Received yesterday from a site visitor: “In this mornings entry on your site you said, ‘Even when certain ego-states had been generating levels of suffering that were beyond description, people mourn when their false (but familiar) roles can no longer be played.’ Youre wrong about suffering. Maybe Im playing the role of father and husband, but those are not making me suffer. I love everything about them.”
F.: So what you’re really admitting is that you love your self and you love your false roles. You’re also admitting that you love not being authentic and you love living an illusion. So be it.
Now, the discussion continues for those who would be free of self, of disingenuousness, and of belief in illusion. Whether the ego-state being assumed is “father,” “husband,” or any other, it is an illusion that will generate misery, if not now then at some point. Also, some persons who are absorbed in their false identities are already miserable but haven’t a clue. Depressed people often claim that they are not depressed because they have been depressed for so long that it has become their “norm.” Similarly, persons who are totally bored with their job will say “I love my job” since they have been bored for so long that their monotony "feels normal." Likewise, those who are trapped in their phony roles can claim that they’re happy and free while not being truly happy or truly free at all. It’s called “distortion” and “delusion” and it’s always about “self-deception”…about a false self that is using distortion to try to provide continuity for a phony image or for false images. Some never tire of the act; some do. For those who think they’re enjoying their play-acting, act on. Phoniness does exact an internal toll on persons with any consciousness at all, but for those who are totally asleep, no “effects” are noted. Conversely, for those who do tire someday of their phony performance, an avenue for change is offered.
That said, all ego-states are rooted in distortion, and one distortion is that ego-states and role-playing can be played without any relative effect (whether noted or not). That’s another lie. There’s always a relative cost, and the relative costs of assuming ego-states range from financial woes to serious illness to death, and that has been proved scientifically. Yes, role-playing kills. (Ask the detectives who investigate murders. They always look to “The Spouse” or “The Lover” as their first suspect because in the majority of cases, that is the one who killed as a result of being driven by the illusion that they were under attack when only an ego-state was disappearing.)
Research conducted by Dr. T.H. Holmes resulted in an exact method for measuring the effects of mental distortion, the effects of assuming ego-states, and the suffering that role-playing produces. Using his “Social Readjustment Rating Scale,” he assigned numeric values to different stressful situations and was able to show the correlation between assuming or forfeiting roles and the various levels of suffering that follow. His research proved that in each case where an ego-state was assumed or forfeited during a given time period, illnesses resulted that ranged from serious to life-threatening. Here are some of the point values assigned to various situations as a result of his research:
100 points if a spouse dies (resulting in the forfeiting of one or more of the survivor’s ego-states)
73 points if a divorce occurs (again, ending the playing of a role)
63 points if a marital separation happens (again ending the role of spouse)
63 points if one is sentenced to a jail term (thus assuming the role of “prisoner” and forfeiting other roles that could only be played if not in jail)
63 points if a family member dies (forfeiting another role in that instance)
50 points if marrying and
F.: So what you’re really admitting is that you love your self and you love your false roles. You’re also admitting that you love not being authentic and you love living an illusion. So be it.
Now, the discussion continues for those who would be free of self, of disingenuousness, and of belief in illusion. Whether the ego-state being assumed is “father,” “husband,” or any other, it is an illusion that will generate misery, if not now then at some point. Also, some persons who are absorbed in their false identities are already miserable but haven’t a clue. Depressed people often claim that they are not depressed because they have been depressed for so long that it has become their “norm.” Similarly, persons who are totally bored with their job will say “I love my job” since they have been bored for so long that their monotony "feels normal." Likewise, those who are trapped in their phony roles can claim that they’re happy and free while not being truly happy or truly free at all. It’s called “distortion” and “delusion” and it’s always about “self-deception”…about a false self that is using distortion to try to provide continuity for a phony image or for false images. Some never tire of the act; some do. For those who think they’re enjoying their play-acting, act on. Phoniness does exact an internal toll on persons with any consciousness at all, but for those who are totally asleep, no “effects” are noted. Conversely, for those who do tire someday of their phony performance, an avenue for change is offered.
That said, all ego-states are rooted in distortion, and one distortion is that ego-states and role-playing can be played without any relative effect (whether noted or not). That’s another lie. There’s always a relative cost, and the relative costs of assuming ego-states range from financial woes to serious illness to death, and that has been proved scientifically. Yes, role-playing kills. (Ask the detectives who investigate murders. They always look to “The Spouse” or “The Lover” as their first suspect because in the majority of cases, that is the one who killed as a result of being driven by the illusion that they were under attack when only an ego-state was disappearing.)
Research conducted by Dr. T.H. Holmes resulted in an exact method for measuring the effects of mental distortion, the effects of assuming ego-states, and the suffering that role-playing produces. Using his “Social Readjustment Rating Scale,” he assigned numeric values to different stressful situations and was able to show the correlation between assuming or forfeiting roles and the various levels of suffering that follow. His research proved that in each case where an ego-state was assumed or forfeited during a given time period, illnesses resulted that ranged from serious to life-threatening. Here are some of the point values assigned to various situations as a result of his research:
100 points if a spouse dies (resulting in the forfeiting of one or more of the survivor’s ego-states)
73 points if a divorce occurs (again, ending the playing of a role)
63 points if a marital separation happens (again ending the role of spouse)
63 points if one is sentenced to a jail term (thus assuming the role of “prisoner” and forfeiting other roles that could only be played if not in jail)
63 points if a family member dies (forfeiting another role in that instance)
50 points if marrying and
45 points if reconciling (thereby gaining or re-gaining certain false identities)
So the visitor who wrote the above wants to claim that roles don’t generate suffering, but scientific research proves otherwise. He might notice something about that role of “husband” which he claims that he loves to play: assuming the role of “spouse” has almost the same impact as going to prison! Note too that “getting back together” (re-assuming false roles that will have to be played once again) is almost as stressful as “getting separated” (and forfeiting roles that were being played).
The doctor’s research showed that if a person assumes or forfeits roles that total 250 points in a two-year period, the person is very likely to die. If persons assume or forfeit roles that total 150 points in that period, they are very likely to develop a serious illness. And to claim that “the effect of those changes only lasts for a short period” is to ignore other relevant statistics such as a 62% divorce rate in the U.S. and a 50% murder rate on average among persons whose relationships (and false identities) are ending.
So a pointer that has been offered before in several postings has been proved scientifically: (1) persons suffer when they assume ego-states, (2) they often don’t even have a clue that they’re suffering, and (3) when persons play roles, their game-playing often results in serious illness or death. Can all of that be dismissed as “relative existence stuff”? Of course, but as long as the I-Amness continues, why should one be "content" with it being marked by suffering and misery and illness and murder? WHO wants to set forth a defense for delusional living when its track record is beleaguered with those kinds of results, relativistic as the results may be? Please enter the silence of contemplation. [To be continued]
So the visitor who wrote the above wants to claim that roles don’t generate suffering, but scientific research proves otherwise. He might notice something about that role of “husband” which he claims that he loves to play: assuming the role of “spouse” has almost the same impact as going to prison! Note too that “getting back together” (re-assuming false roles that will have to be played once again) is almost as stressful as “getting separated” (and forfeiting roles that were being played).
The doctor’s research showed that if a person assumes or forfeits roles that total 250 points in a two-year period, the person is very likely to die. If persons assume or forfeit roles that total 150 points in that period, they are very likely to develop a serious illness. And to claim that “the effect of those changes only lasts for a short period” is to ignore other relevant statistics such as a 62% divorce rate in the U.S. and a 50% murder rate on average among persons whose relationships (and false identities) are ending.
So a pointer that has been offered before in several postings has been proved scientifically: (1) persons suffer when they assume ego-states, (2) they often don’t even have a clue that they’re suffering, and (3) when persons play roles, their game-playing often results in serious illness or death. Can all of that be dismissed as “relative existence stuff”? Of course, but as long as the I-Amness continues, why should one be "content" with it being marked by suffering and misery and illness and murder? WHO wants to set forth a defense for delusional living when its track record is beleaguered with those kinds of results, relativistic as the results may be? Please enter the silence of contemplation. [To be continued]
