieve is ultimately a form of training wheels that can get us back on the horse to speak.  So as we recieve outside validation that we should validate ourselves we embrace the idea of boundaries to protect our notion of self love and compassion. We also embrace the idea that this should come from ones self.

These ideas also present another paradox. The very idea of boundaries to protect ones self implies the self needs protecting. The self that exists underneath the layers of our identity in the persona the ego the barrier between the concious mind and unconcious mind that reflects the concious mind and the barier between that layer of the unconcious mind and the collective unconcious then the barelier between that and the true self.  These are all boundaries that exist to protect the self.  Yet ultimately these boundaries are what keep us from knowing our true self.

So if compassion needs boundaries to protect ones self yet boundaries is what keeps on from knowing there true self this is another paradox.  So isn't compassion with boundaries a form of ignorance of the true self to protect the false self from experiencing the pain that lurks within the unconcious?  So wouldn't therefore any limit on compassion be a form of culturally conditioned sociopathy? 

From this i suppoce any limit one has on compassion is an obstacle to be overcome from knowing ones true self.  At the same time adopting any idea or philosophy creates a tether or limit from knowing the true self.  Because belief requires faith and faith means one does not know a thing.

Even this the words I write or an idea or conception of the thing I describe not the thing it's self. So to accept them would be a form of outside validation which keeps one from validation that comes from within

Your post is a very interesting development of paradoxes -- but, if I may be permitted a bit of humor first -- Blimblam, have you been into the Medical Marijuana again?   :)


What I mean is maybe you're overthinking this. Yes, boundaries imply that the self needs protecting. Our psychology is just as vulnerable as our physiology, and when you ride a bike you wear a helmet. When you swim you hold your mouth shut (or you'll drown). There are a multitude of things that can harm us psychologically -- people who will purposely attack us, or who will use us as if we're objects, or who will do things that will set off our own unique triggers without even knowing they're doing it. We need boundaries to filter all this. We can gradually let the boundaries down around people who have proved that they won't do these things -- but at first, it's essential to have them, IMO.



This one is trickier, and maybe you're onto something here, in part. Yet still... .isn't belief in a 'true self' and a 'false self' also a belief? You go on to say:


IMO these statements create another paradox: 'true self' is a belief, yet you say adopting any belief prevents you from knowing the 'true self'. So in order to know the true self you must have no true self.

But what if beliefs, and boundaries, are just as much a part of our 'self' as any other aspect of our thinking process is? What if 'true' and 'false' are merely terms to refer to the appropriate contexts that will trigger a given constellation of 'self' to arise?

What I think I mean ( lol ) is that all these parts you've identified -- compassion, true self, false self, boundaries, external and internal validation -- can have their place in the dance; more or less at different times in our life, or in different social situations.

I caution from my own (unfortunately extensive) experience with paradoxes, similar to those you've defined between these different elements, that such paradoxes are often generated by the thinking process itself, are apparitions of thought, rather than true relations between the elements.  I'm not saying that's true here, necessarily. But a lot of people really like compassion, so if were you I'd think it through a couple more times before letting that one go.  

Precisely my point. Lol. 

Blimblam, the true self is the possessor of the body and the mind. The self is eternal and indestructible. The body and mind fade, so a human being is a composite real entity that is made of these parts: the emotional body, the mind, the physical body and the energy that propels change. Compassion is loving one's self and then extending that love to all beings in the universe. To love all others as one loves themselves. As we feel this need that has no boundaries, how could it serve us by limiting ourselves to boundaries? To love ourselves we cannot expose ourselves to harm. What harms us is directly related to our knowledge of our self. A being that is infinite and indestructible cannot be harmed. So,we set our boundaries. Do we recognize the divinity in ourselves? Can we see the divinity in all things? Do we form bias out of ignorance? We have the potential to spread our knowledge to the universe. Can we realize our potential?

Have thought long and hard about such things myself. But have also had something of an epiphany about boundaries---maybe it isn't the "armor" type protection we (those of us who have had to learn this the hard way) believe at first blush.

Sometimes boundaries are simply seeing the line between your self and others. To know what is your problem and what is someone elses problem (compassion being when you decide it is--or is NOT--appropriate to help [when asked to] with someone elses problem). To own your own feelings, no matter how uncomfortable or even pleasant, instead of believing someone else inserted them into you. To be able to decide what kind of mood/day you are going to have, regardless of what others around you are doing or saying. To be centered enough to not be baited, and to understand that biting bait is a choice.

This type of understanding of boundaries leads one even closer to the true self--not to be confused with putting a wall between your conscious and subconscious (boundary vs. armor).

There is also a difference between asking or being asked for help, and shoving our rescuing and fixing down others throats unasked ("here, take my advice--I won't be using it today!"   )

My thinking self does not believe I am an undeserving cretin. But apparently my feeling self does. That's exactly what leads to seeking outside validation. And actually, there is nothing wrong with outside validation--so long as it isn't your only source of self esteem (self being the operative word here).

I don't see compassion with boundaries as a form of ignorance to the true self. I see boundaries as a clear view of the difference between me and not me (even if it influences me in various ways) and compassion as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". There are things I wish I had gotten from my FOO that I can still learn by giving them to myself or others.

After doing some reading about projective identification and the Stanford prison experiment.

I think yet while I have the ability to choose I can only make a choice based on my level of awareness. It has been demonstrated how placing people in up down roles and through projective identification we may conciously make a choice but not fully aware of all the implications of that agreement.  At the same time here is where it gets dangerous if we remove oneself from personal responsibility from things we were aware would be a consequence of the choice then we can be made to do great harm to others as demonstrated in the milers in experiment. In the mil grain experiment a psychologist had random people shock a person in another room every time they answered a question wrong each time increasing the voltage.  As long as the person pressin the button did not feel responsible a large percentage would shock the person in the other room to dangerous levels.

So projective identification as I understand it activates portions of the objects brain that are at a base instinctual level and the agreement they make maybe as soulmate and lover.  Once that bond is made though as the subject projects into the object slowly it is on am unconcious level that bypasses our boundaries.  Also it is usually about dumping negative emotions into someone. So they are the bad guy. There always needs to be a bad guy.

Marketing is also aimed at doing this hitting on a subconscious level to influence us. 

These tactics are

Designed to undermine our boundaries. But if we make them the bad guy we fall right back into the cycle of abuse. 

Really the only solution I see is compassion unwavering compassion based on humble insight. 

In regards to wholeness would not the bond we felt with our exs be apart of our now wholeness if fate has not already placed this in our path? Or is it that the self is and all we are born with in our spirit all that remain to account for any part of us?

If yes to the first then boundaries would so impede on the natural process in the order the universe has already deemed. If no then boundaries could work to supersede the need of excising any extra baggage we accumulate when trying to sort out the pieces with that from our oneness and essentially our existence.

In the first aforementioned this would show a linear standpoint on the flow of the natural order of events occurring in our reality. Showing no room to makes any other choices other then those predestined to exist in our path. This would go to prove that regardless of boundaries our lives may already have a set path therefore we cannot change the inevitable either way unless linearly we are aligned to choose such. This isnt much of a choice but as humans would give us the illusion of such grandiosity with our minds not fathoming it completely with comprehension due to not knowing unconsciously said path that laid unto our existence.

Then to address the second point it would go to show that if we could block out any outside forces from gaining access to the inner sanctum of our spiritual consciousness this would int turn not have the possibility for introspection and to open up parts of ourselves blocked off by trauma to develop and grow due to said outside force causing our inner working to externalize and release into our the conscious mind. In a sense preventing self awareness to be had in a circumstantial way that is evident in making ourselves aware of the unconscious that is hidden and to learn of our own darkness that is only evident in this way. So we can in turn cleanse with the radical acceptance that in turn follows as the balancing light to the overwhelming darkness that has stunted our development since the relegation of this trauma within ourselves.