Most profound sense of self

[Cathy L. Anderson]

I'm picking up here on a comment of CJ's in another thread.

By the same token, there are those of us out there who have needs that cannot be met in any other way than by taking steps to "re-align" our bodies (by making physiological changes to them) with our most profound sense of self

This subject--a profound sense of self--seems to get right to the core of why CDing interests me. At times this sense has seemed so clear that I was more or less ready to start taking female hormones.

Yet, I eventually found, at least I think I found, that this was really not really my most or only profound sense of self.

My study of Jungian theory has helped my understanding of this in two ways:

1. It suggests that the Self, in its deepest, highest form, is basically unknowable. It can only be glimpsed in conscious awareness in parts. In a sense, one can no more define (or confine) the Self than one can define God (the Self being the image and likeness of God).

2. It is possible to have profound experiences of *different* aspects of the Self. Such an experience is so compelling that one is easily led to equate this exclusively with the Self. Yet in reality, this may be no more than one aspect or facet of the Self. This is what the meaning of alchemy is in the Jungian sense--one seeks to increase ones conscious awareness so that it becomes, as it were, an amalgem of more than one level, type, or frequency of conscious awareness simultaneously.

I don't know if I'm expressing this well or not. But the bottom line is this: I definitely feel something profound, remarkable, and "ultimate" connected with CDing. But I think my breakthrough came when I stopped making the extra inferential step of concluding that therefore this must be my true identity.

Cathy

[Loretta Ann]

Yet, I eventually found, at least I think I found, that this was really not really my most or only profound sense of self.

Thank you for your courtesy Cathy, and taking this out of the other thread. I totally agree with you that also is not my sense of self. Thank God.

Love,
Darlene.

[Elizabeth]

Hi Cathy,

I am not that up on Jungian theory, but I do agree that one may never know our true self. Having said that, it does not mean we can not find what makes us happy and contented.

I think the progression from wearing panties or nylons to transitioning is indeed a progression because society makes it quite difficult to do. Only those with the most distress will find the sacrifices required to transition, worth it.

It is as we weigh the cost of each step we take, that we decide if it continues to be worth it. I beleive that if there were not such a huge cost to those who finally transition, it would be much more common. Just as if there were not such a huge cost for crossdressing, we would see just how large our numbers are.

Humans have always had a high degree of adaptability to different environments, I see this no differently. Crossdressers are forced to adapt in order to survive in thier environments, this does not mean this is thier normal or natural condition.

Love always,
Elizabeth

[CJ]

Hi all,

Cathy,

Thanks for branching this one out from Darlene's thread. I find this subject endlessly fascinating. And wonderfully complex, to boot!

The Hindus long ago sought to "explicate" the relationship between the atman (literally, the "breath," the "little soul," the self, that goes to make up the core of every individual human being) and the Atma ( the "Breath," the "world-soul," the governing, creative intelligence that "permeates" the universe... "God," in Western thought). A hugely popular philosophical tradition (Advaita Vedanta) has it that these two "selves" are not two different substances (advaita is a Sanskrit term meaning "not-two"). In Western traditions, as you, yourself, mentioned, we are made in the image of God. Hence, Psalm 139:14. The significant difference being that, here, God is understood as being "wholly Other," as being, in a way, "not us" (again, though we may be made in His image).

I agree that--looked at from a strictly spiritual point of view--my deepest sense of self, though (as you rightly pointed out) ineffable, partakes of, and shares in, something that is often considered to be more properly in the realm of the Divine. Again, in Hinduism: Tat tvam asi. "That thou art." I am That, if you will. Similarly, from a strictly secular, scientific, and humanistic outlook, it works just as well. Carl Sagan once said that the beauty of human beings resides in the fact that we are instances of the possibilities inherent in the natural world, in the universe, for the arising of consciousness and awareness. In the strictest materialistic and physical senses, the sub-atomic, atomic, and molecular "building blocks" that go to make up who we human beings are are no different than the blocks that go to make up the rest of the cosmos, from bacteria to neutron stars. In Sagan's own words, "we are starstuff gazing at itself" (and wondering just where the hell we went wrong, I might add ).

What I'm trying to get at, here (and to connect this to Jung's ideas), is that, although I can sense that there is great subjective truth in the idea that I'm made in the image of something greater than I am (and that I'm deeply, undeniably connected to that something), not knowing what that "something" is makes it that much harder for me to commit to the idea that I (that is, my "little self") is this or that (or is supposed to be this or that).

What if the Divine is the Great Sky-Father, the Sun, the Light of Reason, the God of Abraham, the Logos of the ancient Greeks?

What if the Divine is the Great Cosmic Womb, the Birther Of The World, the Mother Of Us All?

More hauntingly still, what if the Divine (as so many ancient traditions have it) is the Great Androgyne, the Primordial "Father-Mother" who, out of loneliness, begat within Hirself the Children that we are?

If my own soul knows the answer to any of these questions, for some reason it just ain't talkin' (or, as some would have it, I just ain't listenin' ). Perhaps I should just take a hint from the Hindus again and realize that both the Divine Self as well as my own deepest self are neti neti... "not this, not this."

Regardless, I'm still trying to work out what (and who) my deepest sense of self is trying to tell me I am, as both a person and as a transgendered person. I'm sure this is something I'll discover at about the same time I've managed to find out what's the sound of one hand clapping.

I will say one thing, Cathy: this forum (and every one of its members) is definitely a very precious ingredient in my own "alchemical" experiments.

Love,
CJ

[Virginia]

Yes! CJ, "just where the hell did we go wrong! ?! A young lady named Elizabeth Rice Burrows wrote a book once that expressed her opinion of who/what we were and since everyone needs to believe in something (no I don't believe I will have another beer, asprin maybe?) I like her philosophy, basically that we are all simply extended parts of God, whatever you determine God to be. We all make up the ultimate being and we are all on a journey that leads us back to HER! Our "soul" is the vehicle and it is on a learning curve and the ultimate goal is perfection! We can only achieve this perfection when we learn to love!
We learn love through trial and error. In otherwords according to Ms. Burrows our soul is an indestructiable force that is continually being recycled through different lives and continually learning with each new life it experiences until we achieve perfection and learn total love, then and only then do we integrate with God and the soul melts into the Supreme Being and does not have to keep returning to "life" as we experience it. But that theory/philosophy begs the answer - WHY!!!!????
I still say that if we are not the third gender then we may well be the next stage in human evolution which can take thousands of years to achieve, so -------you know what I say?! just enjoy your "Magical Mystery Tour!"
Love,
Virgina

[Cathy L. Anderson]

...I do agree that one may never know our true self. Having said that, it does not mean we can not find what makes us happy and contented.

Reading this it occurs to me that perhaps happiness and contentment are two different things. While dressed, I have experienced a degree of contentment beyond nearly anything I've experienced as a male. Yet part of me mistrusts that contentment, and I think with good reason. Jesus said, "I did not come to bring peace but a sword." Perhaps that means that some "conflicts" are better preserved, because they provide an energizing and productive tension.

CJ,

Thank you for another thoughtful and informative reply.

If my own soul knows the answer to any of these questions, for some reason it just ain't talkin' (or, as some would have it, I just ain't listenin').

I work on the assumption that the Ego, which is concept-laden and, well, egoistic, has a basic inability to understand what is beyond itself, and a prideful reluctance to look too closely.

Jung said something to the effect of "I don't make myself. I happen to myself." I think he meant that the Ego can't force the Self to reveal itself. The Ego must surrender and let the Self work in it's own way.

His idea of of synchronicity is a major factor in this. The Self reveals itself in the outside world by means uncanny 'coincidences.' This is gets into a fairly non-dualistic view of the world that is a lot like Taoism. In an important sense, the world (which is to say, the world as we experience it, or the realm of phenomena) is inseparable from our Self. The undiscovered part of our Self is reflected, or perhaps is, everything in the world that we don't understand. Or, as Jung put it, the God-image (Self) is revealed in the things in life that happen contrary to our expectations.

Cathy

[Virginia]

Cathy,
I have been discussing this with Kathy with a (K) and if I may, according to Jung the "Self" is (term?) superior to the Ego? and the ego must eventully submit to the Self? What if we have two, count 'em two ego's, one male and one female. Stating that the Self is neutral both emotionally and sexually yet it ?controls? the ego(s). This is heavy stuff! Kind of puts a noose around Azza's theory about the anima actually "running the show" so to speak and just letting the "male-ego" think it is in charge. Huh, actually if the above is true it puts the male-ego third on the power ladder! Self, then the anima, then the male-ego! Wow! I need an asprin now!
Virginia

[Cathy L. Anderson]

Hi Virginia,

These are exactly the right questions we need to be asking!

What if we have two, count 'em two ego's, one male and one female.

All men have an anima. What makes us unique as CDs is that we also have a female "alter ego," in addition to our usual male ego. This alter-ego is, strictly speaking, termed an "autonomous complex." It's ego-like, but not as well-developed as the Ego.

theory about the anima actually "running the show" so to speak and just letting the "male-ego" think it is in charge.

Our (male) Ego (Logos, animus) has a trump card: he's consciously aware That gives him a lot of power. He can choose to do whatever he wants. (This is what gets him into trouble!)

The anima is the "door to the unconscious." For example, she appears as a female figure in dreams to guide us. In that capacity she's just a messenger from the Self. It's the Self that is powerful.

So I think the Self and Ego rank #1 and #2. Anima and Shadow (our suppressed dark side) might be #3 and #4--the order not being clear.

Cathy

[Virginia]

Hi Cathy,
Pardon me "blowing sunshine up your skirt!" but is is so enlightening to have you as part of our sisterhood!!
My "question" aside, your response IMHO is that YES we are evolving! To me evolution is change as opposed to insanity, that is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results!
If you apply this understanding just to us = crossdressers, if we understand who we are and begin to understand the whys and to adjust to that, is that not evolution?? We evolve to a better person, species and learn (as males) to be more feminine and to share our gift of empathy, love, understanding, concern, caring more openly with everyone we come in contact with. That makes this whole world a better place and helps out our fellow travellers as we take our own "Magical Mystery Tour!"
Love ya,
Virginia

[Cathy L. Anderson]

Hi Virginia,

Thanks for the compliment I enjoy reading your contributions as well.

I agree that we're evolving. I was thinking about your comments in the other thread. Athletes do routinely try to set new records--that's almost the point! I think this applies to everything--including CDing. Each one is capable of handling their CDing in a original and better way that anyone ever has before. That's why I don't subscribe to the "oh, nobody has ever gotten an handle on their CDing before, therefore none of us are ever going to change" theory.

This idea of original accommplishments by a person was important for Jung. That's one reason he called the process of integration "individuation." Because the result is to produce a unique individual--someone who accomplishes new things.

BTW, as someone who can just barely (on a good day!) bench press their own weight, I have some appreciation for how much dedication, integrity and intelligence are required for your accomplishments!

Cathy

[Anita]

Cathy--
Thanks for the post. It is a good point that this "new" self can be so compelling that we feel it must be more real than the male self.

I am so glad that my femme self did not emerge until almost 50. By that time, I had exhausted most of the posssibilites that a younger man has to explore. I'm not implying that my life was settled and would never change, but I'd done most of the major things that men are supposed to do--established a career, worked in show biz, and been part of long-term couples. I would have had a lot more conflict if Anita had shown up in my 30s, say, when I still had much to prove as a man. I would not have welcomed that distraction at that time. And it can be a distraction, to have a second self that demands attention.

As I write this, I realize that I experienced another male self when I was younger, and that 'self' was not as benign as Anita is. But my experiences there did open me up to the idea that there was more than just one version of me. I'll write about that in another post sometime.