Isn't depersonalization an inevitable outcome for a person with an ordinary worldview that excludes the eternal (unchangeable, integral) soul?
Moderator, please (please, for Christ's sake, for God's sake), don't edit the question until it doesn't make sense! If you don't understand, write me in the chat what's wrong, and I'll edit it myself.For the sake of simplicity, we will divide worldviews into two classes: ordinary and philosophical, while religious and scientific worldviews are classified as philosophical varieties. A person with an ordinary worldview may not be at risk of depersonalization, approx. However, the philosophical worldview, if it already exists, cannot be changed by willpower to the ordinary. Philosophical worldviews that postulate an immortal soul are well protected from depersonalization, but they contradict the facts. And if you have already seen these facts, then again you can not force your will to see them and return everything as it was. Philosophical worldviews that do not postulate an immortal soul are not able to define and limit the "I" either in space or in time in the way that would be considered the norm from the point of view of modern psychiatry (the tetrad of normal self-consciousness according to Jaspers).Scientific worldview: consciousness = brain function, " I "today < >" I "yesterday < > < >" I "after a stroke, the continuity of" I " is an illusion; Tao:" I "is not, a person is part of the one, the one is one," I"is an illusion, a concept defined through the non-" I "(i.e. "I"). recursively); Some of the Buddhisms: "I" – illusion, there is santara = flow of dharmas, dharmas here and now unenlightened perceives as "I"; etc.According to Jaspers, the tetrad of normal self-consciousness is a list of qualities that Eastern philosophers consider undesirable, which should be eliminated by some spiritual practices, and from a scientific point of view it is a list of illusions of consciousness, abstractions that the brain tends to believe in contrary to the facts.It feels like depersonalization is the natural end stage of perceiving reality as it is, without constantly feeding the myth of Ego continuity. And only blind faith in an immortal (unchangeable, integral) soul can keep a person from depersonalization?Is there any difference between a "psycho" with depersonalization and a person who has denied his "I" by philosophy? Are Buddha and Boris Grebenshchikov mentally healthy?