I wonder if you are capable of putting aside their concepts and just listening, without judgement, conclusion and interpretation, to what I have to say. If you are, then please bear with me until the end. I am what you call psychotic, but I am not delusional. For me the only hallucination in the Universe is the concept of a hallucination. I am not in delusion, but I want to suggest that the whole of psychiatry and psychopharmacology itself is a dangerous, pathological delusion. Of course, because I have what you call psychosis, I’m also an unreliable narrator according to you, but unlike the psychiatrist, I’m not going to offer you any beliefs, theories, or prejudices. I’m just going to use language to describe what I have observed. I hope you see the difference. Let me start with what is an indisputable fact, and you will begin to see what I mean. Within a psychosis, there are three elements I want to draw attention to. The first is awareness, the second is the non-ordinary phenomena that you call the psychosis, and the third thing is the mental and emotional reactions, and physical responses, to that phenomena. Now let’s see, in within that, what the actual problem is in what you call a psychosis. Again, please drop your theories and try and consider whether or not this is actually the case. Awareness is what it is - it is always the same: impartial, the essence of what we call ‘clarity’. There can never be a problem in this aspect of the psychosis. It sees what is, as it is - it always does. It never lies - it just shows, or illuminates, what is. Then there is the non-ordinary phenomena: it comes and goes, it is what it is, and there is nothing we can do about it. Why make it a problem? But then, there are the mental, emotional and physical reactions to the phenomena. Thought jud. ges, labels what happens - calls it mad, or maybe evil, depending on your particular social conditioning, but they both indicate danger. It is our social conditioning that is responsible for this part. And such mental judgements instantly produce fear, as an emotional and physical reaction: the body is on edge, maybe in fight or flight mode. The mind is grasping for some kind of explanation but the only possibilities are too horrifying. The overriding need of the organism comes to be to escape - but you can’t escape your own consciousness. I have discovered, through not repressing but seeking to observe and understand the non-ordinary phenomena, that really, all the problems are rooted first and foremost in the mental reactions to the phenomena, and in the West, socially conditioned with the concepts of madness, mental disease, evil etc - something terrible and frightening or dangerous: when we are told that such non-ordinary phenomena indicate such things, then of course there will be fear, fight or flight, and a desire to escape - and this is ‘psychosis’ proper, if you ask me. Well I practice another way. The term hallucination implies something that is not really there, but this bellies the facts. Actually, if we look at the facts, the non-ordinary phenomena is most definitely there - in our consciousness, in the world, because the world and the non-ordinary phenomena are both happenings within consciousness. This is indisputable. So the phenomena is real, in the sense that it is a real phenomena. But if the mind interprets, judges, believes or disbelieves, which the psychiatrist is guilty of too, then this is delusion: because in truth, we don’t know and can never know what this phenomena actually is, and we shouldn’t pretend we know what consciousness is. It’s called the hard problem of science. Yet the mental reactions are not necessary if we realize that we can observe and understand it. We then stand in the ever reliable, never changing clarity of awareness. If I am observing and understanding the non-ordinary phenomena, without believing or disbelieving (which is also a form of believing), then how can you say I’m delusional? I’m neither believing nor disbelieving. I’m just observing. And trying to keep the body calm and the mind alert. Where is the pathology in that? Because in observing it over and over again, until finally it really does get the better of the body and the brain, I have learned more and more not just about the thing you call psychosis, but about everything, which is consciousness - because everything is a mere happening in your consciousness. That is a fact. The very idea of an outside world is again a happening in consciousness, and just an idea. Ideas are not facts - the fact is you can never go outside of your consciousness. So consciousness is really the most objective thing. We need to understand it, and the happenings within it, and only the person going through the psychosis can observe the primary phenomena. Only we can begin to explain, through our own observations, what a psychosis actually is, but what psychiatrist is ever interested in hearing our attempt to use language to convey the actuality of the experience? We are unreliable narrators. And it’s all subjective anyway. Yet the concepts and labels they’ve invented are somehow really objective, are somehow facts. Let me tell you that there is no objective and subjective. There is only the subjective. There is only consciousness. That is a simple fact if you look at it. The outside world is just a happening within consciousness, conceptualized. Sensation conceptualized. The actual facts are that we have awareness, sensation (light, dark, sound etc), thought, feeling, imagination - and sometimes non-ordinary phenomena. But it all takes place in awareness - that thing that never changes, that thing that shows you what is, as it is, that thing that never lies, that thing that isn’t biased, doesn’t change, is always truthful, and never errs. But for the psychiatrists, their concepts are the windows onto the world, and that is delusion proper. In order for anyone to help me, they have to allow me to convey what is actually happening to me through words. That is what I attempt to do. But the psychiatrist has a completely different objective. They want to situate me in their invented conceptual frameworks, based on the observation only of external presentations, and the primary phenomena they call hallucination, delusion, and therefore of no intrinsic value. But beliefs, opinions, theories, prejudices and assumptions are the non-facts: only an understanding of what is, as it is, has any validity, and this comes about through observing what is. I am observing what is, trying to maintain awareness throughout the observation, and in doing so I begin to understand what I am seeing. I don’t say I know what I am seeing, because knowledge is a representation, not the fact. Knowledge has no place in understanding what is. If you want to understand the day to day changes in your child’s emotions you do that through observation, not thinking. You don’t have to put your understanding into words - you don’t have to draw conclusions or beliefs or opinions about what you discover. To do so in what you call a psychosis I think is where much of the danger lies. But in order for the socially conditioned brain, the feelings and emotions, and the body to endure it, understanding of others, support, perhaps some sedation at times, would really help target the actual problem, which is not the non-ordinary phenomena, which is what it is and just comes and goes, but our fear of it, our terror, our attempt to interpret etc etc etc. The concept of madness and the biomedical myth of mental illness means we have already been told what the thing is before it even comes. Therefore, thinking we know, we never try to understand it. We ask a psychiatrist, even though it is only us who have direct contact with the primary phenomena. So what is a psychiatrist actually an expert in? In the drugs they prescribe which, as Robert Whittaker and others painstakingly elucidate, produce pathological brain states and actually make long-term outcomes much worse. What kind of society would choose a solution like this? An insane society, enabled by an insane psychiatry. Psychiatrists are experts in the labels they invented, and the pseudoscientific mythology behind it. They, along with the drug companies, are agents of an enormous social violence which is no departure at all from the appalling violence we see in the history of psychiatry. The logic of psychopharmacology is that if your phone is ringing all day, just cut the wire. But there might be important calls. And this same logic was behind the lobotomy. I reject the idea that psychiatry has moved on at all, especially when they have conditioned the whole of society to allow their children’s brains to be mutilated at the profit of both psychiatrists and big pharma, usually leading the child onto a life of disability, social isolation, and a feeling of meaningless existence. So not only is this mad and pathological, it is also violent. And I am not violent. But try telling all this to a psychiatrist. I have and do - but they are incapable of listening. They want to dominate me with their concepts and delusions. And when I describe what is, as it is, they call it my belief and ideation. What a back to front world we live in.
PS - Thought is a social process that pretends to be me, but thought is the process of social-historical accumulation, proliferation, entrenchment, standardisation through repetition, the same process that produces civilization as a whole, as it is today. Thought is social in origin and orientation, and should not be thought of as personal: there is no personal thought - just social cognition. And it yokes the organism to the social whole inwardly, conditioning the activity, attitudes and communications of the organism. Of course, thought, being a very recently invented system of representation of what is, cannot ever understand what is. It cannot even understand itself, so thought and knowledge have no place in understanding. Knowledge is a representation, not the fact. The fact is what is, as it is, and that comes through an awareness of what is, which is also the mother of all knowledge and thought if you examine it. Understanding comes about through observing and understanding what is, as it is, but the intrusions of thought into perception destroys perception, and it is with some difficulty that we can observe what is, as it is, with the exception of children. Generally the ossification of patterns of thinking, doing and saying tends only to progress throughout the course of life. Your thinking mind was conditioned, shaped and filled through social experience. Everything in your mind comes from the world. You can't deny that. You think in language - the products of social historical accumulation, social proliferation, standardization, internalization, neurological entrenchment, and then your mind pretends to be me and organizes the expression of the life. It harnesses feeling and emotion from the organism, so entices the organism with images of desire and fear, the reward and punishment mechanism which is the motive force behind its control of the natural substrata. Your sense of reality and self are socially conditioned. So society creates the thinking mind and the thinking mind creates society. Civilization and the intellect are one indivisible process that depends as much on the human brain as it does petroleum and money. In fact, the latter are more dispensable then the human brain - that is just a fact. It's a fact the process is indivisible. I'm just using words to point out what is. Let us again stick to the actual facts. Thought has its roots, ultimately, in awareness of sensation: it goes sensation, memory, knowledge/thought (knowledge being a form of thought), and this thinking shapes the social activity, shapes the behaviour of the organism, comes to dominate the natural substrata it can never understand. Yes, feeling is the motive force, but if you look at it, thinking is the thing that generally harvests the feelings of desire and fear from the organism, which provides the energy for the activity which is circumscribed, generally but not universally, by thought. But if thought is the mere offspring of awareness, sensation and memory, how can we imagine it can ever know that which created it? Can you imagine creating something that can then grasp who or what you actually are? Knowledge is representation, and representation is not the fact. If we stick to the facts, the fact is knowledge, being a recent invention of the species, being mere representation of what is, cannot 'know' what is. It can only represent what is, and its proper domain is in communication, including speaking and writing, the development and implementation of techniques, technology, and the development of complex systems. What thought cannot possibly ever know is what you actually are, which is consciousness, because no-one can ever escape their own consciousness, and all that you call the objective world and the body and the brain and the self is a mere happening within consciousness that you call sensation, which is then conceptualised, i.e. turned into something that it is not. Only seeing, observing, perceiving what is has any validity, because then you see what is, as it is. You cannot be mistaken, because awareness of what actually is - sensation, thought, imagination, a dream, whatever it is - is consciousness of the content of consciousness, which is all that there ever is. Through observation, one begins to understand, and understanding is a silent process. Knowledge has no place in the understanding of what is. When you stop being a thinker and start being an observer, you eventually see that knowledge destroys perception and insight by introducing false figures into the perception of what is - just as throwing stray notes into a melody will destroy the melody, or throwing random words into sentences will destroy the sentences. This is how the perfectly alive perception of the child is destroyed by the process of social-historical ossification and our neuro(mal)adaptation to it. There is only one problem on Earth, and that is the conflict between the intellect and its natural substrata, and the conflict between civilization and mother nature, which is not two conflicts, but the very same conflict, because the world created the mind and the mind created the world: and mother nature created our brains, bodies and feelings, an instrument through which mother nature becomes conscious of herself. There is no self though - it's just an idea. Thought says its 'me' and identifies itself with the feelings and the body, calling it 'me', and then the things it says it possesses it calls 'mine'. Everything esle it says is not me or mine. Thus it is a process that isolates the 'me' from the 'world', but 'me' and 'world' are just thoughts, ideas, non-facts. The fact is there is thought, imagination, and our self-image which is also imagination, and memory, and thought which identifies with the other parts. There is no self. What you are is awareness: can you deny that you are aware right now when seeing or hearing anything? Is it possible? Are you different from awareness? Then you are awareness, and everything else is a happening in awareness that just happens, and just comes and goes. If awareness goes, you are not. If awareness is, you are. You can't ever say you were unconscious because then you wouldn't be there. Within that awareness, you do nothing. Awareness does nothing - it just is: but in awareness understanding and insight can take place. Conversely, there is no such thing as certain knowledge because knowledge is not the fact: the fact is what is, as it is. Thought just happens - intention just happens. There is no self that makes it happen. If you say there is a self that intended to think then this self just happens, and in any case is a mere thought, an idea. No matter how many times you add a self as an actor to explain the action, you are still left with the same problem: that thing just happens, and its an infinite regression. So there is no thinker, or actor, or self. There is only thinking, acting and the exquisitly subtle but utterly decisive illusion of the self. The fact is that sensation just happens, thought just happens, feeling just happens, everything just happens, and there is nothing that you - awareness - can ever do about it. There is no doer - just thought pretending to be me doing. Being aware of the destruction of the Earth and of humanity by the the process of social-historical accumulation and ossification, which produces both the thinking mind ('the me') and civilization, these being one indivisible process, all at the expense of our emotional, sensuous, conscious, living experience and the perfect workings of the much violated nature that we are, are you going to chose sides? You can't choose sides. You are awareness. The choosing of the side is the social process pretending to be you. It is obviously bias as is all of thought - it is biased in saying it is the self, when in truth it does not and cannot know what it is.
Awesome video! They should teach the importance of mental health in schools. Keep up the great work!
I wonder if you are capable of putting aside their concepts and just listening, without judgement, conclusion and interpretation, to what I have to say. If you are, then please bear with me until the end. I am what you call psychotic, but I am not delusional. For me the only hallucination in the Universe is the concept of a hallucination. I am not in delusion, but I want to suggest that the whole of psychiatry and psychopharmacology itself is a dangerous, pathological delusion. Of course, because I have what you call psychosis, I’m also an unreliable narrator according to you, but unlike the psychiatrist, I’m not going to offer you any beliefs, theories, or prejudices. I’m just going to use language to describe what I have observed. I hope you see the difference.
Let me start with what is an indisputable fact, and you will begin to see what I mean. Within a psychosis, there are three elements I want to draw attention to. The first is awareness, the second is the non-ordinary phenomena that you call the psychosis, and the third thing is the mental and emotional reactions, and physical responses, to that phenomena. Now let’s see, in within that, what the actual problem is in what you call a psychosis. Again, please drop your theories and try and consider whether or not this is actually the case.
Awareness is what it is - it is always the same: impartial, the essence of what we call ‘clarity’. There can never be a problem in this aspect of the psychosis. It sees what is, as it is - it always does. It never lies - it just shows, or illuminates, what is. Then there is the non-ordinary phenomena: it comes and goes, it is what it is, and there is nothing we can do about it. Why make it a problem?
But then, there are the mental, emotional and physical reactions to the phenomena. Thought jud. ges, labels what happens - calls it mad, or maybe evil, depending on your particular social conditioning, but they both indicate danger. It is our social conditioning that is responsible for this part. And such mental judgements instantly produce fear, as an emotional and physical reaction: the body is on edge, maybe in fight or flight mode. The mind is grasping for some kind of explanation but the only possibilities are too horrifying. The overriding need of the organism comes to be to escape - but you can’t escape your own consciousness.
I have discovered, through not repressing but seeking to observe and understand the non-ordinary phenomena, that really, all the problems are rooted first and foremost in the mental reactions to the phenomena, and in the West, socially conditioned with the concepts of madness, mental disease, evil etc - something terrible and frightening or dangerous: when we are told that such non-ordinary phenomena indicate such things, then of course there will be fear, fight or flight, and a desire to escape - and this is ‘psychosis’ proper, if you ask me. Well I practice another way.
The term hallucination implies something that is not really there, but this bellies the facts. Actually, if we look at the facts, the non-ordinary phenomena is most definitely there - in our consciousness, in the world, because the world and the non-ordinary phenomena are both happenings within consciousness. This is indisputable. So the phenomena is real, in the sense that it is a real phenomena. But if the mind interprets, judges, believes or disbelieves, which the psychiatrist is guilty of too, then this is delusion: because in truth, we don’t know and can never know what this phenomena actually is, and we shouldn’t pretend we know what consciousness is. It’s called the hard problem of science. Yet the mental reactions are not necessary if we realize that we can observe and understand it. We then stand in the ever reliable, never changing clarity of awareness. If I am observing and understanding the non-ordinary phenomena, without believing or disbelieving (which is also a form of believing), then how can you say I’m delusional? I’m neither believing nor disbelieving. I’m just observing. And trying to keep the body calm and the mind alert. Where is the pathology in that?
Because in observing it over and over again, until finally it really does get the better of the body and the brain, I have learned more and more not just about the thing you call psychosis, but about everything, which is consciousness - because everything is a mere happening in your consciousness. That is a fact. The very idea of an outside world is again a happening in consciousness, and just an idea. Ideas are not facts - the fact is you can never go outside of your consciousness. So consciousness is really the most objective thing. We need to understand it, and the happenings within it, and only the person going through the psychosis can observe the primary phenomena. Only we can begin to explain, through our own observations, what a psychosis actually is, but what psychiatrist is ever interested in hearing our attempt to use language to convey the actuality of the experience? We are unreliable narrators. And it’s all subjective anyway. Yet the concepts and labels they’ve invented are somehow really objective, are somehow facts.
Let me tell you that there is no objective and subjective. There is only the subjective. There is only consciousness. That is a simple fact if you look at it. The outside world is just a happening within consciousness, conceptualized. Sensation conceptualized. The actual facts are that we have awareness, sensation (light, dark, sound etc), thought, feeling, imagination - and sometimes non-ordinary phenomena. But it all takes place in awareness - that thing that never changes, that thing that shows you what is, as it is, that thing that never lies, that thing that isn’t biased, doesn’t change, is always truthful, and never errs. But for the psychiatrists, their concepts are the windows onto the world, and that is delusion proper.
In order for anyone to help me, they have to allow me to convey what is actually happening to me through words. That is what I attempt to do. But the psychiatrist has a completely different objective. They want to situate me in their invented conceptual frameworks, based on the observation only of external presentations, and the primary phenomena they call hallucination, delusion, and therefore of no intrinsic value. But beliefs, opinions, theories, prejudices and assumptions are the non-facts: only an understanding of what is, as it is, has any validity, and this comes about through observing what is. I am observing what is, trying to maintain awareness throughout the observation, and in doing so I begin to understand what I am seeing. I don’t say I know what I am seeing, because knowledge is a representation, not the fact. Knowledge has no place in understanding what is. If you want to understand the day to day changes in your child’s emotions you do that through observation, not thinking. You don’t have to put your understanding into words - you don’t have to draw conclusions or beliefs or opinions about what you discover. To do so in what you call a psychosis I think is where much of the danger lies. But in order for the socially conditioned brain, the feelings and emotions, and the body to endure it, understanding of others, support, perhaps some sedation at times, would really help target the actual problem, which is not the non-ordinary phenomena, which is what it is and just comes and goes, but our fear of it, our terror, our attempt to interpret etc etc etc. The concept of madness and the biomedical myth of mental illness means we have already been told what the thing is before it even comes. Therefore, thinking we know, we never try to understand it. We ask a psychiatrist, even though it is only us who have direct contact with the primary phenomena.
So what is a psychiatrist actually an expert in? In the drugs they prescribe which, as Robert Whittaker and others painstakingly elucidate, produce pathological brain states and actually make long-term outcomes much worse. What kind of society would choose a solution like this? An insane society, enabled by an insane psychiatry. Psychiatrists are experts in the labels they invented, and the pseudoscientific mythology behind it. They, along with the drug companies, are agents of an enormous social violence which is no departure at all from the appalling violence we see in the history of psychiatry. The logic of psychopharmacology is that if your phone is ringing all day, just cut the wire. But there might be important calls. And this same logic was behind the lobotomy. I reject the idea that psychiatry has moved on at all, especially when they have conditioned the whole of society to allow their children’s brains to be mutilated at the profit of both psychiatrists and big pharma, usually leading the child onto a life of disability, social isolation, and a feeling of meaningless existence. So not only is this mad and pathological, it is also violent. And I am not violent. But try telling all this to a psychiatrist. I have and do - but they are incapable of listening. They want to dominate me with their concepts and delusions. And when I describe what is, as it is, they call it my belief and ideation. What a back to front world we live in.
PS - Thought is a social process that pretends to be me, but thought is the process of social-historical accumulation, proliferation, entrenchment, standardisation through repetition, the same process that produces civilization as a whole, as it is today. Thought is social in origin and orientation, and should not be thought of as personal: there is no personal thought - just social cognition. And it yokes the organism to the social whole inwardly, conditioning the activity, attitudes and communications of the organism.
Of course, thought, being a very recently invented system of representation of what is, cannot ever understand what is. It cannot even understand itself, so thought and knowledge have no place in understanding. Knowledge is a representation, not the fact. The fact is what is, as it is, and that comes through an awareness of what is, which is also the mother of all knowledge and thought if you examine it.
Understanding comes about through observing and understanding what is, as it is, but the intrusions of thought into perception destroys perception, and it is with some difficulty that we can observe what is, as it is, with the exception of children. Generally the ossification of patterns of thinking, doing and saying tends only to progress throughout the course of life.
Your thinking mind was conditioned, shaped and filled through social experience. Everything in your mind comes from the world. You can't deny that. You think in language - the products of social historical accumulation, social proliferation, standardization, internalization, neurological entrenchment, and then your mind pretends to be me and organizes the expression of the life. It harnesses feeling and emotion from the organism, so entices the organism with images of desire and fear, the reward and punishment mechanism which is the motive force behind its control of the natural substrata. Your sense of reality and self are socially conditioned. So society creates the thinking mind and the thinking mind creates society. Civilization and the intellect are one indivisible process that depends as much on the human brain as it does petroleum and money. In fact, the latter are more dispensable then the human brain - that is just a fact. It's a fact the process is indivisible. I'm just using words to point out what is. Let us again stick to the actual facts.
Thought has its roots, ultimately, in awareness of sensation: it goes sensation, memory, knowledge/thought (knowledge being a form of thought), and this thinking shapes the social activity, shapes the behaviour of the organism, comes to dominate the natural substrata it can never understand. Yes, feeling is the motive force, but if you look at it, thinking is the thing that generally harvests the feelings of desire and fear from the organism, which provides the energy for the activity which is circumscribed, generally but not universally, by thought. But if thought is the mere offspring of awareness, sensation and memory, how can we imagine it can ever know that which created it? Can you imagine creating something that can then grasp who or what you actually are? Knowledge is representation, and representation is not the fact. If we stick to the facts, the fact is knowledge, being a recent invention of the species, being mere representation of what is, cannot 'know' what is. It can only represent what is, and its proper domain is in communication, including speaking and writing, the development and implementation of techniques, technology, and the development of complex systems.
What thought cannot possibly ever know is what you actually are, which is consciousness, because no-one can ever escape their own consciousness, and all that you call the objective world and the body and the brain and the self is a mere happening within consciousness that you call sensation, which is then conceptualised, i.e. turned into something that it is not. Only seeing, observing, perceiving what is has any validity, because then you see what is, as it is. You cannot be mistaken, because awareness of what actually is - sensation, thought, imagination, a dream, whatever it is - is consciousness of the content of consciousness, which is all that there ever is.
Through observation, one begins to understand, and understanding is a silent process. Knowledge has no place in the understanding of what is. When you stop being a thinker and start being an observer, you eventually see that knowledge destroys perception and insight by introducing false figures into the perception of what is - just as throwing stray notes into a melody will destroy the melody, or throwing random words into sentences will destroy the sentences. This is how the perfectly alive perception of the child is destroyed by the process of social-historical ossification and our neuro(mal)adaptation to it.
There is only one problem on Earth, and that is the conflict between the intellect and its natural substrata, and the conflict between civilization and mother nature, which is not two conflicts, but the very same conflict, because the world created the mind and the mind created the world: and mother nature created our brains, bodies and feelings, an instrument through which mother nature becomes conscious of herself. There is no self though - it's just an idea. Thought says its 'me' and identifies itself with the feelings and the body, calling it 'me', and then the things it says it possesses it calls 'mine'. Everything esle it says is not me or mine. Thus it is a process that isolates the 'me' from the 'world', but 'me' and 'world' are just thoughts, ideas, non-facts. The fact is there is thought, imagination, and our self-image which is also imagination, and memory, and thought which identifies with the other parts. There is no self. What you are is awareness: can you deny that you are aware right now when seeing or hearing anything? Is it possible? Are you different from awareness? Then you are awareness, and everything else is a happening in awareness that just happens, and just comes and goes. If awareness goes, you are not. If awareness is, you are. You can't ever say you were unconscious because then you wouldn't be there. Within that awareness, you do nothing. Awareness does nothing - it just is: but in awareness understanding and insight can take place. Conversely, there is no such thing as certain knowledge because knowledge is not the fact: the fact is what is, as it is.
Thought just happens - intention just happens. There is no self that makes it happen. If you say there is a self that intended to think then this self just happens, and in any case is a mere thought, an idea. No matter how many times you add a self as an actor to explain the action, you are still left with the same problem: that thing just happens, and its an infinite regression. So there is no thinker, or actor, or self. There is only thinking, acting and the exquisitly subtle but utterly decisive illusion of the self. The fact is that sensation just happens, thought just happens, feeling just happens, everything just happens, and there is nothing that you - awareness - can ever do about it. There is no doer - just thought pretending to be me doing. Being aware of the destruction of the Earth and of humanity by the the process of social-historical accumulation and ossification, which produces both the thinking mind ('the me') and civilization, these being one indivisible process, all at the expense of our emotional, sensuous, conscious, living experience and the perfect workings of the much violated nature that we are, are you going to chose sides? You can't choose sides. You are awareness. The choosing of the side is the social process pretending to be you. It is obviously bias as is all of thought - it is biased in saying it is the self, when in truth it does not and cannot know what it is.