[A Red Panda]

Sometimes (not always mind you) I really don't even know what I'm feeling. I'll be happy and depressed at the same time. Or I'll be happy about one thing while feeling depressed overall, and things like that. I don't even always know which is the real one, or if they're both real, or if I'm lying to myself to try to make things better.

It also happens with opinions - I very rarely think in black/white, and I tend to describe it like this: I'll have so many differing opinions and thoughts on one topic that it ranges from A all the way to Z, with all sorts in between.

I also never know how to describe myself. When introvert/extrovert comes out I never know. I usually say "I feel like an introvery but I act like an extrovert" because that's the closest I can get to it. I don't really know if it's my "normal" to be depressed, or my "normal" to be really social and hyperactive, or sort of just there. I don't know if I'm naturally talkative or naturally quiet. Depending on when someone meets me, they'll have different opinions on things like that about me.

Does anyone else ever get stuff like that?

Originally Posted by CheshireCatGrin

Does anyone else ever get stuff like that?

All the time! Thank you for articulating it so well.

[A Red Panda]

Honestly, I let out a huge sigh of relief when I read your post! I thought I wasn't making any sense at all.

[wildflowerchild25]

sometimes i feel like that, especially when it comes to opinions because i can see so many sides of an issue that i can't make up my mind! But my sense of self is pretty solid. but everything is tied to my mood. if i'm depressed i feel like a horrible person, if i'm baseline i feel normal, if i'm manic i feel awesome. so i never know who i'm going to be when i wake up. that's what sucks for me, i think.

but you are not alone!

[middlepath]

I feel like that often. Sometimes I think of myself like the ocean tides...lightly predictable, but always changing depending on time of day (or mood in my case : ).

[A Red Panda]

I really like your metaphor of the ocean tides... so much better than the image I had in my head about it.

I tend to view it like those balls that hold bingo balls. Everything's flying around inside like crazy, and one will randomly pop out and don't have a clue which it will be! hahahha.

[Dylanzmama]

I'm just grateful that I know what's not real or I'd be divorced and my 4 year old autistic son would be without a mother.
It doesn't mean I know what's real though!

[Kristiemarie]

Wow. Totally get the feeling like an introvert but acting like an extrovert.

[Nessa213]

I feel this way a LOT. I tell my friends sometimes that it's like being in a constant identity crisis. Or that I can never even trust myself anymore. I feel your pain.

[cool09]

I couldn't explain what I was feeling inside since 14 until I had a break with some medication at 32. I think I was so buried with all sorts of symptoms like anxiety, irritability, racing thoughts, depression that I was disconnected with myself. If someone asked me if I liked this or that I could not find an answer to save my life. And I could not relate to family or friends after 14 and that caused fantastic frustration and a number of breakdowns from 22-28. Paxil eased my symptoms, I became more connected to myself, was able to relax for the first time in years, started working FT then meds wore off after several years.

[Nammu]

Originally Posted by wildflowerchild25

sometimes i feel like that, especially when it comes to opinions because i can see so many sides of an issue that i can't make up my mind! But my sense of self is pretty solid. but everything is tied to my mood. if i'm depressed i feel like a horrible person, if i'm baseline i feel normal, if i'm manic i feel awesome. so i never know who i'm going to be when i wake up. that's what sucks for me, i think.

but you are not alone!

I fight sleep because I often wake up in another mood--yer right it sucks.

I've heard it expressed as "just going round and round". It's too much concern about
individual things and not enough about peace and "whatever will be will be" for me.

[Millenium]

Originally Posted by CheshireCatGrin

Sometimes (not always mind you) I really don't even know what I'm feeling. I'll be happy and depressed at the same time. Or I'll be happy about one thing while feeling depressed overall, and things like that. I don't even always know which is the real one, or if they're both real, or if I'm lying to myself to try to make things better.

I have this too, but I think this is relatively normal, as mixed feelings and moods are described in many novels - they seem to be part of human experience. I think both are real, plus many people tend to stick to something positive of the day and regurgitate it in their mind to get along better with the sad things.

About the opinion thing - I have found out that the more complex a topic is and the more pros and cons pile up, the more difficult it becomes to come to a conclusion. For these kinds of things, being unsure about what to think about something means either you don't want to form an opinion for lack of information, or that you have so many pros and cons that it's difficult to pick a side.

Sokrates or Platon when he was old said: "I only know that I know nothing."

and I think this is what he meant. Indeed, I often get the impression that people who form a fast opinion and never re-evaluate it are... well boring, previsible and often shallow, plus often not very bright. I think this has more to do with intelligence (real intelligence, not the kind of "good at learning for school" thing) than with being bipolar, though your mood might play into it too.

It is also a cultural thing. In western civilization, we are used to a thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach, this comes from the ancient Greeks. It means you pile up the pros and cons and evaluate them and then you have to draw a conclusion. The Jewish way, e. g. in the Talmud, is different: thesis-antithesis and thats it. They pile up pros and cons and leave it to the reader how he will decide, or if he will leave the question unanswered altogether for himself and NOT pick a side - it is a more open approach.

You DO NOT have to pick a side.

Moreover, the western culture has a tradition of dualisms, such as

culture - nature
white - black
male - female
mind - body
etc.

where things are regarded as belonging either on one side or the other, one being superior over the other, and these things have the corresponding side of some of the other dualistic attributes belonging to them. This means, if something is inferior in one regard, it tends to get the other inferior attributes stuck to it, and the same goes for superior attributes. You can see this e. g. in medieval and up to today convictions that women can use their minds less than men, are more sensual than men, belong more to nature whereas the culture comes from men etc. These dualisms are very ingrained in western culture and there are plenty of them, and being bipolar just doesn't fit in as the mood changes from one side to the other and one is not "crazy" (inferior) all the time.

Other people who don't fit neatly into an either-or-category experience often experience a struggle on the way to find their identity and who they really are as there is no predefined category for them in our society. However, once they find their identity they tend to be more open-minded about other things which usually get squeezed into 2 boxes.

Maybe this plays into it as well in your case? As I don't know if it's really "the only right way to be" that one is equally extrovert or introvert no matter who you deal with and what your mood is and how tired you are. I think being bipolar might play into this identity trouble thing, though.

Now, being extrovert on the outside and introvert on the inside, this can also be a cultural thing. There are different regions in Germany where people tend to be different (mind you, a country just as small as Tennessee or something like that!). The Colonians are known to be like that, many of them, it's just the mentality of the city. Very easy to come into contact with, but they won't open their heart to you easily or tell you much private stuff unless you're really good friends, my parents lived there for a couple of years. You might blend in there very well.

Sometimes it's difficult to sort out what is due to being bipolar and what is due to being a human being, and I don't know how it is in your case but sometimes I tend to see everything through the "it's all because of your disease" glasses. Which are not empowering. Moreover, once you look over to other cultures you might find out that not all what is considered "normal" or "abnormal" in one culture is so in other cultures too. Thinking or being outside the box is often sanctioned in a culture, and it is difficult to rid oneself of the prejudices.

I hope this and the other postings are of some help for you and wish you a good sorting out of things.

To quote you: " These dualisms are very ingrained in Western culture and there are plenty of them, and bipolar just doesn't fit in as the mood changes from one side to the other
and one is not 'crazy' (inferior) all the time." I was with you for a while there, but your
views are too narrow to my way of thinking. Sorry. I can't ignore the best of the bipolar
personality to bend to this kind of thinking.

Do you really believe that people like Beethoven, Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Emily Dickinson, Charles Dickens, Ernest Hemingway, John Keats, and thousands of other artists didn't "fit in" and were "inferior" (crazy) when in an episode? These artists captured the best that culture had in their ages and were geniuses. People really do reveal themselves when they start making judgmental statements.

It is true that geniuses are often isolated from the rest of society because their thinking and
creativity are far above the capacity of the general public. Did you know that more artists who have won the Nobel Peace Prize for literature have been bipolar than all other winners in the
literature category?

You've missed it on this one, I'm sorry to say, because the bipolar personality is not inferior.
It just may be that many of them are far more intelligent even in their worst moments than
the general population is at any given time.

How is it that you single out Western culture as having dualisms? What about the Yin Yang
theory of Chinese or the duality of good versus evil in many other cultures?

Be wary of stigma; it is usually present where there is a lack of knowledge about the human
brain, its capacity, chemistry, intelligence, spirituality, tastes, and many other aspects,
including compassion, care, love, and respect for people, period.

It was Socrates who said that. Plato created the work that reveals Socrates' life; he was
a student of his master. It is true in the sense that what education teaches us is how
little we really know.

[Millenium]

Originally Posted by genetic

To quote you: " These dualisms are very ingrained in Western culture and there are plenty of them, and bipolar just doesn't fit in as the mood changes from one side to the other
and one is not 'crazy' (inferior) all the time." I was with you for a while there, but your
views are too narrow to my way of thinking. Sorry. I can't ignore the best of the bipolar
personality to bend to this kind of thinking.

Oops, there seems to be a misunderstanding. I do not think it's inferior, it was just to show the reasoning according to the mentality that packs all into 2 boxes and always needs a superior and an inferior one. I am not a native speaker, so maybe I did not formulate this clear enough, I thought it was clear from the context how I meant it, that it is not my personal opinion that it is inferior. Also, I am no native speaker.

I wrote specifically about the Western culture not mentioning all the other cultures that have a similar dualism or that don't have it as I do not feel I know enough about them to dare write stuff about them, and my posting was very long anyway so that's the culture I wrote about.

And, about the artists and geniuses who were very creative in their manic phases, there might also have been a shift during the last century how such creativ manic phases of great artists and geniuses are perceived, at least in the medical world. If nowadays someone were such a genius, needing manic phases to create great works, and would tell this the psych ward or their psychiatrist and that they want to go off meds and become manic for their art or science, I think their wish would not be supported or accepted. What do you think?

I can't support these views, certainly not from an artistic standpoint. If you only knew
about creativity and about how the creative mind works, you might have a greater appreciation of artists and their gifts to the world.

Even in the field of psychiatry two leading writers whom I have read are concerned about the possible tragedy of loss in creative genius in bipolar patients and the loss to society of their invaluable contributions. (That is, in medicating them for episodes of manic thought and/or depression.)

The major problem is that most of the world, outside the fields of where there is the
greatest amount of education and training, are unaware of giftedness that can occur
in bipolar illness. Among those who are learning, I've read that people are seeing their psychiatrists hoping for a Bipolar Illness diagnosis because they are reading that there
is in many a gift, especially in the arts. At least one member on a forum has said that
her psychiatrist was seeing many people who came in requesting a diagnosis of bipolar illness because they understood there was so much talent there! Who's not very wise? Isn't it the general population? While there's no such thing as "normal", because of numbers, perhaps,
the general population could fall into that concept. Someone on the forum has suggested
that it is no great attribute to be considered "normal" in a society that is severely sick.

First and foremost, bipolar illness is not one of intelligence; it is a mood disorder.
If you look at the work of Da Vinci or Michaelangelo, you don't get the impression that either of them worked while in a manic state. In fact, they both spent years studying and examining virtually everything in their fields of ability that led to their ultimate creativity and design. There is what is called a "flow" in creativity that is not insanity.

Artists like Emily Dickinson, whose works are created from the depths of emotions that many
sensitive people relate to and feel, uses images that are so poignant that they could not possibly be coming from a mind disordered. There is so much misunderstanding of the nature both of the depression and manic thought in the mind of genius. It's almost as if the artist creates despite, not out of the chaos, of emotional disorder.

Sorry, you made a brave effort in my view, but it just isn't inclusive enough to give
the positive view that many, many have toward the artist and his/her ability and work.

I don't believe that medical science will risk the damage to the brain of the gifted
by placing them in a position of complete loss of their creative inclinations, though some
have expressed dismay in the loss of their desire to be creative because of dampening of that flow by psychotropic medications.

God help the nation that loses its men and women who give expression to the depths of
human feeling.

[Millenium]

Originally Posted by genetic

I can't support these views, certainly not from an artistic standpoint. If you only knew
about creativity and about how the creative mind works, you might have a greater appreciation of artists and their gifts to the world.

Even in the field of psychiatry two leading writers whom I have read are concerned about the possible tragedy of loss in creative genius in bipolar patients and the loss to society of their invaluable contributions. (That is, in medicating them for episodes of manic thought and/or depression.)

Once again, total misundestanding

This is exactly what I wanted to hint at in my last paragraph. I did not "evaluate" or "disappreciate" their work, but just said neutrally that "there might have been a total shift in the evaluation of manic phases of geniuses, at least in the medical world."

No misunderstanding.

The moment you made the comment that "one is not 'crazy'(inferior) all the time", you
placed a strong judgment on the thought and behavior in the illness. My effort has
been to counteract the narrowness of that kind of thinking.

I think the defense is adequate.

[Millenium]

You got me wrong. The comment about 'crazy' and being inferior did not refer to MY opinion but to how I think these dualisms work.

If I really wrote it so badly that it was misunderstood, so be it so. Did you really read it through thoroughly?

Please stop accusing me of opinions which I don't have and have explained to you already that it is not my personal opinion but me reporting about opinions. And stop going on belittling me for opinions that I don't have but you accuse me of having. You are attacking a straw man here.

I will leave this thread here now as this strawman discussion does not help the thread opener in any way.

There is no clever fallacy here, as in the meaning of "Straw Man". I don't think I got you
wrong; I think you didn't think, perhaps, deeply enough about what you were saying to
start with.

What's the purpose in "dualism" of "black-white", "male-female", etc., except to indicate as you
did that it means "2 little boxes" in which one is superior and the other must be inferior. Don't you realize that you are projecting your own concepts as a reality? Whatever it suggests, your meaning attached to it is from you, not from the hearts of people who don't think in such a way. I might as well suggest such a thought as in "righthanded or lefthanded" as a dualism. Ironically, such a ludicrous prejudice did exist in earlier civilizations in which one or the other hand was supposed to indicate a healthy and the other a sick individual. One would hope that we have evolved a good bit since that time.

I've defended my position adequately, and I am dropping it, also, as a defense for bipolar
intelligence and creativity and the contributions to art and civilization, in at least a couple of passing references to the Renaissance in Italy and to the Romantic period in England and a
couple of references to the United States, i.e., Ernest Hemingway--oh, and F. Scott Fitzgerald,
Eugene O'Neill, among many, many others in the 20th century, too innumerable to name here.

Goodbye.

[Nessa213]

Wow. I just wanted to add something coming from the direct perspective of someone who considers herself an artist. (Me!) Anyway...

I've been an artist my whole life. Literally. And I don't really feel mania influenced my ability to be creative as much as it influenced my ability to create. If that makes sense. I'll produce MORE during a mania/hypomania but I'm still an artist at the core. I might see things differently at different times, but I don't have to actively be in a mania to create it.

To be fair, I'd also like to add that for a while I really did credit my mania with a lot of my creativity. But even on the most stable of days I still have the drive. I call mania my muse... this is true. But an artist even without a muse is still an artist.

Just my two cents.

Yes, Nessa, it makes really good sense.

I think also that the muse can be a kind of spiritual guide that hovers over
the art guiding the artist. I remember watching a video of Picasso painting a picture
and he was constantly adding new depth and vibrant colors. With each
addition the work became more beautiful. That isn't mania--that's high
intelligence and another ingredient that I believe is essential in the artist:
a very strong sensitivity to almost everything.

Pearl Buck, in her description of the artist, hits it all clearly on the head, in
my view.

Very nice explanation, thank you.

[Millenium]

I need to write an answer to this because I don't want wrong assumptions about me to keep stuck on me.

Originally Posted by genetic

What's the purpose in "dualism" of "black-white", "male-female", etc., except to indicate as you
did that it means "2 little boxes" in which one is superior and the other must be inferior. Don't you realize that you are projecting your own concepts as a reality? Whatever it suggests, your meaning attached to it is from you, not from the hearts of people who don't think in such a way.

Please STOP repeating false assumptions about me. I don't project my own concepts as reality here.

1. I did not say that this dualism is reality, but that it is a way things tend to be perceived in the Western culture. Note the difference.

2. This concept is not from me, nor did the act of describing the concept stem from me. Now I finally remember the exact word, it was dichotomy not dualism and it is NOT my private concept. In university, it is tought that dichotomy is a concept which is often found in Western civilization. It is not tought that it is reality. Just a concept how things are perceived. Also, this concept gets deconstructed sometimes. You might look up my postings again, I never said it was reality! I just described the concept, and it was in this context that I wrote the thing you first found offensive for taking it as my personal conviction (which it isn't). So stop throwing mud at me, attacking me for things I did not say, and stop going on and on pretending I would defend this dichotomy concept as being reality. I DON'T DO THIS.

It is not my personal invention, look up the Wikipedia "Dichotomy" entry for a start (I cannot post the direkt link because I am a new member):

Perceived Dichotomies are common in Western thought. C. P. Snow believes that Western society has become an argument culture (The Two Cultures). In The Argument Culture (1998), Deborah Tannen suggests that the dialogue of Western culture is characterized by a warlike atmosphere in which the winning side has truth (like a trophy). In such a dialogue, the middle alternatives are virtually ignored.
In sociology and semiotics, dichotomies (also sometimes called 'binaries' and/or 'binarisms') are the subject of attention because they may form the basis to divisions and inequality. For example, the Domestic-public dichotomy divides men's and women's roles in a society; the East-West dichotomy contrasts the Orient and the Occident. Some social scientists attempt to deconstruct dichotomies in order to address the divisions and inequalities they create: for instance Judith Butler's deconstruction of the gender-dichotomy and Val Plumwood's deconstruction of the human-environment dichotomy.

So you see, other people before me have described this phenomenon. I hope you don't look down on them as being "narrowminded" for having put to paper that they described that in Western culture, dichotomy can often be found as a concept (again: not reality). Describing a mentality does not automatically mean you share it and take it for granted.

Originally Posted by genetic

I might as well suggest such a thought as in "righthanded or lefthanded" as a dualism. Ironically, such a ludicrous prejudice did exist in earlier civilizations in which one or the other hand was supposed to indicate a healthy and the other a sick individual. One would hope that we have evolved a good bit since that time.

Until the 70ies, left-handed kids at school in Germany have been forced to use their right hand for writing. It is still considered impolite to give someone your left hand for shaking hands, and children in Germany are taught: "Give him your beautiful hand" which means the right hand. In German, you have "two left feet" if you don't have a good coordination and move awkwardly. In language, the left-right thing is still alive (you can be right or wrong, but not left or wrong). Women's rights took a long time in the 20th century until it bekame more or less okay etc. So it's not "earlier civilizations" you are talking about, but this dichotomy is a phenomenon which is still not wiped out from the planet and the people's minds.

The condescending way you treat me here for pointing to the existence of a certain mentality, NOT REALITY!!! which moreover has been described by many people before me and your refusal to look up what I ACTUALLY wrote and your ongoing way of belittling me for things I DID NOT SAY is really annoying me. Moreover, the ironic thing is I share your opinion about artists etc. and would subscribe to your postings, but you go on pretending that I have no appreciation for art.

I cannot understand why there is so much negativity in a forum which should be for help and support.

Can you tell me how your epistle was purporting to be helpful to bipolar patients? Where is the positive thinking in statements like the ones I have already pointed out to you?

There is a great difference between the meaning of dichotomy and dualism. The best
thing you had to say was that you do not write for a Western culture, or something
similar. I wonder how the artists of your country feel about your expressions.

In your thread you gave no indication whatsoever that you understood art, the artist,
bipolar illness, or compassion for those who share a mood disorder.

How on earth can the "existence of a certain mentality" not be considered a reality?
Ask a bipolar person that question.

As for reasoning capacity that is flawed or in error, (in reference to the "straw man") you have to be referring to yourself; that borders on abuse...are you even aware of
that? I doubt seriously that you have a degree from any university or college, and
yet you purport to have the same views of art and artists having not once expressed
a realization that their creativity in manic-depressive illness is not an "inferior" standard,
nor is their creativity necessarily the outcome of manic states. I pointed out quite
clearly that their creativity is often despite a mood disorder, not because of a mood
disorder. You simply ignore anything that is not consistent with your presentation.

Not only do you not share the view of art and artists presented here by another, but
you have no idea regarding how creativity even occurs in artists. It is difficult to
fully understand how creativity occurs, but much information is out there now that
is helpful. Nothing is more instructive than the explanation given by an artist, as
Nessa describes.

I will end my effort to defend the Western culture--which is not that which you describe for many here--by saying that arrogance is largely the result of ignorance and that you know very, very little about art, artists, and creativity from your written word or how to help bipolar personalities with your expressions. I may never forget the idea that manic-depressive illness in manic conditions makes people "inferior". What arrogance and insulting assumptions!

The best thing that has been said in regard to this thread is Nessa's view; she is an artist
and knows the truth about creativity and reveals the subtle qualities and essentials that help to make the artist who he/she is. One of those qualities is sensitivity often strong sensitivity
which many bipolar patients feel.

Why don't you start anew by learning what creativity is? Please see Pearl Buck's description
of creativity or the artist. That might enlighten you somewhat on how your approach veers
severely from that of the creative artist and from many ideals held in Western culture. It
might also give you some sensitivity which is lacking in your thread.

I wouldn't advise that you try for a degree in the arts while you are at a college or university.

I may be cut off for this, but I say to hell with ideas presented in your thread.

I thought this was supposed to be a support group??!! the way that the poster Genetic is tearing down Millenium, just cuz Genetic doesn't agree, is terrible.

I don't care how right you think you are Genetic, You can't tear someone down this way!

Not everyone is going to agree on here. No need for the attacks. I really don't give a rats *** if you think you are in the right or not.... You are tearing down a person who has tried to keep not only the peace, but their opinion too. Knock it off.