Since rouke has requested it:
Here’s a basic breakdown on ‘autnil’.
And by the way, if you want to make fun of a word trying to describe someone’s experiences then like. Do that I guess. Hope that makes you feel good about yourself.
Autnil is a word describing either an absence of an internal self, or a total inability to perceive an internal self, the two states being essentially impossible to distinguish between.
This state is, in my case at least, constant and unchanging, with no previous ‘self’ state having existed. Although if someone wants to use it and previously used to have a self, I’m not exactly going to gatekeep it.
Primary characteristics:
- No internal monologue/voice(s)
- No thought without action; writing or speaking are the primary ways through which thought processes can be mapped.
- No mindscape/internal visualisation
- Disconnect from the concept of an internal self
- Strong physical/sensory connection to the body, as is in the absence of an immaterial self, the physical self is the entirety of experience.
For myself, at least, this is not a disordered state. It is natural and consistent.
It is also not intended to be a diagnosis. It is a shorthand for a specific combination of experiences which produce a particular effect. In my case, this is aphantasia combined with a very low sense of identity, which does not manifest in harmful ways. There is no particular sense of not knowing how you relate to others, or uncertainty/variability to the self. It is simply an absence of an internal identity without this causing distress.
If someone else vibes with the term but does not fully fit what I’ve described, that’s fine. It’s mostly just a way for me to refer to things in a way that doesn’t involve a full description of my internal state every time I want to talk about it. If you want debates about the self go elsewhere. If you want to use the term, feel free.