# a plea to the moderators and all who post in this topic area



## californian

I was just hoping that this section could possibly be cleaned up a bit so that it actually IS about what it is supposed to be about. The description states:

"Thoughts on the spiritual side of life: how it may help in coping, how it may offer insights into depersonalization & derealization states, prayers, etc."

Unfortunately, it seems that a large number of the threads on here are about religion debates, proselytizing, atheism, random religious jokes etc., but have nothing to do with depersonalization/derealization. Shouldn't these threads be moved to (or originally posted in): "Off Topic Discussion."

It really isn't helpful to go to a forum that is supposed to be about how spirituality can relate to dp/dr and help one to cope with it and instead find anti-religious and anti-God threads. It would be like going to the "Regaining Reality" section and having half of the posts be about how there is no hope for curing dp/dr or that there is no such thing as reality so just give up.

I appreciate the truly meditative topics posted by Homeskooled and others. And I also appreciate honest searching for answers by Epiphany and others.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with debating the existence of God or arguing about religion, it just doesn't belong in here, and it dilutes the effectiveness of this section for those who wish to find hope in it.


----------



## Revelation_old

This topic will be discussed by the moderators.

I myself do not venture into this section anymore as I often become quite dissapointed with what I read. HOWEVER - freedom of speech is important, be it, against what I believe or not.

I see your point and agree with it personally but I want to find out what the moderators have to say. They're a dynamic bunch for a reason.

The solution may be to create a sub-forum for debates contained within this section.

Thanks for your comment and hey, G-d bless


----------



## californian

The idea for a sub-forum sounds really good.

Like I said, debate is important and valid, and I think it should go on here. I'll probably even participate in it as I become more integrated into this community.

It was just really disappointing to see how often the posts here are really either "off-topic" or not spiritually relevant to dealing with dp/dr.


----------



## CECIL

I agree  IMO we should ban logic and rationality from this forum 

It irks me that every thread eventually turns out to be an argument about why god does/does not exist. But on the other hand a lot of the members disagree with what's been said and so feel the need to debate it.


----------



## californian

i fully understand why people feel the need to disagree with what's been said, especially when people decide to post threads that are proselytizing in nature. i think if your go around trying to actively win people over to your religion you should 1) be expecting people to debate with you and, 2) realize that if you don't like debate you brought it on yourself.

even this form of debate is different than the sort of THREADS that get started here. i will gladly take on any who wish to make largely ignorant proclamations about the origins of this or that religion (usually Christianity) on this board. just like i would have fun debating politics or anything else. but this is apparently supposed to be a SPIRITUALITY forum, not a RELIGION forum. and there is a huge difference between the two. at a university (or even a seminary) i would know that a class entitled RELIGION would be completely different from a class called SPIRITUALITY.

i just was heavily disappointed that this forum does not look like it is kept on topic. it has a very large number of posts that have NOTHING to do with SPIRITUALITY or DP/DR. thus, i do not understand why people post them here.

of course, i'm new. maybe i just need to go with the flow. or maybe i ought to actually introduce myself in the "introduce yourself" section before I go around making suggestions. after that, maybe i should be part of the solution and not the problem by posting spiritual thoughts and meditations that relate with dp/dr in this area. 

but once again, i would simply like to stress that i'm not upset with debate or free speech--i simply was wondering if this particular forum might be steered in the direction of its description. :wink:


----------



## yoyo

I think it is important to have the free speech. We should respect any author. It does not mean though that we have to reply or read the topic in question. I personaly do not mind to read a topic that does not directly is about dp. The fact that we have dp make us more humble and make us remind God. I do not se any problem with discussing God.

But i the rules of this site say that we can?t post topics in this section without any direct reference to dp, then I think we should respect that.


----------



## californian

i'm not saying that i expect every post in this topic to use the words depersonalization or derealization or anything like that. it just seemed very off-topic for religion debates to be a dominant force in a topic area entitled "spirituality".

debating religion and talking about spirituality are not only different, they are almost opposites...

sure i can choose what i want to post or read. in the end, i'm really not that worried about this for myself. but it is important to remember that the vast majority of people that visit this board aren't even registered members. they are desperate people looking for answers. they then see a forum area entitled:

Spirituality (God, Religions, New Age, etc.)
Thoughts on the spirtual side of life: how it may help in coping, how it may offer insights into depersonalization & derealization states, prayers, etc.

and expect that something helpful might be there. and there is, but there's also a lot of other stuff that can drive the anxiety of a desperate person through the ceiling and make their situation that much worse.

and for the record, this plea has NOTHING to do with free speech. it has to do with a plea to the moderators and other community members to try and keep this area ON-TOPIC instead of OFF-TOPIC

of course, the moderators could always shut me up by changing its name to "Religious Topics." but that still would seem better suited for the "Off-Topic" section rather than the "DP/DR II" section.


----------



## Revelation_old

Just an update: We're still arguing about this in the moderator section. There have been many good points about having or not having a sub category.

Martin has yet to voice his opinion. I can't wait to see that...


----------



## californian

Revelation said:


> Martin has yet to voice his opinion. I can't wait to see that...


LOL


----------



## californian

i bet his response will be something like this:

once upon a time terri* wrote,

"But this is the Religious section of the board where it seems to me 
people should be able to come and talk about their "pie in the sky", silly, 
fable believing ideas without someone who doesn't believe in this nonsense coming down and having episodic hissy fits about the whole 
dadgum thing."

to which Martin responded,

"Quite true Terri*. They can say whatever they want. But you seem to have forgotten that this is also a mental health forum. And mental health problems and religion, as is born out time and time again, do not mix.

Do I not have the right to disagree? Ask for clarification? Besides, if someone has an utterly unshakable faith, what does it matter to them what I say?"

to which I respond again....

RELIGION and mental health problems may not mix, but SPIRITUALITY and mental health sure do or i would have been dead a LONG time ago....


----------



## CECIL

californian said:


> RELIGION and mental health problems may not mix, but SPIRITUALITY and mental health sure do or i would have been dead a LONG time ago....


I personally feel that any approach you take to understanding mental illness that is beneficial to you is a good mix 

But you're right, we need more about spirituality here. I've kind of been meaning to write up my own recovery thread, which is heavily steeped in spirituality. When I can be bothered I might to just that, in this section 

Expect a rant...a very long rant


----------



## Martinelv

> Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with debating the existence of God or arguing about religion, it just doesn't belong in here, and it dilutes the effectiveness of this section for those who wish to find hope in it.


Yes, I am happy to disappoint you. I try hard to stay away from this forum, because of my rabid atheism, and (I admit it), peurile jokes and so forth.

But with regards to the above, I stand by my quote that Californian so helpfully reminded me of. With all my heart I do not believe that a religious (how many SPIRITUAL posts have there been?) belongs on a mental health forum. That's it. It's dangerous. If, during my abortive MD training, you had seen how many people had been psychologically crippled by religion, then why on earth is there one on a mental health forum?

People seem to forget that I while I despise religion, I have to constantly insert a disclaimer where I say; 'IF FAITH GIVES YOU HOPE, THEN I AM HAPPY FOR YOU. I MEAN THAT'.

So why discuss it here? The internet is infested with religous forums.


----------



## californian

martin, good point about the lack of spiritual posts. unfortunately, if people don't want to post about that, i guess it becomes a religious free-for-all. if you notice, i also did not think this should be an area for proselytizing either. it isn't helpful to anyone to try and convert them to this or that when they are in a mentally fragile state.

i also appreciate your sentiment that if faith gives someone hope you are happy for them. i believe you. and i commend you for not ever jumping in on the spiritual posts and saying they were stupid, delusional, or whatever.

but you also speak of the amount of people you saw psychologically crippled by religion in your MD training. i'm sorry that that was the case. i won't deny that religion can be a powerful tool used for evil. it can. bin laden uses it for that purpose, and so do the majority of the politicians in America. in the end, however, your statement is as logically sound as stating that because Prozac has been linked to a lot of suicides it shouldn't be prescribed to depressed people. that would simply overlook the countless number of suicides that have been avoided because of responsible use of Prozac.

but if you could see what i see working as a hospital chaplain, you would see the hope that can be provided by faith and by spirituality. on wednesday i helped a distressed woman who had lost both her legs to diabetes find peace and find meaning for her suffering. she was finally able to sleep and slept for days and today told me that she felt better and could face life because she saw meaning in it and meaning in her suffering.

your rabid atheism (or, more properly defined, your rabid anti-religion agnosticism) could not have done that.

next time you feel anger at the pain and suffering religion has caused in the world, and it most certainly has caused it, remember this,

i don't like to quantify the significance of death and suffering into numbers and statistics. but if we do so, we'll find that rabid atheism in Eastern Europe and Asia caused more death and suffering in the 20th century alone, than all of the death and suffering in 20 centuries of Christianity.


----------



## Martinelv

> but if you could see what i see working as a hospital chaplain, you would see the hope that can be provided by faith and by spirituality. on wednesday i helped a distressed woman who had lost both her legs to diabetes find peace and find meaning for her suffering. she was finally able to sleep and slept for days and today told me that she felt better and could face life because she saw meaning in it and meaning in her suffering.


Absolutely, and I have no problem with this at all. I'm sure, for believers, spiritual faith can and does help with people. And, even for a rabid atheist, I believe that.



> your rabid anti-religion agnosticism


As I've said before, there is no such thing as agnosticism. Even if you are 'not sure' about god/s, then you still have no faith - which makes the term meaningless. And even if there was, I am certaintly not agnostic. I am rabidly anti-organised domatic reglion. That's all.



> don't like to quantify the significance of death and suffering into numbers and statistics. but if we do so, we'll find that rabid atheism in Eastern Europe and Asia caused more death and suffering in the 20th century alone, than all of the death and suffering in 20 centuries of Christianity


No, you are right, it's distasteful. But I have to disagree with you entirely here. Even if (which I doubt) the numbers are true, you have to take in the proportianlity of it.  There are millions of more people around in the 20th century then there were prior, when religious persecution was the norm. Whole populations would be decimated by religion.

And I also diagree entirely that atheism was the sole cause of suffering in the 20th century. The religious, as is their wont, confuse socialism, communism, marxism etc, with atheism. It's just not true. Of course, atheism was part of their creed, but it was not the driving force behind the suffering.

Thank you for your reply.


----------



## californian

first things first, i don't want anyone, including martin, to think that when i brought this up that my concerns were all directed at him. that is simply not the case.

martin, i appreciate you saying that you recognize faith can help this people. what you need to be able to further recognize is that this is simply why there ought to be a spirituality forum on here. it can help people. if you see people saying things that are obviously damaging on here, i think it is great for you to step in and say what you think is specifically damaging. this is what i have already been trying to do. if you don't trust me, why don't you trust your fellow moderators, some of whom express sound spiritual insight to people on here to help people.

it is not helpful, however, to express blanket anti-religion statements that are simply not true, nor even in line with what the majority of medical science, psychology, and psychiatry indicate about how religion CAN (although not always) be mentally, emotionally, and even physically helpful to people.

i'm sorry that you are inclined to deny the statistics, there are anti-semites who do the same things because of their agendas. you are certainly correct, however, that things like proportionality have to be taken into account. but the fact remains that you are willing to lump all groups that have ever done something wrong that have a theistic creed into one big ugly pile. yet atheistic groups that have done the same or worse get separated out and nuanced into having nothing to do with you or your beliefs.

you are absolutely right about making distinctions between types of atheistic ideologies and such. yet you allow no such distinction for religion. you do not examine individual religions impacts on the world both positively and negatively. Christianity, for example, is attacked without any distinctions made between denominations or anything else. Catholics are attacked without distinctions made between Benedictines, Jesuits, or anything else. there have been many horrible people in Christianity and many wonderful people. there have been many horrible atheists and wonderful atheists.

it is PEOPLE that are the problem, not atheists, not religious types. in the end, you'll find that typically what is the problem is that human beings all to often pursue Nietzsche's "will to power" in the name of Christianity, communism, or whatever -ism they may or may not have. but you lump together all those you wish to view negatively and sort out all those who you want to keep sorted out.

nevertheless, atheism was not some "unrelated" aspect of the communist creed either. their materialism was what allowed them to recognize that all men, in their view, were merely material, dirt, atoms. if it served the greater good, that matter good be rearranged (i.e. killed) to serve their purposes. it's actually great logic.

the marquis de sade recognized this too. he noted that since man is nothing more than grass, "what is, is right." since nature made him stronger than women, he "had the right to do with them as [he] wished." so he did. there is no right or wrong, just matter colliding in random ways.

this does not mean that there aren't some atheists who either do not recognize the logical moral ramifications of their thinking or who simply do not wish to embrace such ramifications. they prefer to cling to more socially acceptable views and ways of life. they recognize that although we are all dirt, they happen to like the way that works and so they don't follow de sade, nietzsche, the communists, or others.

i say this, because in the end you clearly want a lot of the same things for people that many religious people do. you want people to have hope, good lives, and not to needlessly suffer. this is what all religious systems at their core are trying to address, but you instead focus on how these systems have been used to inflict harm. how is this any different than if i choose to dwell on how atheism has been used to inflict harm?

finally, you state that there is no such thing as agnosticism, etc. i have read this idea of yours in many of your other posts where you define atheism as "a lack of theism." that is a convenient definition, but it is not epistemologically or etymologically sound.

you assert that essentially the word is a + theism. as in without theism. this is not the origin. it's root is atheos or godless. it is the BELIEF, the FAITH, in godlessness. a simple lack of theism is AGNOSTICISM. you can't have a "rabid" lack of anything. what you have is indeed ATHEISM, a rabid FAITH in their being no God. only the agnostic has a purely rational point of view. he has given up any hope of knowledge because to have knowledge of anything requires faith.

i'm surprised that anyone that has suffered from dp/dr could have such an empirical approach to philosophy here. hasn't postmodernism finally dealt such a narrow outlook it's deathblow? as i stated above, to have knowledge of anything requires FAITH. it requires faith in your senses, faith in your feelings, faith in logic. scientists feel they can know something because they have faith in their method. i can learn from others because i have faith that they actually know something. without faith, nothing can be known.

dp/dr strikes at the heart of this. the individual no longer feels like he can have faith in the most fundamental aspects of existence, in self, in his senses, in his emotions, in the knowledge of others and the like.

one of two statements is true, you are either an agnostic who is rabidly anti-religion, or you are an atheist who has faith that there is no God (and who is also anti-religion). from what i've read, i'd bet on the latter definition.

again, i repeat that i believe we want the same things for people. i hope you step in when people are saying things that sound psychologically dangerous in this forum. but muckraking is counterproductive.

faith, hope, love,
the greatest of these is love


----------



## Martinelv

Thank you for your reply. You may sense that I am much less 'rabid' when I am not preached at, as you haven't.



> what you need to be able to further recognize is that this is simply why there ought to be a spirituality forum on here


Absolutely, I agree again. But just have a look through this forum and try and find exactly how many spiritual posts there are. Again, at the risk of stereotyping a country (as is my wont), most of the posts are from our American friends who are either evangalising, prophetising, complaining about the ills of the modern world etc, or simply pious (and I don't hesitate to use the word, because in a way it backs up my belief (not faith - I have none) that religious or spiritual boards do not belong on a mental health forum) lunacy.



> why don't you trust your fellow moderators, some of whom express sound spiritual insight to people on here to help people


I trust nobody, or anything, except for the love of my parents. But with regards to my fellow moderators, I trust their judgement implicitly. As far as I know, I am the only atheist amoungst them.



> it is not helpful, however, to express blanket anti-religion statements that are simply not true, nor even in line with what the majority of medical science, psychology, and psychiatry indicate about how religion CAN (although not always) be mentally, emotionally, and even physically helpful to people.


I don't think I'm making myself clear (and I'm not patronising you). I accept that I make blanket anti-religion judgements, but (as you point out) when I make these judgements, I am talking about organised, dogmatic religion, which stigmatises women, homosexuals, breeds fundamentalism....etc. That is where I make blanket statements. And again, I agree, in some cases, spirituality can and does help the vunerable, mentally or not.



> you do not examine individual religions impacts on the world both positively and negatively


Yes I do. I may be insane, but I'm not stupid. I could write a discourse on the million and one religions that do good or bad, but the vast majority of posts on here are to do with Christianity (or some watered down flavour of bhuddism), expecially Catholic. So forgive my for attacking them in particualar. What else am meant to do?



> it is PEOPLE that are the problem, not atheists, not religious types


True. 'True' intelligence, in my opinion, is an terrible evolutionary accident. This has bred religion and everything else that is slowly destroying our planet.



> nevertheless, atheism was not some "unrelated" aspect of the communist creed either. their materialism was what allowed them to recognize that all men, in their view, were merely material, dirt, atoms. if it served the greater good, that matter good be rearranged (i.e. killed) to serve their purposes


I do not agree. Atheism was enforced for the simple reason that the state alone could control them. It had nothing to do with making them recognise that they were 'dirt'. In any case, atheism did not make any difference to an individuals 'faith'. How could it?



> the marquis de sade recognized this too


If you have the stomach to read '100 days of Sodom', you might think otherwise. I'd advise against it, however.



> finally, you state that there is no such thing as agnosticism, etc. i have read this idea of yours in many of your other posts where you define atheism as "a lack of theism." that is a convenient definition, but it is not epistemologically or etymologically sound.


It's not 'convenient', it's a fact. You can argue the philosophical implications of it till the cows come home, but it is as simple as A=B.



> you assert that essentially the word is a + theism. as in without theism. this is not the origin. it's root is atheos or godless


True, but the term I use is from the latin, A-THEISM, lack-of-faith. What difference does it make where the term originated. I don't see your point.



> without faith, nothing can be known.


I cannot disagree more with you here, and I think that's the problem. FAITH and BELIEF, to me, are two entirely different things. I have belief that I am sitting in front of a computer, I believe that there is no god...etc. I believe because these things are tangible, I can touch them, see them, smell them. And until god/s reveals himself/herself/themselves to me, how can I think otherwise? FAITH is a fault of logic, of thinking. You have FAITH in god, without any proof whatsoever. And remember, the burdon of proof is on the religious to explain this bizarre dichotomy.


----------



## CECIL

Yet you have faith that what your senses are telling you is true and real, Martin 

Its ok Martin, you can admit you only come to this forum because deep down you're a believer :lol:

"Set as I am in my ways and my arrogance. 
Burden of proof tossed upon non-believers. 
You were my witness. 
My eyes, my evidence. 
Judith Marie, unconditional one." - 10,000 Days, Tool.


----------



## californian

thank you, martin, for your reply. i indeed sense that you are less rabid and more civil when you feel that you are not being preached at. i do not like preaching at people.

and thank you, CECIL, for driving my point home. the fact remains that faith, quite simply, and without artificial definitions, means TRUST. it really doesn't matter how you want to redefine words, they have certain meanings in the larger population for a reason (more on that later). it means putting your confidence in something. this is quite simply what it means both in English, and (especially) in Greek. it is this faith that is the "faith" spoken of in the Bible. and to know ANYTHING in this world, one must have trust or confidence not only in something, but in many things.

most people put trust in their senses. most people put some level of trust in their emotions. schizophrenics, however, may not always want to trust their senses. clinically depressed people may not want to trust their emotions. depersonalized people may have such emotional numbing that they still intellectually trust their senses but do not "feel" like they can. but the fact remains that even on this basic level, i have to trust that "i" or anything else exists.

if one struggles with the obsessive ruminations on existence that are common to dp/dr, the fact that senses, emotions, etc., all must be trusted on some level to function properly becomes quite apparent. most people never give it a second thought, but it simply is that way. if a schizophrenic person, for example, sees or hears something that i do not see or hear, i cannot objectively know or prove that he does not see or hear something real that i cannot sense. i do, however, make the choice to trust my senses over theirs, to trust doctors who have diagnosed the schizophrenic as such, and so on. but i could interpret this same phenonomenon in countless different ways as i so choose.

this problem of interpretation directly relates to our respective "isms." any sensory input we receive can literally be interpreted in countless ways. i don't think i need to trot out overused examples of how "we could all be in 'the matrix'" etc.

here we arrive at my point. i see God in all that exists, in all that lives and grows and loves. i even see God in your yearnings and desires and love of goodness, martin. you, on the other hand, do not. i think these things are evidence of one thing, you think that they are evidence of another. i look at Christianity and see that most powerful truths humanity has ever known and know that they have been sadly and horrifically abused over the course of history. you (it appears) see a horrible oppressive system that occasionally (perhaps accidentally or in spite of itself) did some good things.

there is absolutely, positively, no way possible to prove any of this.

even within ourselves we cannot KNOW without trust. perhaps you really aren't an atheist deep down inside. perhaps you are a theist who is so angry at God for all of the suffering and evil in the world and in your life that your revenge on him is to deny his existence. by the same token, maybe i have such a deep sub-conscious fear of death or the absurdity of life that i have sub-consciously chosen to have interpreted my experiences and the phenomena of the universe in a way that makes me a theist.

after all, as Pascal said, "the heart has reasons that reason cannot understand." how could either one of us really KNOW what is going on inside of us that makes us hold the opinions we hold? nevertheless, i trust myself, just as you do.

maybe you are right, maybe you just have a lack of "-ism." but again, this is what it means to be an agnostic. the word simply does not mean, either in its Greek origins or in today's definitions by either Webster or Oxford to mean what you assert. it is "atheos" plus "ism." agnosticism is a refusal to place any trust. thus it is a rejection of knowledge. as i stated before, this is because faith (trust) is required for knowledge. there is no way around this...none. the philosophical world nearly came to a standstill when it came to profoundly recognize this.

the debate over what this word means only serves to further illustrate my point...we both can construct its meanings as we see fit. i can appeal to the authorities on American and British English, but ultimately this "proves" nothing without some level of confidence in certain understandings of semantics.

what i don't understand about you martin (in a logical way, anyhow) is why you or other atheists even care about any of this. i have quoted de sade and nietzsche extensively because i have a philosophical respect for them and their consistency that i do not have for atheists that still cling to morality. neither did either of these philosophers. i find it interesting, for example, that nietzsche's biggest problem with the English was that they had gotten rid of the Christian God and thus clung all the more to Christian morality. He understood that one must go beyond good and evil, because, quite frankly, without God or religion, there is no such thing.

So why do you care if women and homosexuals are stigmatized? What does it matter if whole societies are wiped out? It's all just part of the chaos of the universe. And who are any of us to stop it? Maybe we don't even have wills to stop it. Maybe our biological processes have already determined everything we think say and do. So let's all just relax and let the survival of the fittest take its course and console ourselves that although many many people will suffer in this life we will all just dissolve into the oblivion that will make none of this matter for any of us on this board in just a few short years?

this is what i meant by seeing God in YOU, martin. you don't feel this way. you don't accept the logical conclusions of atheism or materialism. you CARE about the weak, the hungry, the downtrodden. you care about many of the same core things that i do and that are at the heart of not only Christianity, but many other religions.

it is for this reason that although i have a philosophical respect for de sade and nietzsche that i don't have for morally inclined atheists, i have a respect for you as a person, martin, that is completely lacking towards them. you have not stamped out that spark of goodness.

as a result, i think we may be in more agreement than we originally thought about this forum. i think that all debates about God, whether people should believe in him, whether they shouldn't, what the Bible is "really" about, what religion people should convert to, etc. should all be moved to another forum...a debate forum or the "that's life" forum. if that makes the "spirituality" forum a total wasteland then i say so be it.

but i seems like we really both agree fundamentally on the problem with this "spirituality" forum.

faith, hope, love,
the greatest of these is love.


----------



## californian

sorry, for another post after my already excessively gigantic one. please excuse it as a symptom of my obsessive need to get everything off my mind so that i can have some mental rest.

martin, your comments about communism and atheism are unfounded. if the communists truly wished to control the people in Russia, for example, they would have abandoned their atheist creed and aligned with those segments of the Orthodox Church there that were ready to endorse communism wholeheartedly. the most ineffective way to control people is with atheism. as you have noted elsewhere, religious authority and dogmatism makes a much better tool for control, especially in a country that was, and is, as deeply religious as russia.

there are, on the other hand, many writings of marx, lenin, stalin, guevara, mao and others who explicitly justify the necessity of brutal tactics, war/revolution, and/or other extreme tactics due to their atheistic and materialistic beliefs.

of course, this is secondary to our main discussion, so feel free to respond or not respond to this part as you see fit.

faith, hope, love
the greatest of these is love


----------



## Martinelv

> Yet you have faith that what your senses are telling you is true and real, Martin


No Cecil, I don't have faith in what my senses are telling me. I believe them. I live in a consensual reality that the vast majority believe in; blue is blue, grass is green, etc. I cannot understand what you don't realise this.

Anywho.



> this problem of interpretation directly relates to our respective "isms." any sensory input we receive can literally be interpreted in countless ways. i don't think i need to trot out overused examples of how "we could all be in 'the matrix'" etc.


Exactly. That is the fundamental issue here. As I said above, the vast majority of people live in a consensual reality, where we agree on most things. Do you cross your eyes when you cross the road? Do you trust, believe or have faith that you might not get knocked over? Is this a question of semantics?

I also have a slight inkling that you are suggesting that atheists, because of their lack of faith, are immoral? Did I read you correct? If so, you couldn't be more wrong. Atheists are free. They are free to enjoy this life because we know it's the only one we have. We make purpose for ourselves, to love, to choose. It astonishes me, even in this day and age, that the word atheist can be confused with pyschopath. Some people can't say the word. That have to spit it out.



> you don't accept the logical conclusions of atheism or materialism


Pardon? What do you think are the logical conclusions of atheism? Murder? I haven't killed anyone. Child abuse? Not me. Nor have the overwhealming majority of atheists, or rather - humanists. Or perhaps you are refering to morality, and the slow, creeping destruction of our planet. All the fault of the atheists? People are just people. Some atheists might be psychopaths, but let us shudder at the thought that some religious might be. And yes, forgive me, that was sarcasm.

There are no logical conclusions to atheism. Because atheism is nothing.

You are obviously a highly intelligent person. But may I make a suggestion? Your, in you will excuse me, rather odd meshing of philosophy and christianity, seems to me to have clouded your judgement regarding morality. Instead of reading Neitzche, try Hume. And when you've got a moment, Candide. The best piss-take of religion of all time. 8) And for heavens sake, burn any book you've read by Kierkegaard and undergo some kind of hypnosis to erase his 'philosophy' from your memeory. The man, clearly, was barking mad.

Anyway, don't apologise for your long posts. They are very interesting reads. And I apologise for this short one, as I've got a hangover of biblical proportions and can barely think straight.


----------



## californian

martin, philosophy and drinking often do mix quite well.

philosophy and hangovers....not so much. your last post is evidence.  but i'll also excuse it as such. :wink: but i'd suggest reading over my last post again when you feel better. you have clearly misunderstood it regarding the morality of atheists and such.

but before i get to any rebuttal, let's at least have some relation to my original plea here. are we (see my last long post) in agreement on what the spirituality forum's place and purpose ought to be here or not? i hate to be the moderator here and keep this thread somewhat "on topic." 

i appreciate that you think i am "highly intellligent." please allow me to return the compliment. as for my "odd meshing of Christianity and philosophy" it really isn't that odd. the fact that you think so serves to confirm for me that you either really haven't been exposed to much in this realm (that is serious Christians who are serious about philosophy) or have been unduly dismissive of it when you've encountered it.

as you really seem to have 1) misunderstood my post, and 2) not really rebutted any of my points, i will try to keep this short and simply clarify/emphasize what i am trying to say.

CECIL and I understand you quite clearly. you choose to trust your senses. we do too. but this is still a choice made based on a consensual reality that you think is worth putting your trust in. but an appeal to a consensus or a majority doesn't PROVE anything. you simply choose to put your trust in it or not. as i stated before, i see God at work in all of the natural phenomena, you do not. it is simply a matter of interpretation of those phenomena.

i simply cannot stand it when anyone appeals to "consensus" or majority as supposed proof of anything. it irritates me most of all when my fellow Christians appeal to it to prove natural law or morality or God or anything else. but if we are going to appeal to consensus, then:

1) atheists/the irreligious are in a consensual minority. their interpretation of reality has a radical disconnect from the rest of the human population. as c.s. lewis has noted, the animist and the shamanist have much more in common with the monotheist than atheists have with anyone else. considering the demographics of groups that embrace atheism, it seems much more probably that atheism is simply the bastard child of bad religious systems. when Christianity or any other religion has wreaked a bunch of havoc and suffering, i.e. when that religion has failed at its task, atheism thrives. when those religions lose their power (and the misuse of it therefore is mitigated and declines) atheism also goes into decline. right now, for example, atheism is not on the incline in the West (or much of anywhere else). rather vague spiritualism/theism is on the incline. although the atheist typically doesn't hate this as much he/she still stands in disconnect from it.

2) the philosophers you cite (e.g. Voltaire and Hume, whom i could already sense were your favorites :wink: ) are not exactly viewed in the consensus of modern philosophy as holding defensible positions. empiricism in general is not a "consensus" favorite these days, and that is putting it lightly. you made a trenchant insight a few posts ago about the sad state of American religion (esp. Christianity). i agree. but i feel the same way about British philosophers--locke, hume, berkeley, some useful ideas (like all philosophers) but, in the end, simply indefensible.

again, i repeat i don't think my two points above PROVE anything. i am merely trying to demonstrate inconsistencies and to show that an appeal to consensus ultimately gets you no closer to proof. you still have to trust in that consensus (which is what faith means--that's what it means, sorry).

i have studied pascal, voltaire, rousseau, diderot, montaigne, la rochefoucauld and others (and in french to boot, which wasn't always fun). i find them all much more interesting and exciting and insightful about the human condition than those stodgy Brit philosophers you seem to be fond of. (i absolutely love British literature, however. it kicks butt on the frenchies if i may say so.) and if we're going to start giving out reading suggestions :wink: , may i suggest a couple. dostoevsky's "the brothers karamazov." it both skewers the dark and problematic aspects of Christianity and shows its hope and glory at the same time. you kind of remind me a lot of ivan. if you've read "the brothers karamazov" already, i'd love to discuss it with you. also, kant's "critique of pure reason" (although it is indeed one crappy read).

but please read over what i've said about atheism and morality again. i'm not saying that atheists are murderers or anything else. quite ridiculous. i even praised you for your morality/goodness. quite quite odd that you would think that atheists are immoral. rather i agree with you that they are free, they are by definition amoral--without morals. they can believe whatever they want. my point is that this can be constructed to validate what de sade and nietzsche believed about morality and throw it off altogether, including any care for love of the weak, downtrodden, oppressed. and there is nothing that any other atheist could do to give them a reason why they were wrong to do so and think so. you certainly have not given such a reason yet.

you do not follow the conclusions of nietzsche or de sade, apparently, because you choose not to. that's nice, very nice indeed. but why not just accept a sort of social darwinism? why not just kick back and not worry about anyone's suffering but your own and take it easy because you and all other suffering people are simply going to dissolve into oblivion anyway. it all really just doesn't matter in that case.

for me, i will continue to interpret that in the end three things matter and are very, very real...

faith, hope, love
the greatest of these is love


----------



## Revelation_old

Noting to do with the above replies but to answer the ORIGINAL 'plea'.
To quote one of the moderators:



> ...Bottom line this is not a religious site and I'm sure there are plenty out there who ban Martin types all the time. So if he's looking for spiritual comfort, he's on the wrong site. Freedom of speech is too important on this board and personally I find it refreshing compared to most places on the net.


My opinion in this decision does not matter (opinion stated in this thread). The majority of the moderators essentially agree with the quoted text.

I'm somewhat troubled personally by the replies of the moderators but they help me a great deal and their opinions matter to me.

No sub-category at this time.


----------



## californian

actually, revelation, i included the following in my last post. :wink:



californian said:


> but before i get to any rebuttal, let's at least have some relation to my original plea here. are we (see my last long post) in agreement on what the spirituality forum's place and purpose ought to be here or not? i hate to be the moderator here and keep this thread somewhat "on topic."


and i'm all for the secondary debate between martin and me on epistemology to be moved to a separate thread somewhere else.

as for the decision of the moderators all i really can say is...LOL.

1) why can't people understand that organizing forums to be about what they say they are has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech.

2) why do people who believe in freedom of speech hold a forum in secret to decide what to do about a plea i publicly registered

3) why do i only get a response from revelation, martin, and one other moderator who sent me a pm?

4) if freedom of speech means people can post whatever and go off topic what is the role of the moderator? to keep things on topic? or to simply go with what they "like" or "find refreshing"?

5) there are plenty of spiritual/religion forums but none on dp and spirituality out there.

the moderators all seem like very good people. i like this board. so i guess i'll just post a lot of spiritual topics and be part of the solution...


----------



## Guest

This what it says in the description of the contents of the Spiritual forum:



> Spirituality (God, Religions, New Age, etc.)
> Thoughts on the spirtual side of life: *how it may help in coping, how it may offer insights into depersonalization & derealization states, prayers,* etc.


This is in conflict with:



> ...Bottom line this is not a religious site and I'm sure there are plenty out there who ban Martin types all the time.* So if he's looking for spiritual comfort, he's on the wrong site*. Freedom of speech is too important on this board and personally I find it refreshing compared to most places on the net.


For clarity's sake, how does this compute?
Also, if I may, what does freedom of speach have to do with finding solutions to one's own personal DP state and wanting to heal that (for example) through the use of spirituality. I think they are two totally seperate matters.

One is intellectually discussing Spirituality/Religion, the other is practicing it. The practicing has nothing to do with freedom of speech.


----------



## Martinelv

To be frank, this whole debate is like the holy trinity of futility - Politics, Religion and Mental Health. There are no rights or wrongs.

I agree with Revelation and California, in this respect; If you want to talk about how your spirituality effects your DP, then fair do's. If you want to evangelise etc, then go to a religious site.



> if freedom of speech means people can post whatever and go off topic what is the role of the moderator? to keep things on topic? or to simply go with what they "like" or "find refreshing"?


1.) To keep things from descending into a slanging match.
2.) Delete posts that are personally abusive.
3.) Move topics to the appropriate forum.
4.) Ensure that the focus of this forum is DP/DR related - which in reality means......freedom of speech.

That's all. Your attempt at sarcasm, California, while admirable, is futile.


----------



## californian

thank you for your reply, wendy. finally, someone has actually addressed my actual concerns instead of shifting it to a freedom of speech debate when it is not.



Martinelv said:


> To be frank, this whole debate is like the holy trinity of futility - Politics, Religion and Mental Health. There are no rights or wrongs.
> 
> I agree with Revelation and California, in this respect; If you want to talk about how your spirituality effects your DP, then fair do's. If you want to evangelise etc, then go to a religious site.


absolutely in agreement with you here martin. this was all i ever said in my original post, anyway.



martinelv said:


> 1.) To keep things from descending into a slanging match.
> 2.) Delete posts that are personally abusive.
> 3.) Move topics to the appropriate forum.
> 4.) Ensure that the focus of this forum is DP/DR related - which in reality means......freedom of speech.
> 
> That's all. Your attempt at sarcasm, California, while admirable, is futile.


actually, it would have been futile if you hadn't responded.  your response demonstrates its utility.

all i am asking is that numbers 3 and 4 be actually carried out by the moderators. what is wrong with revelation's idea of creating an appropriate forum and moving things that are not dp/dr--spirituality related THERE?

this and only this, is the question that has still not been answered. the problem with bulletin boards is that people skim through posts and try and "get the gist" of them instead of actually carefully thinking about what has been said.

i'm not angry, i'm not brimming with sarcasm. i am incredulous and flabbergasted, however :lol:


----------



## Revelation_old

californian said:


> this and only this, is the question that has still not been answered. the problem with bulletin boards is that people skim through posts and try and "get the gist" of them instead of actually carefully thinking about what has been said.


I'm 100% guilty of this. Something I definitely need to work on before replying.


----------



## californian

we all do, revelation. i think i got better at it from having worked as a teacher for over a decade. you can't be much of a good teacher unless you are paying attention to what people are actually saying.

i'd just like to add, since martin brought it up, that it wouldn't be bad if points 1 and 2 of the job of the moderators would also be enforced. many of the slinging matches on this entire board have been not only participated in, but propagated by some of the moderators. some of the most personally abusive material on the board has been posted by some of the moderators (and i'm not JUST talking about martin).


----------



## Revelation_old

californian said:


> some of the most personally abusive material on the board has been posted by some of the moderators (and i'm not JUST talking about martin).


If you would show me (links) some recent examples of this via PM I would appreciate it.


----------



## Martinelv

Me too. I know I'm a sarcastic so and so, but I can't remember ever being personally abusive. Except to Revelation, who deserves every single crumb of it, the b******d. 8)


----------



## californian

Martinelv said:


> I know I'm a sarcastic so and so, but I can't remember ever being personally abusive.


this is the problem itself. please consider the following definitions of sarcasm:

from Webster's: a sharp often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain (e.g. tired of his contemptuous *sarcasm*)

from Webster's on "sarcastic": SARCASTIC implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding, taunting, or ridiculing.

from Oxford: a bitter or wounding expression or remark, a taunt, esp. one ironically worded

From a website about verbal abuse:
"Another important book in understanding verbal abuse is one that describes the phenomenon of "crazymaking." George Bach and Ronald Deutsch wrote Stop! You're Driving Me Crazy.{2} They describe what the crazymaking experience feels like. This includes "feeling temporarily thrown off balance," "feeling lost and not knowing where to turn," and "being caught off guard."
A victim is often the target of *angry outbursts*, *sarcasm*, or *cool indifference*. The abuser's reaction to these actions is frequently cloaked in a *"What's wrong with you?"* attitude. She is accused of "making a mountain out of a molehill." Over time she loses her balance and equilibrium and begins to wonder if she is the one who is crazy."

i could cite Wikipedia too, but that would be inviting sarcasm. :wink:

i do believe, however, that the above should indicate why rampant use of sarcasm has no place in a mental health forum, *especially from its moderators.*

what's done is done. i will, however, pm you, martin, with any future instances that i notice.


----------



## californian

i said:


> what's done is done. i will, however, pm you, martin, with any future instances that i notice.


i wanted to elucidate what i meant by "what's done is done." i mean that i am willing to assume that such abuse was given out in ignorance of what actually constitutes abuse. i do not know that this is the case, but i am willing to assume it. as a result, there is no need to rehash every instance of derisive sarcasm on this board. that would probably take several weeks to do, and my classes begin tomorrow. :lol:

as such, i am willing to pm with future instances.

it is important for everyone to keep in mind what it is like for people to first come to this board. healthy people do not stumble in here. often people find this board because they are at the end of their rope, quite certain they are going insane. when someone is on the brink like that, the last thing they need to find is derision. and it speaks much more loudly about the board when much of the mudslinging and derision is coming from people with the very official-looking "moderator" under their names.


----------



## Martinelv

To dig my self further into my grave, I notice, Californian, that you are from New York, Ameriiiiiiiiiica.

Sarcasm.

Hmmmm.

Perhaps you need to put that dictionary away and try and discover the true purpose of sarcasm. If you do, please tell me, because I cannot help myself. 'Derision' and Sarcasm are two entirely different things. I say this with authority, because I live in the country that gave birth to both. 

And that's not sarcasm, that's irony. Or is it? I can never remember.


----------



## californian

Martinelv said:


> To dig my self further into my grave,


it's not too late martin! just throw down the shovel. put it down right there in that shallow grave. okay. now kick a bunch of dirt on that shovel and run away.

see how easy it is? :lol:



Martinelv said:


> I notice, Californian, that you are from New York, Ameriiiiiiiiiica.


not to split hairs here, but i am not *from* New York, i merely live here temporarily against my preferences. (i do enjoy some aspects of it, however). my screen name, californian, is an homage to the fact that i am from California, and see myself as an expatriate from my homeland during this time. i'm much more loyal in my feelings to California than i am to America. 8)



Martinelv said:


> Sarcasm.
> 
> Hmmmm.
> 
> Perhaps you need to put that dictionary away and try and discover the true purpose of sarcasm. If you do, please tell me, because I cannot help myself. 'Derision' and Sarcasm are two entirely different things. I say this with authority, because I live in the country that gave birth to both.
> 
> And that's not sarcasm, that's irony. Or is it? I can never remember.


you know martin, i'm starting to think that logical debate with you is impossible.  it's just one ad hoc modification of either your thesis or of a word definition after another. you also are quite fond of such logical fallacies as "appeal to the majority" and ad hominem attacks. so i'll make you a deal--i'll put down the dictionary if you will abide by the rules of logic. if we can't agree on that then we really have no common ground for debate. 

as for sarcasm, it really simply is verbal irony used to insult/deride someone or something. you have a rather ironic sense of humor in general, which is good. you also have the tendency to use it to insult people, which is bad. ironic, satiric, sarcastic, sardonic. they're all related, but the last two ARE abusive when directed at people.

since we're on the topic of national origins, sarcasm, abuse, etc. i find it interesting that the British empire might have the record as the most abusive nation on a broad scale in the history of mankind. the romans, the mongols, (even my beloved byzantines) all are in the running too, of course. but since you noted the brits have invented sarcasm and derision there must be a connection with all around abusiveness. 

that said, America definitely seems willing to give the British record of abusiveness a run for its money. oh well, like father, like son...


----------



## Epiphany

Ok...I was going to keep my comments to myself about all of this but decided against my better judgement to throw in my 10 cents worth.

Despite the description of what this section is supposed to be for, I think everyone seems to be forgetting something important (something that seems to keep knocking me on the head to get my attention).

One of the things that seems blatently obvious to me is that a large number of us who have been affected by dp/dr and whatever else, seem to be afflicted with the existentialistic thoughts, the obsessive rumination about reality and existence and despite our differing views and opinions a particular love/hate of discussions/debates.

Therefore it doesn't seem that odd to me to have a section like this on a site like this or that a section titled Spirituality would initiate discussions on religion, philisophy, personal beliefs, faith, soul-cleansing, shamanisn, witch doctory, black magic or anything else to do with any slightly related topics. Perhaps the description in the title doesn't incorporate all of these but I don't think it is such a stretch of the imagination to see why any of these topics may relate to someone who has experienced dp/dr.

Personally, I think that someone who is very sensitive or easily slighted should steer clear of this section at all costs but from a moderators point of view I would imagine it would be very difficult to assess/censor everything posted and to be constantly on guard for anything that could cause issues, especially as there are many of us on here who do enjoy a good debate.

Also, can I just point out how easy it is for a topic to swing way off course. Californian and Martin...you have just emphasised this with your little conversation that has encompassed issues including religion, philosophy, national origins, sarcasm, derision, abuse, etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I always took it for granted that this section was for all things encompassing spirituality (which I interpret to include religion etc) and that discussions in this section were dp/dr related simply because many of us who have experienced it do question existence and reality which both seem very interlinked with an individuals personal religious / spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof).

Perhaps rather than a sub-section, a small amendment could be made to the section description instead if it would help clarify if deemed absolutely necessary. Just a thought.

Ok...think I'm done now.


----------



## californian

epiphany, i am very glad you chimed in here. i always find your posts interesting. you always have a very genuine and thoughtful approach.



Epiphany said:


> Despite the description of what this section is supposed to be for, I think everyone seems to be forgetting something important (something that seems to keep knocking me on the head to get my attention).
> 
> One of the things that seems blatently obvious to me is that a large number of us who have been affected by dp/dr and whatever else, seem to be afflicted with the existentialistic thoughts, the obsessive rumination about reality and existence and despite our differing views and opinions a particular love/hate of discussions/debates.


absolutely. it should be fairly obvious to everyone by now that i obviously have my own love of debate that i have indulged here with martin. i've affirmed the value of debate from the beginning.

this is why i thought that revelation's suggestion sounded great. why not have two sub-forums, one for spirituality of all kinds and another for questioning/debating/exploring? there has yet to be one single response to this simple suggestion of revelation.



Epiphany said:


> Therefore it doesn't seem that odd to me to have a section like this on a site like this or that a section titled Spirituality would initiate discussions on religion, philisophy, personal beliefs, faith, soul-cleansing, shamanisn, witch doctory, black magic or anything else to do with any slightly related topics. Perhaps the description in the title doesn't incorporate all of these but I don't think it is such a stretch of the imagination to see why any of these topics may relate to someone who has experienced dp/dr.


i figure that all of what you mention here is incorporated under the "etc." in the description. again, it seems pretty simple to just *organize *this section into two sub-areas. one for spirituality, one for religious discussion.



Epiphany said:


> Personally, I think that someone who is very sensitive or easily slighted should steer clear of this section at all costs but from a moderators point of view I would imagine it would be very difficult to assess/censor everything posted and to be constantly on guard for anything that could cause issues, especially as there are many of us on here who do enjoy a good debate.


as i mentioned above, i obviously enjoy a good debate. :wink: 
i think it would be difficult from a moderator's point of view to decide what to assess/censor. however, i also find frustrating when a moderator is propagating the problem. there is at least one thread on here where someone started by posting reasons he had thought of for why god might allow someone to suffer from dp. he was greeted by a response from a moderator sarcastically ridiculing what he had said. the next time the moderator chimed in on the thread, it included an ad hominem attack on the founder of his religion as a schizophrenic. aside from being a bad way of debating, it is disrespectful to adherents of that religion, as well as disrespectful to schizophrenics.

i am not an adherent of islam. i am not a "fan" of that particular religion. but i would never attack someone expressing muslim spirituality on here with sarcasm or by attacking the character or mental stability of mohammed.

as such, a good start would be for a general refrain from abusive attitudes out of moderators. (of course, i dont mean all of them are abusive). simply acting as moderator rather than aggravator would be a great start.



Epiphany said:


> Also, can I just point out how easy it is for a topic to swing way off course. Californian and Martin...you have just emphasised this with your little conversation that has encompassed issues including religion, philosophy, national origins, sarcasm, derision, abuse, etc.


  thanks for bringing back on topic! :wink:



Epiphany said:


> I guess what I'm trying to say is that I always took it for granted that this section was for all things encompassing spirituality (which I interpret to include religion etc) and that discussions in this section were dp/dr related simply because many of us who have experienced it do question existence and reality which both seem very interlinked with an individuals personal religious / spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof).
> 
> Perhaps rather than a sub-section, a small amendment could be made to the section description instead if it would help clarify if deemed absolutely necessary. Just a thought.


that would be another solution, and one that i've already mentioned in this thread. however, i'd be curious as to your opinion, epiphany as to why this would be a better solution than just two sub-forums as rev suggested. i really would appreciate any elaboration you might have on this subject.


----------



## ahriman

I found this website several years ago and felt it, at the time, to be somewhat of a solace to what I was experiencing. Most valuable was a section dealing with the spiritual dimension of the "dp" question, though it was underused and maligned. This was unfortunate because I hold this experience to be deeply connected to religion, spirit, or whatever moniker one wishes to apply to an inner experience.

It seems rather bizarre that Martin has persisted in his one man crusade against "religion" and "spirituality". It's like George Bush rattling on and on, ad nauseum, about terrorists and WMD's, or the rabid homophobe fearing that which lurks inside himself. That a site about mental health should not also be host to persons with questions about their personal inner life is purely a statement of personal choice. To rant about this point for so many years leads me to believe that Martin has obviously had some very bad experiences with religion and consequently has thrown any and all questions about spirituality and inner life into the dumpster. It is his prerogative. I respect his distaste for religion.

I've never subscribed to the church and detest any effort to organize and structure what is inherently, as a consequence of being, who we are. That doesn't mean I don't have questions about what this life is about and why I'm here.

Perhaps I am just a bunch of chemical reactions responding to environmental influences. Nevertheless, isn't it wonderful how all this mindless randomness, the blind watchmaker's folly, enables me to write these words? I marvel at the amazing confluence of colliding molecules that positions me in front of my classroom of happy, curious, shining accidents that I teach every day. I ponder at the experiential difference between sitting in a traffic jam or sitting by the waterfall near my house. Why do I care to even write these words to Martin or this site in general? Is it passion? Or random chemical firing simulating the experience of something important ala the Matrix? Things to think about, these questions that the Greeks attributed to the daemon inside each of us.

For people who find it difficult to accept that they have an inner life, I would suggest they not expend their energy excoriating organized religion and give themselves an opportunity to get out of their heads and into their heart. It is a painful process, take it from me, because to feel is to be vulnerable.

I know about "dp". I know that to ask one to _feel_ while in the midst of this is a joke, but this much I have discovered in the many years since finding this website: dp is not an illness, though it will leave you feeling ill at ease. The MD's and neurologists have no answers for you beyong what they can extract from your wallet. This is your quest and your mystery. Call it spirit, call it religion, call it hell. This life is what you make it, random as may be.


----------



## signalroom

ahriman, thank you for your post. I thought it was very well put. I also came onto this board several years ago, and the spirituality forum helped me more than all others to learn to live with the shift in my consciousness I called "no self."

there seem to be layers and layers of fear surrounding this fundamental experience of "no self." It is only faith that enables me to keep going, an intuition that the very center of this void is Love. I have experienced such frightening darkness in myself, such lack of love, but the thought "I am nobody" is losing its power, thanks to allowing God and a human friend into my lonely mind.

How many years did it take for me to be able to say, "I'm not doing very well today, I could use a hug" ? Then, there is such a rush of good feeling and connectedness, I realize, there is no power in illness next to THIS.


----------



## Homeskooled

This has been a very beautiful thread. I very much agree with your thoughtful idea of putting an appendix onto the description of this sub-forum, Epiphany _and_ of our Moderators respecting it more, Californian.

But look at what the two gentleman above me have written. I find their two posts to be very, very insightful (and not that you, Epiphany, or you, Californian, do not write such things, but you write so many of them that it would be redundant of me to continually comment!) They have not written much in their time on the forum, and what they have said really comes from their hearts.

For all of you who fear that this world is a random accident, that the worth of all of their actions is stripped away because we are simply the sum of our chemical reactions, read this, from the heart of a schoolteacher:



> Perhaps I am just a bunch of chemical reactions responding to environmental influences. Nevertheless, isn't it wonderful how all this mindless randomness, the blind watchmaker's folly, enables me to write these words? I marvel at the amazing confluence of colliding molecules that positions me in front of my classroom of happy, curious, shining accidents that I teach every day. I ponder at the experiential difference between sitting in a traffic jam or sitting by the waterfall near my house. Why do I care to even write these words to Martin or this site in general? Is it passion? Or random chemical firing simulating the experience of something important ala the Matrix? Things to think about, these questions that the Greeks attributed to the daemon inside each of us.


To imagine that we ARE simply blind chance makes the Loving accident that is us even more precious. I say imagine, because this is not the truth. The confluence of beauty that is us is the product of sheer joy and Love.

And of course, for Martin,



> For people who find it difficult to accept that they have an inner life, I would suggest they not expend their energy excoriating organized religion and give themselves an opportunity to get out of their heads and into their heart. It is a painful process, take it from me, because to feel is to be vulnerable.


I respectfully disagree, Ahriman, that DP is not a disease. It is. But the personalities that fall prey to it, the philosophical, sensitive, intuitive, introspective people who get it are not. Nor are these proclivities. I beleive they are very dear to 'God' and very susceptible to spiritual lies from the supernatural forces opposed to Him.

Lastly, I want both Martin and Rev to read this statement from Signalroom. For the untold amount of people helped by this modest sub-forum....



> I also came onto this board several years ago, and the spirituality forum helped me more than all others to learn to live with the shift in my consciousness I called "no self."


To paraphrase Epiphany and my own post in the Moderator's forum, spirituality and debate is an integral part of dealing with DP/DR.

And finally, I beleive this is a beautiful statement about the importance of being emotionally in tune with one's self, and most importantly, the power of opening up ourselves, in all of our faults, to the love of other humans and God, and the power it carries to heal illness:



> there seem to be layers and layers of fear surrounding this fundamental experience of "no self." It is only faith that enables me to keep going, an intuition that the very center of this void is Love. I have experienced such frightening darkness in myself, such lack of love, but the thought "I am nobody" is losing its power, thanks to allowing God and a human friend into my lonely mind.
> 
> How many years did it take for me to be able to say, "I'm not doing very well today, I could use a hug" ? Then, there is such a rush of good feeling and connectedness, I realize, there is no power in illness next to THIS


Very beautiful indeed. Thank you guys. You needed to be heard. To all,

Peace
Homeskooled

PS- It is a testament to the 'silent' readers of this forum that a thread not four pages long can garner 716 views.


----------



## californian

thanks for posting your thoughts here, homeskooled. i too think that the posts from ahriman and signalroom are quite important to pay attention to here.



Homeskooled said:


> This has been a very beautiful thread. I very much agree with your thoughtful idea of putting an appendix onto the description of this sub-forum, Epiphany _and_ of our Moderators respecting it more, Californian.


i think this would be an adequate solution if this were enacted. i'm still curious as to what the objections are to having a sub-division as revelation has suggested. again, i would be glad to hear your ideas and epiphany's regarding why you specifically prefer the "appendix" vs. the "sub-folder."


----------



## Epiphany

> i'm still curious as to what the objections are to having a sub-division as revelation has suggested. again, i would be glad to hear your ideas and epiphany's regarding why you specifically prefer the "appendix" vs. the "sub-folder."


Californian...I am not opposed at all to a subdivision...in fact, personally, I think it is a good idea and may in fact assist those new to the site with their explorations, questions and personal experiences regarding existence and spirituality, without having to wade through a plethora of religious posts that may not relate to their own experience (then again it could set off a whole series of new debates about which posts belong in what category :wink: )...my suggestion of an amendment to the description was simply based on Rev's earlier post regarding the decision made by the moderators not to create a sub-category at this time. I was only throwing in an altenative which I'm sure had already been discussed anyway.

It is great to hear from others who have found this section helpful to their experiences with dp/dr.


----------



## Martinelv

Sigh. I'm in a bad way today (hungover, having to stop the Klonopin and they found a lesion on my left temporal lobe from my MRI scan - bollocks) so I'll try and make myself clear once again, without being sarcastic, sardonic, ironic, or insulting.

I am all in favour of having a spiritual forum on here, where people come and discuss their DR/DP and the relation to their personal faith, looking for spiritual comfort. And I mean that. I DO understand that for those people who have faith in god/s it can give them comfort. GOOD!! In fact, I'm jealous.

What I am not against, and this is where I am at my most caustic, is when the people use this board to evangelise, prophetise for their particular religion.

But I have learnt my lesson. I'm not going to argue the point anymore, it's futile. Even though I'm a moderator, as an atheist and one who is accussed (sometimes rightly so) of insulting people, I'm outa this forum for good.

Big sighs of relief all around.


----------



## californian

Martinelv said:


> Sigh. I'm in a bad way today (hungover, having to stop the Klonopin and they found a lesion on my left temporal lobe from my MRI scan - bollocks)


i am very, very sorry to hear this, martin. i hope some good news comes your way soon. for what it's worth, my prayers are with you. i don't wish to convey that to you in any way that sounds condescending, provocative or like i'm giving you unwanted pity. if it gives you even a shred of comfort to know that people out there pray for you, great. if you simply think, "silly californian,"....that's fine, too.



Martinelv said:


> I am all in favour of having a spiritual forum on here, where people come and discuss their DR/DP and the relation to their personal faith, looking for spiritual comfort. And I mean that. I DO understand that for those people who have faith in god/s it can give them comfort. GOOD!! In fact, I'm jealous.


thank you for the sentiments you express here.



Martinelv said:


> What I am not against, and this is where I am at my most caustic, is when the people use this board to evangelise, prophetise for their particular religion.


as i've said before, i agree. the last thing people with mental instability need is to be shaken or taken advantage of because of that vulnerability.



Martinelv said:


> But I have learnt my lesson. I'm not going to argue the point anymore, it's futile. Even though I'm a moderator, as an atheist and one who is accussed (sometimes rightly so) of insulting people, I'm outa this forum for good.


as you are a moderator, i personally would hope that you would speak up if you believe that people are crossing the line into proselytizing. but if you feel that it is hard to do that without getting angry and insulting, and that it is truly best to stay away...well, you gotta do what you gotta do.



Martinelv said:


> Big sighs of relief all around.


i just thought i'd add here, martin, that from what i've read of your posts across this board, i think the two of us could get along quite well sitting in pubs having a few beers and discussing philosophy, religion, football, or whatever else. i truly hope that you find answers for how to heal your total person--body, soul, and mind.

God bless you and God bless your path...


----------



## Epiphany

> they found a lesion on my left temporal lobe from my MRI scan


What exactly does this mean for you Martin? Is this lesion operable, treatable? Do they know what caused it? Where do you go from here?


----------



## Martinelv

Thank you Californian.



> as you are a moderator, i personally would hope that you would speak up if you believe that people are crossing the line into proselytizing


Hmm. Because of my staunch atheism, I don't think that I, anymore, would be the appropriate person to moderate a religious forum. I have never deleted anything, whatsoever, from this forum, because I can imagine the avalanche of complaints. So I'll just leave it be and let the other mod's who, incidently, are mostly religious (one way or another), moderate this forum.

Epiph, my MRI brought up an ulceration, or a lesion on the top left hand side of my grey muck. There are two options apparently. I can have it removed (I don't know how) by surgery, or there is some kind of medication (I don't know what that is either) I can take. In any case, it's a tiny scratch on my brain, about half a centimetre long - and they are not even sure it has anything to do with my condition. But in the meantime I've got to taper off the Klonopin and go back to see the registrar once this (as she called it) poison is out of my system. My GP is well pissed off about it, because he wants me to stay on it, because they haven't offered any other kind of medication in the meantime. Ho-hum.

It wasn't fun, I can tell you that. I had to lie on a bed and was rolled into this sort of circular device, which make the most horrific sound you can imagine, like someone smashing up a car. Not fun at all. But there we go. Still, I got a good prize. I asked for a copy of my MRI. It's amazing. I can see my brain, and the detail is remarkable!!! I'm going to pin it up next to my bed.


----------



## Epiphany

Wow...heavy stuff. Do you feel a slight relief (not sure this is the exact word I'm looking for here) at possibly having something to go on now or has it just brought up a whole load of other concerns?

Make sure you keep us all updated. Plenty of us here who care how you're doing (and who just have a morbid curiousity and genuine interest in this sort of thing :wink: ).

Take care...


----------



## californian

yes, please do keep us updated, martin.

and i know what you mean about having a brain mri done. the sound is awful and on top of that i'm pretty claustrophobic and really hated being in such a small tube like that...

and i didn't even think to ask for a copy of the mri...


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
I am quite certain that the lesion has something to do with your condition. Brain lesions are never, ever, asymptomatic. Dont beleive the neuroligist if he says it is. I wouldnt have the surgery done. I would try the medication, especially if it is an anticonvulsant. Lesions on the brain are brain "scars". They occur when neurons kill themselves by overfiring - in your case, by overfiring in your temporal lobe and probably causing you that seizure, along with your DR and rage. It would have been nice if they had treated this all along with an anticonvulsant and saved you the trouble of getting a scar. I still recommend Lamictal and Neurontin as choices, and you might even want to give my porphyria diet a try. It definitely has the ability to calm down the temporal lobes in select people. MRIs were invented in the 1970s at my med school, the University of Pittsburgh. They really arent that bad Martin. I've had 5 or six of them. Of course, I'll probably grow a third half to my brain, but until that occurs, I too get to look at the photos. I have the films for all five, and I've gotten quite good at reading them and crossreferencing the different parts of the brain. I have issues.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

Thanks for your concern everyone, and you sage advice Homeskooled. For once, I agree with you, although you know more than I. I went back to my GP again and he was furious, because the Neurologist said that I could get off the Klonopin (2mg, 4 times a day!) in a week! My doctor actually went blue in the face. He said it was ridiculous, but after a rather heated conversation with the neurologist (who, incidently told me that Klonopin is never used for epilepsy - someone even I know is wrong), they agreed to cut me down to three a day, until the neurologist dreams up some alternative treatment.

I agree homey, the scans are incredible. The detail is remarkable.

Anyway, this is so off topic it should probably be moved! Feel quite good today. Another miracle has occured and I'm back with my Australian girlfriend. Although it's her birthday today, so I reckon she just wants a birthday prezzie. 8) Ha, she'll be lucky to get a card, I'm so skint. Still, got laid last night.


----------



## Homeskooled

This is when I become ashamed of doctors. You _should_ stay on Klonopin - the other anticonvulsants I'm recommending would just be an adjunct therapy. You may want to switch neurologists eventually.

Yes, MRIs are very beautiful indeed. The whirring, banging noises you heard were the magnets moving and changing their polarity. MRIs work by imaging water in the cells of the body. The magnets change their polarity something like a half-million times per second, and by doing so, they change the polarity/orientation of the hydrogen in your cells, causing readable vibrations of them by the sensors. It takes a fantastic amount of computing to make this turn into what you hold in your hands, but the detail is virtually on a molecular level, if you have sensors good enough. Its at least a cell by cell readout.

In any event, you really need to make it clear that solving this problem is one in the same with solving your psych problem, so they need to get on the ball with your treatment. Its been a long road, Martin, but the correct treatment of this could make you a happier, stabler person. And dare I say it, it might even give you hope. :wink:

Peace
Homeskooled

PS- You'd love to look at a functional PET or SPECT scan of your brain, which they might do now. They are even more beautiful. They've convinced me of the central importance of the temporal/parietal lobes in DP/DR.


----------



## Martinelv

Cheers Homeskooled. I'm continually astonished that you know so much about just about everything (and I'm being serious here) at such a young age. Remarkable. And yes, I'm seething with jealousy. Me and my girlfriend came second from last in a pub quiz the other night.



> And dare I say it, it might even give you hope


Ah, that's one thing I always have had, and hopefully, always will.


----------



## Epiphany

> I'm continually astonished that you know so much about just about everything (and I'm being serious here) at such a young age. Remarkable. And yes, I'm seething with jealousy.


Yeah HS...I second that. Forget The Sopranos...you could be the next generation's Dr Phil. What an awesome idea!!! I love it.
Just out of interest, do you have a photographic memory?



> Me and my girlfriend came second from last in a pub quiz the other night


Martin...tell your girlfriend she is doing us Aussie women proud!!!!


----------

