I Am Two People

I have concluded that I’m not a what the common, contemporary description of me or anyone else would describe a person as.

I’m at the point that I don’t hear voices outside of my immediate self anymore, but I have voices that are within myself.

I also have a lot of non-verbal voices. I always have, but they were much more difficult to parse from everything else that was running amok in my mind. Of course verbal voices will be much louder than non-verbal ones until verbal ones are rarer and only from within myself.

But the point here is that it really feels like I’m more than one person as though my brain is resident to more than one personality.

What does anyone think about this? Is there any news or science that anyone knows that could give me a clue about it all? I’m looking for leads for my personal enlightenment, and I figured I’d start here first.

Thank you

1 Like

I some-times get that, when I hear many voices, it gets confusing, but, only rarely. When it gets bad, try, to rest …

I suspect that because I had been religious and believed in telepathy things thus supporting my scz for so many years that I had conditioned myself to be this way in my scz temporal state which in a way is like an environment or sub-environment, pseudo environment, but absolutely an irrational state of mind.

I think it may be residual. Being scz for me has meant being in a telepathic pseudo world in my mind where my brain performs what I am and what others are that I was in contact with telepathically.

Now wait. I do not believe in telepathy no more than I believe in time travel. They’re impossible phenomena. I digress here, but it is amusing that scz cases never involve a scenario where the patient believes that he or she had time traveled. That pseudo phenomenon never comes up on the scz’s. Only the pseudo phenomenon of telepathy does.

But anyway, back to the point.

My brain has been role playing deities, spirits, and telepathic people and animals for many years, so I have to assume that it is just in that kind of mode of duality where it is not me while it is me at times which is what schizophrenia means (split mind), and it is also just me and not split at all. And it’s mostly quite and non-verbal now, but there are still voices from within me rather than from around me or from people and things outside of me. So I think this is progress towards rehabilitation.

1 Like

I have telepathy, as well. It doesn’t bother me that much, occasionally, the sex is * Great *…

I need to be clear about the telepathy comments of mine. I have no telepathy, and no scientific methods have ever proven it exists. It’s more like religious fable or literary art craft. I’ve done a lot of research on this, and it is just not possible since there is no organ or appendage for carrying that task out.

But I believed in religion, and thus I believed in telepathy. Even though I stopped believing in telepathy I was still religious, and therefore I still believed it was possible, thus my scz continued at full throttle.

Everything cleared up very, very much when I disproved my religious beliefs with logic and the history of religions and forms of government.

Basically the bouts with make believe, pretend, assumed telepathic voices vanished, but I am still left with this residual effect where my brain tends to shift into someone else mostly without any voices at all, and then shift out of that mode as if I’m two people with one being an idiot or a jerk to the other one that is who I feel I am.

It’s a very strange phenomenon.

I wondered if anyone real has any experience or information they can share about this.

1 Like

I started affecting things around me, when I meditated. At first it was rare, now, I live with it, constantly. I think it has to do with intense feelings, they can easily flare, and, ‘discharge’ into others. I’ve accepted it as real and, try and find Good uses, for it …

Religious beliefs made my psychosis worse.
When I was 24 I believed that God wanted me to restore the Mormon church.
Then I believed that God wanted me to kill myself so I could be in Heaven with the other saints.
I no longer spend my time thinking about spiritual things.

1 Like

I know sci fi liturgies are used to orient the way that the mind works and how that causes the perhaps disoriented states of mind. Essentially they are for making people scz to be frank about it. The only way to be immune to them is to occupy the mind with other people and occupations rather than practicing them through the “telepathic prayers/meditations” and through the “all seeing eye of telepathic deities etc.”

There’s a whole psychological mechanics science to it which only needs good marketing and even forced marketing by governments of old to get it into the youth for it to stick. I was turned onto the methods and the phenomena that the methods manipulate in people by studying government corruption and MK Ultra before backtracking to all of the religions including Egyptianism who appears to have had the first major one.

It’s about creating false light so to speak in the minds of the indoctrinated. It’s about getting the minds to grow up believing that there is telepathy from a young age, thus they have 6 senses rather than 5 senses. It’s not real, so what the mind winds up doing to compensate for this since it can’t tell that it is not real (“no one can prove it” they say), the mind must split in order to make it real. The mind has to be the religious ones in the beliefs, and it has to be oneself too. It’s a schizogenetic suggestegeon which was all researched and laid out in the mid 1900’s. It’s kind of the king’s knowledge so to speak for population control, so it’s not mainstream stuff. Usually it’s hidden for obvious reasons. And if you are born into it, you are trapped in it in a false, temporal state of mind until you find out the truth which many people never do. It sucks to be a human rather than any other species in these modern times on this grand plain of reality, and never have a real, true view of either one. Religions are considered mind prisons by the knowledgeable.

There are several psychologists who posit intrapsychic others – others in our mind

Adam Smith Impartial Spectator (and perhaps invisible hand)
Freud Super ego
Bakhtin Superaddressee
Hermans and Kempen Dialogical Self
Lacan Other
Derrida Ear of the Other
Nietzsche Spirit of Gravity
Mead Generalised Other
Buber Thou (This may be God-- I am not sure)
Rochat Other in mind (ecological ? or first person self)

Some of these theories are arcane but the majority are down to earth, claiming generally that we need an other to cognise our selves.

If anyone knows of any other others I’d be very interested.

When briefly psychotic a long time ago I felt I met another in or around me.

1 Like

i believed I had time traveled to 2355 when I was delusinal.


I thought I saw my death.

This is great and more than I was expecting. Do you have a source or a link that these came out of, or are you just so familiar with the names and perspectives that you can rattle them off the top like that? It’s really good.

Personally the word arcane is a misnomer for laziness and ineptitude. I find that many people’s perspectives today in literature like this are mislead, lazy, inept, and delusion or diluted which is not to say that people were any less this way in any year in the past no matter how many thousands of years go.

I also find that often the “antique analysts” are the most absolute in their objectivity which I think stems from the nature of their livelihoods and cultures which stem from the technological times they resided in. They built and thought to last through all no matter how hard it was tested, and that’s often how I read those antique statements. That seems different than the modern material in a technological time when the sentiment is impossible to exude because people who have the time and luxury of writing are so catered and comfortable that they cannot perceive as much. Well, the moderns are just not tested as much by the modern technological environment and the culture that emanates from it.

Now I know where to start google and youtube searching. Thanks Timtak.

Dear DMAdataANDmoodanalysis

I am very familiar with these theories and can rattle them off without consulting
anything but I give full references below.

When I was psychotic (30 years ago) It seem to me that I met someone in me,
or rather, that I was in someone else.

the word arcane is a misnomer for laziness and ineptitude
I used to think so, but recently I read a book that said that all this is a secret because
if you are told straight then you can get schizophrenia. It is a bizarre, conspiracy
theory type idea, that would claim that people in the know can send weaponised
email but, upon reflection, many religions and a few psychologists seem to be
hinting at same sort of “other,” so the hinting may not be laziness but of necessity,
so as not to drive people crazy, maybe.


Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds., V. W. McGee, Trans.) (Second Printing). University of Texas Press.
Blanke, O., & Metzinger, T. (2009). Full-Body Illusions and Minimal Phenomenal Selfhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 7–13.
Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., & Framo, J. L. (2013). Intensive Family Therapy: Theoretical And Practical Aspects. Routledge.
Brat, D. (2005). Adam Smith’s God: The End of Economics. Virginia Economic Journal, 59. (Original work published 1759)
Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou, trans. (W. Kaufmann, Ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Collins, P. (1982). You Can’t Hurry Love. Atlantic Records.
Dascal, M. (2006). Adam Smith’s Theory of Language.
Derrida, J. (1978). Edmund Husserl’s origin of geometry: An introduction. U of Nebraska Press.
Derrida, J., & McDonald, C. (1985). The Ear of the Other: Otobiography, Transference, Translation: Texts and Discussions with Jacques Derrida. New York: Schocken Books.
Eckhart, J. (1909). Meister Eckhart’s sermons. (C. Field, Ed.). London: HR Allenson.
Freud, S. (1912). Recommendations to physicians practising psycho-analysis.
Freud, S. (1913). Totem and taboo. (A. A. Brill, Trans.). New York: Moffat, Yard and Company.
Freud, S. (1961). The Ego and the Id. Standard Edition, 19: 12-66. London: Hogarth Press.
Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1993). The Dialogical Self: Meaning as Movement. Academic Press.
Jefferson, T. (1787, August 10). To Peter Carr Paris, Aug. 10, 1787. The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826. American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond.
Kurozumi, M. (2000). The Living Way: Stories of Kurozumi Munetada, a Shinto Founder. (W. Stoesz & S. Kamiya, Trans.). Altamira Pr.
Lacan, J. (1993). The Psychoses. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan. Book III 1955–1956. Edited by Jacques-Alain Miller. Translated by Russell Grigg. London: Routledge.
Lacan, J. (2007). Ecrits: The First Complete Edition in English. (B. Fink, Trans.) (1st ed.). New York: W W Norton & Co Inc. (Original work published 1966)
Løvlie, A.-L. (1982). The self, yours, mine, or ours?: a dialectic view. A Scandinavian University Press Publication.
Marková, I. (2006). On the inner alter in dialogue. International Journal for Dialogical Science, 1(1), 125–147.
Maynard, S. K. (2000). Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub Co.
Mead, G. H. (1967). Mind, Self, and Society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist (Vol. 1). The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1934)
Mingers, J. (1994). Self-producing systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis. Springer Science & Business Media.
Mori, A. 森, 有正. (1999). 森有正エッセー集成〈5〉. 筑摩書房. (Original work published 1979)
Palmer W., S. (1954). The Confessions of Jacob Boehme. Harper & Brothers, New York.
Rochat, P. (2009). Others in mind: Social origins of self-consciousness. Cambridge University Press.
Smith, A. (1812). The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Yamazaki, M. (Ed.). (1984). On the Art of the No Drama: The Major Treatises of Zeami. (J. T. Rimer, Trans.) (annotated edition). Princeton University Press.
Yusa, M. (1987). Riken no Ken. Zeami’s Theory of Acting and Theatrical Appreciation. Monumenta Nipponica, 42(3), 331–345.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.