赛斯谈“精神分裂症”（上）

首先，“精神分裂症”这个词基本上没有什么价值。许多不该被贴上标签的人却被贴上了标签。有所谓精神分裂症的“典型”病例——也有所谓“边缘性”病例——但在任何情况下，那种标签都是高度误导性、负面暗示性的。 

在很多例子里，你们所面对的是形形色色的，有时是相当多样化的人格行为模式——不过，这些模式并不像在你们所谓“正常人”身上那样被同化，或者说顺利地运作。这些模式以一种夸张的方式呈现出来，所以在某些这类型的例子里，至少你们能瞥见一些精神、情绪及心灵的过程——这些过程隐藏在平常人更圆滑或“整饰过”的社会人格之下，在心理上通常隐而不显。

被贴上精神分裂症标签的人——无论是暂时还是长期的——都缺乏某种心理上的粉饰。与其说是缺少一种基本的心理修饰，不如说是采用了某种心理上的伪装。 

且说，这样的人——在某种程度上——正在与自己和世界玩一种相当认真的捉迷藏游戏。他们信奉这句格言:“分而治之”。出于我希望会讨论到的原因，就好像是他们拒绝把自己好好地整合起来，拒绝形成一个还算统一的自己。这背后的想法是:“如果你找不到我，那么我就不必为我的行为负责了——那些行为必定会以某种方式出卖我。” 

“自己”在运作上变得分散或分化了，因此，如果自己的一部分受到攻击，其他部分可以起而防卫。这种人利用人格的各个部分作为间谍或士兵，分散其力量，并在那些条件下被迫建立起复杂的通讯系统，以使自己的那些部分相互保持联系。在紧张的时候，自己的一部分与另一部分之间会建立起更大的隔离，这无疑给通讯系统施加了压力，使得它必须被经常使用。 

那种沟通本身通常是一种心理性或象征性的密码，就像真的会用于军事情报的那种。如果讯息被清楚地破译和理解，那么游戏当然就结束了，因为理解那个讯息的人就是那个整合的自己，一开始也是那个整合的自己觉得需要这种伪装的“自己的军队”。 

这样的人确实会感到被围困。通常，这些人都非常有创造力、精力充沛，却被困在截然相反的信念之间，不论是关于善与恶，还是强与弱的信念。他们通常是极端理想主义的，但由于各种原因，他们不觉得理想化的那个自己的能力可以实现。 

我在这里只是泛泛而谈，而每个个案都应该从其自身的角度来看待。不过，一般而言，这类人对自己的看法都过于夸张，如此理想化，以至于其存在本身就威胁到实际的行动。他们害怕犯错，害怕背叛这种内在的心理优越感。通常，这样一个理想化的内在自己源于接受了高度扭曲的信念——同样是关于善与恶的信念。你最终会得到两个主要的内在对抗者：一个优越的自己和一个低贱的自己。优越的自己会像磁铁一样吸引被认为是好的品质。看起来不好的品质则以同样的方式被低贱的自己所吸引。这两者都是相对孤立的心理两极，几乎具有同等的影响力。所有其他含糊不清的心理证据，或者没被任何一方清楚理解的证据，都聚集在它们各自的心理旗帜下。然而，从心理上讲，这是一种环型而非线型的安排。 

这种人害怕自己的能量。一方面，那种能量被指定为优越自己的所有物——在这种情况下，它必须被用于伟大的冒险和英雄事迹。另一方面，这个人感觉无法以正常的方式运用能量，因为在平常的世界里，任何冒险都不可能达到优越自己的夸张理想。这样一来，这个人就会变得害怕让自己与世界对立，或者害怕把自己投入到普通的行动中去，因为他觉得在这种比较之下，他只能贬低自己。 

他需要别人给予过分的赞扬和关注，因为他显然从自己身上得到很少。以一种方式，他在某种程度上会拒绝为自己的行为负责——因此让他的行为脱离了其他人必须遵循的判断框架。这样，他就可以避免使他的“天赋和卓越能力”受到检验，因为他觉得他肯定会失败。他有点意识到，优越的自己和低贱的自己都是心理制造的。他的能力并没有真的那么伟大。他的失败也远远没有那么严重。然而，对这些截然不同的人格成分的信念使他处于一种混乱的状态，因此他感到无力以任何协调一致的方式行动。 

（友情提示：文末附英文，可对照阅读哦）

?“奥古斯都”的故事——赛斯解析多重人格障碍的经典案例

?“三面夏娃”与转世人格

First of all, the term "schizophrenia" is of basically little value. Many people tabbed with that label should not be. There are so called classic cases of schizophrenia—and borderline ones, so called—but in any case the label is highly misleading and negatively suggestive.  

What you are dealing with in many instances are exhibitions of various, sometime quite diverse personality patterns of behavior—patterns that are, however, not as assimilated, or as smoothly operative as they are in the person you call normal. The patterns are seen in an exaggerated fashion, so that in some such cases at least you can gain glimpses of mental, emotional, and psychic processes that usually remain psychologically invisible beneath the more polished or "finished" social personality of the usual individual.  

The person labeled schizophrenic, momentarily or for varying periods of time, lacks a certain kind of psychological veneer. This is not so much a basic lack of psychological finish as it is the adoption of a certain kind of psychological camouflage.  

Such people—in a fashion, now—play a game of quite serious hide-and-seek with themselves and with the world. They believe in the dictum: "Divide and conquer." It is as if, for reasons I hope to discuss, they refuse to put themselves together properly, refuse to form one fairly united self. The idea behind this is: "If you cannot find me, then I cannot be held accountable for my actions—actions which are bound in one way or another to betray me."  

The self becomes operationally scattered or divided, so that if one portion of it is attacked, the other portions can rise up in defense. Such persons use the various elements of the personality as spies or soldiers, scattering their forces , and forced under those conditions to set up elaborate communication systems to keep those portions of the self in contact with each other. In times of stress, they set up an even greater isolation of one part of the self from another, which puts stress upon the system of communication, of course, so that it must be used constantly.  

The communications themselves are often a kind of psychological or symbolic code, such as might indeed be used in military intelligence. If the messages were to be clearly deciphered and understood, then of course the game would be over, for the one to understand the message would be the united self who [had] felt the need of such camouflaged self-troops to begin with.  

Such a person does feel under seige. Often such people are highly creative, with good reserves of energy, but caught between highly contrasting beliefs, either of good and evil, or power and weakness. They are usually extremely idealistic, but for various reasons they do not feel that the abilities of the idealized self can be actualized.  

I am making generalizations here, but each individual case should be looked at in its own light. Such people as a rule, however, have an exaggerated version of the self, so idealized that its very existence intimidates practical action. They are afraid of making mistakes, terrified of betraying this sensed inner psychological superior. Usually, such an idealized inner self comes from the acceptance of highly distorted beliefs—again, concerning good and evil. You end up with what can amount to two main inner antagonists: a superior self and a debased self. The qualities considered good are attracted to the superior self as if it were a magnet. The qualities that seem bad are in the same fashion attracted to the debased self. Both of them, relatively isolated psychological polarities, hold about equal sway. All other psychological evidences that are ambiguous, or not clearly understood by either side, group together under their own psychological banners. This is a kind of circular rather than linear arrangement, however, psychologically speaking.  

Such people are afraid of their own energy. It becomes assigned on the one hand as a possession of the superior self—in which case it must be used for great adventures, heroic deeds. On the other hand, the person feels unable to use energy in a normal fashion, since in the ordinary world no venture could live up to the superior self's exaggerated ideals. The person then becomes frightened of pitting himself against the world, or committing himself to ordinary actions, since he feels that in the light of such comparisons he can only debase himself.  

He requires undue amounts of praise and attention from others, since he obviously will get little from himself. In a fashion, to an extent he will refuse to be accountable for his actions—therefore taking them out of the frame of judgment within which other people must operate. He then can avoid putting his "talents and superior abilities" to the test, where he feels he would certainly fail. He half realizes that the superior self and the debased self are both of psychological manufacture. His abilities are not really that grand. His failures are not nearly that disastrous. The belief in these highly contrasting elements of personality keep him in a state of turmoil, however, so that he feels powerless to act in any concerted fashion.