On Disidentification.

To borrow terms from CBT, the above would be black and white thinking, overgeneralizing, magnifying the negative, dismissing the positive, and 'Svengali' or erroneous predictive thinking, and hence, I feel broken to my core.

CBT and the related mindfullness meditation approach seem to be putting up good results against depression.

To me these approaches seem to indicate that you disentangle from these identifications and thoughts by habituating yourself into new ways of thinking that gradually replace the old. Thoughts are seen as habits, so sustained repetition seems to be key.

Anyway, I'm not qualified to give advice on depression, I'm just giving you my general idea about these methods.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

To me these approaches seem to indicate that you disentangle from these identifications and thoughts by habituating yourself into new ways of thinking that gradually replace the old. Thoughts are seen as habits, so sustained repetition seems to be key.

Yes, in CBT they're called automatic thoughts or such. So, I think you're right about that. My only gist is that much like how we have the terminology of "anti"-depressants so too have psychology followed and adopted an anti-depressant attitude towards depression.

I posted a while ago about embracing one's depression and the thoughts were mostly in agreement that depression is a natural state of the body and needs to be accepted first to delve into its root cause. So, I think, in my honest opinion, CBT as a band-aid that can be applied or rather an antiseptic for a wound that can be applied to a wound. Forgive the bland analogy, just to try and externalize the issue into some simpler terms.

But, that doesn't quite cut it. Something more is needed, and the realization of the need for disidentifying with depression is where this comes in handy.

You know how someone who burns their hand once knows then not to bring it near the fire, so maybe the process of disidentifying from depression is an ideal. What do you think?

Much like how Whitehead said that the European philosophical tradition is simply footnotes to Plato, so too does the endless neuroticism and rationalizations come forth from depression.

If you separate depression from the thoughts that arise from it, would it be so bad? I wish there was an answer, or is there? But, the process of separating something from another thing is too tantamount to 'identification'. How do you surmount this dilemma?

Reply to Posty McPostface

I think you may be right about CBT and antidepressants, that it's more of a 'jumpstart' to get you going then an actual cure.

About the identification thing, I need to think some more. And I need some sleep, it's way past midnight here.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

I think you may be right about CBT and antidepressants, that it's more of a 'jumpstart' to get you going then an actual cure.

About the identification thing, I need to think some more. And I need some sleep, it's way past midnight here.

Have a good night. Thanks for posting.

Well, just going off on a rant. I feel like anyone with depression identifies with their symptoms to some degree, which is reinforced by the psychiatrist that you visit. The idea being that people are pigeonholed into diagnosis by a psychiatrist and then identify with them based on symptomology.

I've struggled with anhedonia and feelings of worthlessness and hence take my medication. But, when does stopping the medication seems like a good idea? Once on it, it seems like a package deal. Here I am medication X serving as something that negates the depression. As long as you take me, the depression is fine. The patient wonders when has the depression remitted, but that's as long as the medication is administered.

Keep in mind that we're talking about clinical depression and not plain run on the mill depression you get from a life event or setback.

Does anyone know any good Western books on 'disidentification'? I know it smells of Eastern philosophy; and meditation... But, whatever works, I guess.

Somewhat relevant picture:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

I am vaguely aware that what you're referencing is no joke at all. Vaguely because I've had just a slight taste, and that was an education. Platitudes aren't useful - and there are so many varieties of suicide, even those that keep you alive for years.

Hmm, I didn't mean to imply any of the sentiments you picked up. I wouldn't classify myself as a clinical depressive.

Anyway, this isn't a cry out for help. I just was interested in the concept of disidentification and used my depression as a template, if you care to elaborate on that?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

It seems to me that to disidentify, there must first be identification. And it would seem that identification must be different from being.

Yes, it is different from being. Identification in some sense supersedes being. In that instant of identification is an idea(l) formed and conceptualized. I am not happy because I am depressed. I am such and such because I am depressed, yet again. Just to berate the depressed template.

Quoting tim wood

Then, as looking at the waves is different from being in the waves, the interest has to be defined. Do you want to do it or do you want to watch/observe/study it?

I guess you can extend that analogy and say that one is perpetually missing out the whole of something or the parts of that thing in mind. The mind is limited after all. But, this is where disidentification comes into play, I think. Instead of identifying a part or whole, everything is appreciated in a grasp of pure awareness.

Quoting tim wood

In any case, progress is usually measured from a starting point, in this case, who you are now. For serious inquiry into this topic, it's hard to beat a program of meditation. It's not quick but nothing along these lines is - no magic pill.

I agree. I think, that meditation detaches our thoughts from content and form is made apparent. It is the form of thought that gives rise to awareness. Pure and simple, it is awareness of the fact that we are trying to impose content upon the thought that gives rise to identification.

Quoting tim wood

Meditation for the groundwork for the interior change. For the exterior, to change that you have to know, again, what you're changing (knowing why helps too). So you keep a journal, and those behaviours - all of them - that you want to change as being part of your program of disidentification, you change them.

And, yet try not to think about the white polar bear. It isn't so easy, as you've noted identification comes first and then disidentification can ensue.

Quoting tim wood

How long does it take? In as much as it's a process of incremental change over time, no one should suppose it a quick process to complete. And there's a somewhat subtle language trap: the process is thought as a discrete single event. The trick is to understand that the change is continuous.

What do you mean? I'm wondering about the idea of this process. Care to expand?

Quoting tim wood

Suppose you want to be an ice skater. You imagine the finished product, you with Olympic gold, or you with the Stanley Cup. In terms of that final image, you may feel you've got nowhere. But the fact is you practice; in a short time you will be doing things you never imagined or understood you could be doing. And that will continue. After six months you will think you know how to skate. After seven months you will realize that you didn't actually know at six months, but now at seven months you do. And so it goes. After a while you will recognize a progress of steps, at each step of which your understanding and knowledge will be different than it was before, although built on what came before.

This is hard to get if you haven't been through it. Something as simple as running: everyone thinks they know what running is. But I, after 50 years of it, can assure you that no one knows who doesn't do it, and the more you do it, the more you know about it.

in short, I suppose that if you want to get away from something, then start to get away from it, and try to get further every day. Similarly if you want to get closer to something. Even shorter: it's a matter of applied and deliberate doing. I think zen provides the briefest locution, though it's a brevity that calls for explication; Practice!

Surely depression is not overcome through this same process or method? Otherwise, we might as well agree with the jerk that tells the depressed individual to just cheer up.

Wu Hisn:For many,
The first step on
A spiritual journey is to
Become lost.
The final step is
Losing one’s self.

I have no idea if this will help, but here's what I've got to put on the table.

Forget about analyzing the problem. That just generates more thought, which is the source of the problem.

Instead, keep it as simple and mechanical as possible.

1) Suffering is made of thought.
2) If we're not thinking, we can't suffer.
3) Simple.

Look for simple mechanical exercises that reduce the volume of thought, and apply as needed.

As example, when you eat lunch today you don't expect that meal to permanently solve the problem of physical hunger. You're hungry now, you eat now, problem solved, for now. Simple, sensible, realistic.

Same thing for psychic hunger. If you're suffering now, do exercises to reduce thought now, problem solved, for now. Simple, sensible, realistic.

Manage your brain with the same simple obvious common sense with which you manage your stomach. Don't complicate it, because complications create more thought, and thus more suffering.

Find exercises that work in reducing the volume of thought. Don't worry about why they work, or how they work, and all of that.

Ignore this post. Forget about this thread. Run from anybody who wants to do a sophisticated analysis of the problem. Run faster from anybody who thinks they're a guru, or even worse, a psychologist. :smile:

If the exercises work, do them as needed.

If the exercises don't work, find some that do.

If you're hungry, eat.

Keep it simple.

Reply to Jake

All this running. I can't help but feel as though this is all done out of some sense of urgency or impending doom. So much anxiety and struggles. It shouldn't be this hard or is that life for you?

Fear, distractions, entertainment, even goals all identify with something we are either pursuing or aversive from.

When does it stop?

Interesting thread. It brings up one of questions that seems primal: the boundaries of the self and other. I have some observations/theories (a mixture of something mostly borrowed, something new) about the general idea. (Hope this is somewhat in the vicinity of the topic, and clearly worded although it is an abstract area.)

Here’s the idea, in somewhat condensed form:

1. As far as the individual is concerned, there are two sides (or poles) of reality: Self and Other.
2. The Other is comprised of other people, and also other things, objects, energies, etc.
3. The distinction between Self and Other is often relatively distinct, but it is not completely black-and-white. It is not an absolute yes or no question.
4. The distinction between Self and Other is a fluid, moving boundary. Like the heap of sand Sorites paradox.
5. The Self/Other question is affected by several things, two of which have a noticeable effect: awareness and identification. Awareness reflecting one’s current apprehension of the situation. Identification reflecting one’s current choice of defining one’s nature.
6. It is possible to identify with that which is outside of one’s strict notion of oneself. For example, identifying with a city, nation, or tribe.
7. To further elaborate on the moving boundary between Self and other... awareness and identifications with Self and Other can be simultaneous. (I find it helpful to visualize it like the Bass/Treble equalizer settings on a stereo. It is an “X-Y” map. Both co-ordinates can be any number from zero to maximum, from low to high.)

When a person is a child, one is probably very fuzzy about the difference between themself and their surroundings or mother, for instance. But put in a positive way, children seem in general to be very aware of the “connectedness” of things. They are in the moment, in the flow of life. Thus they often seem to have wisdom beyond their years. Adults gain the critical knowledge of individuality, but often lose the sense of immersion or connection with anything beyond oneself. The goal (as some have said) is to have the ability to recognize both, in whatever proportion is necessary at the moment. To be deficient as a part, or as a whole is to be an incomplete human. For an individual is a whole, which is a part of a another whole. Not unlike viewing energy as both a wave and as a particule.

That’s the theory part of it. The “putting into practice” part is somewhat customizable, I believe. If music helps one go beyond oneself (without getting lost) then that is helpful. Or whatever practice/activity happens to work for someone, keeping the general idea or theory in mind.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I can't help but feel as though this is all done out of some sense of urgency or impending doom. So much anxiety and struggles. It shouldn't be this hard or is that life for you?

1) Urgency - made of thought.
2) Impending doom - made of thought.
3) Anxiety - made of thought.
3) Struggles - made of thought.
4) Hard - made of thought.

See the pattern?

It's not what we're thinking that is the issue, but that we are thinking. It's a mechanical problem, like when your stomach is empty.

Analysis => Thought => Suffering

When we're physically hungry we don't turn it in to a big complicated problem, we go get something to eat.

When we're experiencing psychic hunger, there's no need to turn it in to a big complicated problem. Just take a break from thinking. Turn the volume of the inner TV down.

Reply to Jake

I don't understand your solution. Is it just replacing thought with activity?

And to add to my above post, to relate it more specifically to the original post... I think that on one hand terms like “depression” or “OCD” are relevant and specific, and possibly even helpful. But as an existential feeling... in some ways at least... depression, anxiety, OCD, and other feelings and behaviors are kind of part of the same spectrum of symptoms. One could say that it part of life or part of maturation/“growing up” to deal with such feelings. (I would not necessarily disagree with that, though I would valiantly try to avoid sounding trite, cliched, smug, or uncaring when saying it.)

However... I am not the first person to note that our society is not exactly psychologically balanced. Some have said that our current civilization is full of confusions, contradictions, inconsistencies, and downright deceptions. (And that’s putting aside the full-blown tragedies and injustices for the moment.) How is one to balance oneself when the floor that they are standing on may very well be slanted or unstable? This is not meant as an excuse or rationale for bad behavior. But it seems to be a definite part of the overall picture.

Quoting 0 thru 9

[...] put in a positive way, children seem in general to be very aware of the “connectedness” of things. They are in the moment, in the flow of life. Thus they often seem to have wisdom beyond their years. Adults gain the critical knowledge of individuality, but often lose the sense of immersion or connection with anything beyond oneself.

Care to elaborate on this process? How does it come about that from connectedness people's sphere of interest shrinks to a smaller size to only (often) only encompass one's small dominion of sorts?

Quoting 0 thru 9

I think that on one hand terms like “depression” or “OCD” are relevant and specific, and possibly even helpful. But as an existential feeling... in some ways at least... depression, anxiety, OCD, and other feelings and behaviors are kind of part of the same spectrum of symptoms.

I don't quite see what your getting at here, sorry if I'm being a dunce; but, care to elaborate?

Quoting Posty McPostface

I think that on one hand terms like “depression” or “OCD” are relevant and specific, and possibly even helpful. But as an existential feeling... in some ways at least... depression, anxiety, OCD, and other feelings and behaviors are kind of part of the same spectrum of symptoms.
— 0 thru 9

I don't quite see what your getting at here, sorry if I'm being a dunce; but, care to elaborate?

No problem. Thanks for your reply. I was being a little imprecise. And to be clear, I wasn’t referring to your situation specifically. I’m no expert, but was treated for depression long ago. I think it’s better now, but others may perhaps disagree. In any event, I’m not currently seeing a professional therapist. But I have some general thoughts on it...

I just meant to differentiate between a specific medical situation/condition and a general existential crisis or malaise which many people seem to go through at some point in their life at least. In some, maybe the more acutely aware, this crisis could seem to last almost their entire adult life. And perhaps some successfully learn to deal with it, using it as an opportunity to understand life, reality, humanity, etc.

Quoting 0 thru 9

I just meant to differentiate between a specific medical situation/condition and a general existential crisis or malaise which many people seem to go through at some point in their life at least. In some, maybe the more acutely aware, this crisis could seem to last almost their entire adult life. And perhaps some successfully learn to deal with it, using it as an opportunity to understand life, reality, humanity, etc.

Ah, now I see. So, your point was to talk about issues (existential crisis, malaise, loss of loved one) in isolation or excluding pigeonholing label (depression, OCD, etc.), correct?

In case anyone is wondering where the term "disidentification" was founded or propounded, then there's a Wiki on a movement started by Roberto Assagioli, called Psychosynthesis where disidentification is promoted to create a more holistic human being instead of identity... stuff.

I arrived at this idea through my own labors; but, psychosynthesis is a very intriguing psychological movement in my opinion. It is self-defeating, though. :chin:

Links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosynthesis
http://www.psychosynthesispaloalto.com/pdfs/SevenConcepts1.pdf
http://synthesiscenter.org/articles/0011.pdf

Quoting Posty McPostface

Ah, now I see. So, your point was to talk about issues (existential crisis, malaise, loss of loved one) in isolation or excluding pigeonholing label (depression, OCD, etc.), correct?

Good question. I would say yes and maybe not exactly. “Yes” meaning giving the existential aspects some thought and significance (which all of us philosophy-lovers already here do, I think). And “not exactly” meaning that maybe there is a fuzzy area that is both existential and clinical or medical. Or psychological, ethical/intential, and physical all rolled together in one big ball.

Quoting Posty McPostface

In case anyone is wondering where the term "disidentification" was founded or propounded, then there's a Wiki on a movement started by Roberto Assagioli, called Psychosynthesis where disidentification is promoted to create a more holistic human being instead of identity... stuff.

This (in a very general way ) is the type of stuff I was getting at with the Self/Other awareness and identification ideas. Having some kind of way of approaching the tidal wave of life. Which can make a person feel like they are drowning, and might actually be fatal in many cases.

In general, it seems to be roughly three things:

It’s life... the triumphs and struggles of being human.

It is individual and particular... the unique situations one finds themself in, and the strategies used to cope with them.

It’s our civilization... as I noted above, there is much toxicity a person has to deal with in twenty-first century culture.

Quoting Posty McPostface

[...] put in a positive way, children seem in general to be very aware of the “connectedness” of things. They are in the moment, in the flow of life. Thus they often seem to have wisdom beyond their years. Adults gain the critical knowledge of individuality, but often lose the sense of immersion or connection with anything beyond oneself.
— 0 thru 9

Care to elaborate on this process? How does it come about that from connectedness people's sphere of interest shrinks to a smaller size to only (often) only encompass one's small dominion of sorts

I think this is where the mythic realm of art really can shine when at its best. The hero’s journey which we all are on, whether we accept it or not. Movies, novels, songs, paintings, poetry, etc. I have listed a few that have given some form to feelings that moved me in this thread.

Another work that inspires is Pink Floyd’s The Wall (movie and album). A dramatized survey of a life from childhood to adulthood, struggling not to be consumed by insanity. Many other examples. Please feel free to add some that you find enlightening or moving! Thanks again for your replies. :smile:

Quoting 0 thru 9

Good question. I would say yes and maybe not exactly. “Yes” meaning giving the existential aspects some thought and significance (which all of us philosophy-lovers already here do, I think). And “not exactly” meaning that maybe there is a fuzzy area that is both existential and clinical or medical. Or psychological, ethical/intential, and physical all rolled together in one big ball.

This is what I'm trying to decipher. It is through disidentification that those two distinctions fall apart and the dichotomy disappears. That's the profundity of the whole thing. It makes life easier to handle without the labels and stereotypes, identity politics, you name it, literally. It abolishes the artificial mental compartmentalization that we construe when growing up based on past experiences and whatnot. In some sense, it's ego-dissolving and transcending or liberating. Maybe I'm exaggerating; but, you get the gist I think.

Quoting 0 thru 9

This (in a very general way ) is the type of stuff I was getting at with the Self/Other awareness and identification ideas. Having some kind of way of approaching the tidal wave of life. Which can make a person feel like they are drowning, and might actually be fatal in many cases.

Yeah, give me some time to digest it, and I'll come around to figuring out your POV on the matter.

Quoting 0 thru 9

It’s life... the triumphs and struggles of being human.

It is individual and particular... the unique situations one finds themself in, and the strategies used to cope with them.

It’s our civilization... as I noted above, there is much toxicity a person has to deal with in twenty-first century culture.

I'm pretty much in agreement here. Nothing to add. But, I don't quite see how civilization factors in, it just sort of rolls along and one content person or Stoic?, Buddhist?, Hedonist? doesn't really find any need to change it. We take what we need and try and always ask for more.

Quoting 0 thru 9

I think this is where the mythic realm of art really can shine when at its best. The hero’s journey which we all are on, whether we accept it or not. Movies, novels, songs, paintings, poetry, etc. I have listed a few that have given some form to feelings that moved me in this thread.

Yes, we all love drama. It distracts from the mundane things we have to do. Some people don't like drama, and that's perfectly fine unless some asshole wants to create it.

Quoting 0 thru 9

Another work that inspires is Pink Floyd’s The Wall (movie and album). A dramatized survey of a life from childhood to adulthood, struggling not to be consumed by insanity. Many other examples. Please feel free to add some that you find enlightening or moving! Thanks again for your replies. :smile:

I'm 2001: A Space Odyssey, guy, haha.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I don't understand your solution. Is it just replacing thought with activity?

Ok, sorry, my bad. Will try again....

Replacing thought with activity could be one way to look at it. My favorite example is surfing. As we're racing across the face of a wave with the threat of tons of water falling on our head, the situation demands our full attention. Our brain is totally consumed with moment to moment balance calculations. There's no mental bandwidth available for thinking about ourselves, thus there is no suffering.

In this example, the activity of surfing is forcing us in to a "be here now" focus. Thought has been turned off temporarily, and thus neither the sufferer or the suffering can exist, because they're both made of thought.

Note how the above example is a purely mechanical solution. It didn't involve analyzing my life, my situation, my thoughts, my feelings etc. It didn't involve understanding anything.

What happened instead is that the activity of surfing temporarily turned off thought. And because psychological suffering is made entirely of thought, turning off thought also turned off suffering.

Another example. I've eaten 7 pieces of pizza, and now my stomach is suffering. So I stop eating pizza. Simple and obvious, right? Nothing complicated or sophisticated going on here.

It's the same thing if I've "eaten" too many thoughts, especially thoughts about myself. The solution is to take a break from thinking, or more realistically, to find some method of reducing the volume of thought. If surfing isn't available, there are a million other ways of accomplishing the same thing.

What I'm attempting to do is add another way of looking at suffering to the conversation. I'm attempting to frame it as a purely mechanical problem, because that opens the door to purely mechanical solutions, which tend to be very simple and accessible.

Say they start blaring an annoying commercial on my TV. I hit the mute button, right? Like that. Each of us just needs to find the mute button for our mind, that's all.

Reply to Jake

But, disidentification is not similar to what you are describing. Disidentification is a passive process of the mind. I mean, the chromic depressed person who identifies with their depression too strongly is going to not be able to address the activity partly due to their depression. So, how do you overcome this process of the mind that tells the depressive that they cannot address their depression?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

if the discussion is about disidentification, then let's leave depression behind, at least until we understand disidentification.

Fine then, depression is a term laid with ambiguity, at least until it is experienced. So, then what do you have to say about disidentification?

Quoting Posty McPostface

But, disidentification is not similar to what you are describing.

Ok, I agree that I may not be clear on what you mean by the term disidentification. Clarify if you wish.

Quoting Posty McPostface

So, how do you overcome this process of the mind that tells the depressive that they cannot address their depression?

Let's examine your question in fragments...

"you"
"overcome"
"the mind"
"the depressive"
"their depression"

Each of these items you've referred to is made of thought. Without thought, none of them can exist.

Psychology would have us analyze these thought products and try to understand them. If that process works, great, I'm all for anything that works.

If analysis doesn't work I'm suggesting an alternative way to look at the problem, as a purely mechanical issue. If I pull the power plug to my TV all the bad shows go away. Simple. Mechanical.

Likewise, if I'm racing down a wave and my brain is too busy doing geometry and physics to engage in thinking, all the "bad show" stories about my life go away. They go away not because the bad shows have been analyzed and understood, but because the medium the bad shows are made of has been temporarily turned off, thus making their existence impossible.

This is obviously not a permanent cure to depression because we have to think to survive. However, if one learns how to manage the volume of thought then one doesn't need to fear depression as much. If the shows on our TV get bad enough, we have a plan of what to do.

The volume of thought can be managed through simple mechanical exercises. It's like working to get a flat stomach, we don't really need to understand anything, we just need to patiently do the situps.

Philosophers tend to hate such solutions because they aren't sophisticated, complex, something to chew on, analyze, understand etc. All I'm saying is that if that analytical process doesn't work for someone, they may wish to explore simpler more mechanical alternatives.

As example, sometimes when my brain gets overheated (Death to whoever invented the Internuts!!!) I take an over the counter herb called Kava. It's like a muscle relaxer, it shows everything down, including my mind. It doesn't solve my problems, it just helps me chew on them with less enthusiasm. Obviously, this is a purely mechanical temporary solution. Not a cure, but superior to banging my head on the monitor and yelling at everyone on the Internet.

Finally, please keep in mind that I know these things because being an enthusiastic over thinker myself I've had to learn them.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Jake

Ok, I agree that I may not be clear on what you mean by the term disidentification. Clarify if you wish.

Disidentification simply means, as tim wood has provided, freedom from being labeled by oneself or others. What about the process of disidentification? Do you think you could add to that?

Quoting Jake

The volume of thought can be managed through simple mechanical exercises. It's like working to get a flat stomach, we don't really need to understand anything, we just need to patiently do the situps.

Yes; but, depression indicated a dysfunction of being able to perform simple tasks. It simply robs us of willpower to be able to do simple tasks. Not in all cases though; but, the majority of cases experience anhedonia and lack of energy and a diminished power of the will.

Quoting tim wood

"Depression" is a term that can mean different things. Ambiguity lies in usage. MIs-use is - can be - problematic, beyond mere error. I do not doubt that, if you say your'e depressed, you're depressed. But that's not a ticket or a license, it's a condition. To call it "depression" is simply to pass through the main door - you haven't really got anywhere. Now you have to figure out the details, in a sense find out which inner door you have to pass through - and the wrong door is of no use.

I feel as though it is quite obvious when you experience depression. It's a dysphoric mood of sorts. In the case provided in the OP, the mood has been experienced long enough that it seems normal to the depressive. I don't need to list the list of symptoms; but, they are quite apparent to the depressive in most cases. I do know that psychiatrists often mistake a temporary setback or existential angst or some passing malady for depression. Do you know how to disentangle temporary setbacks, loss of a loved one, and such from plain depression? Is it simply the length of time that one feels depressed that dictates if it is depression indeed?

Quoting tim wood

Near as I can tell, disidentification is getting out from under being mislabeled, whether by self or others, whether by group or as an individual.

How does one know one is being mislabeled? Is that a conscious process?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

There are techniques - tricks, if you will - for dealing with this. In short, you just have to do it, whatever it is. Intervention that can get you over the hump is worth considering. And you might consider - or revisit because you likely have considered - issues of anger (including rage). It's axiomatic to me (maybe only me) that depression is inward-directed anger that properly should be outward directed.

So-called clinical depression is a dfferent animal, and for that you need professional animal control.

So, you disagree that disidentification is a useful therapy in combating depression? It seems to me that, at least initially it might not be of great use; but, it would be important in the long term not to identify with depression too closely. How does one even begin disidentification with depression if they experience the symptoms constantly? It seems like as long as one identifies with their depression, then they are or will be stuck in a rut. Therefore, something else might be needed to combat the depression, such as the therapy of sorts. I don't believe that willing oneself out of depression is possible at first.

@Jake

So, take this for example:

Wu Hsin:The inherent nature of mind is to process thought.

To attempt the cessation of thought goes against what is natural.

The goal, therefore, is not the cessation of thought.

The goal is cessation off identification with thought.

How do you disidentify with a thought at all?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

Joots is a word coined by Douglas Hofstadter in Godel, Escher, Bach. It means, stands for, "jump out of the system." I've found it at times a powerful idea.

How does one jump out of depression? That's quite impossible, I think. "I jooted myself out of depression." If anyone knows then please let us know!

So, let me reiterate my position.

One has the symptoms of "X", and those symptoms point towards a label or diagnosis, such as X itself.

How does one stop this process or begin disidentification when presented with symptoms of depression (just as an example)? I don't know if that is possible, as it seems like something one does automatically and without forethought.

@unenlightened, what do you have to say about all this, if I may humbly ask?

Interesting responses from all on a very worthwhile (imho) topic.

As Posty above referred to Roberto Assagioli, a psychologist who helped pioneer transpersonal psychology, I think a general nutshell description of the topic might shed some light on a possible meaning of “disidentification”. From Wikipedia:

[i]Transpersonal psychology is a sub-field or "school" of psychology that integrates the spiritual and transcendent aspects of the human experience with the framework of modern psychology. It is also possible to define it as a "spiritual psychology". The transpersonal is defined as "experiences in which the sense of identity or self extends beyond (trans) the individual or personal to encompass wider aspects of humankind, life, psyche or cosmos".[1] It has also been defined as "development beyond conventional, personal or individual levels".

Issues considered in transpersonal psychology include spiritual self-development, self beyond the ego, peak experiences, mystical experiences, systemic trance, spiritual crises, spiritual evolution, religious conversion, altered states of consciousness, spiritual practices, and other sublime and/or unusually expanded experiences of living. The discipline attempts to describe and integrate spiritual experience within modern psychological theory and to formulate new theory to encompass such experience.

Transpersonal psychology has made several contributions to the academic field, and the studies of human development, consciousness and spirituality. Transpersonal psychology has also made contributions to the fields of psychotherapy[5] and psychiatry.

Lajoie and Shapiro[8] reviewed forty definitions of transpersonal psychology that had appeared in academic literature over the period from 1968 to 1991. They found that five key themes in particular featured prominently in these definitions: states of consciousness; higher or ultimate potential; beyond the ego or personal self; transcendence; and the spiritual. Based upon this study the authors proposed the following definition of transpersonal psychology: Transpersonal Psychology is concerned with the study of humanity's highest potential, and with the recognition, understanding, and realization of unitive, spiritual, and transcendent states of consciousness.

In a review of previous definitions Walsh and Vaughan[1] suggested that transpersonal psychology is an area of psychology that focuses on the study of transpersonal experiences and related phenomena. These phenomena include the causes, effects and correlates of transpersonal experiences and development, as well as the disciplines and practices inspired by them. They have also criticised many definitions of transpersonal psychology for carrying implicit assumptions, or presuppositions, that may not necessarily define the field as a whole...[/i]


Of course there are different schools of thought, some with major differences, but most participants would probably agree on these basics. I think of the general urge not to completely identify with oneself and one’s thoughts as a very healthy skepticism, and an equally helpful movement away from solipsism.

Also, this post by @Jake from another thread seems to be relevant to the concept of disidentification here.

Reply to 0 thru 9

I agree. Transpersonal psychology seems like an interesting offshoot. But, what about setting limits on disidentification. It seems to me that there are no limits on this idea, and it falls on itself. If I reach the logical end of disidentification, which would be not identifying with myself, then what's left to do?

Reply to 0 thru 9

Yes, it's built into us to identify with things and such matters; but, again I reference my previous post, about the limitlessness of disidentification. Does it just continue forever?

Quoting Posty McPostface

The above depressive sentiment is due to identifying with my depression too closely. Now, I don't know how to (dis)-identify with depression anymore, it's been with me for so long, that I've become accustomed to it.

I wonder what you mean by dis-identify? There is some complexity here I think, because usually folks don't identify as depressed the way they identify as British, or a philosopher, or male. Rather, one tends to have depression - a black dog that moves in and won't go away. And this is already by way of dis-identification - one does not, by contrast, often say one has got happiness, but that one is happy.

Depression in your first paragraph is something you deal with, that goes away or doesn't, that you battle; it is not by these expressions 'you', but 'other'. This othering one might say is identification by negation - "I am" ... "not-depression", equates to "I have depression", or even "Depression has me". And in such case, dis-identifying with othered depression looks rather like identifying with depression.

That's already complex enough, but there can also be another form of negation, that denies the whole thing, as self or other. One might say that sometimes I am happy, and sometimes I am miserable, and it is not a thing I have, or a thing I am, but just a flow of existence. Perhaps that is what you mean by dis-identification?

Reply to Posty McPostface

True, one would want to be prudent and logical while attempting to disindentify. Like someone said above, turning down the volume can help. I do my best not to believe every thought that occurs to me simply because it’s “MINE”. The thought may or may not be true, helpful, intelligent, etc. This feels freeing and a relief rather than limiting. It feels like being on the long road back from being wrapped up in myself. Another step every day. It is nice to not be the center of the universe. That is too much pressure. As the Buddhists say, you are not your body-mind. Or (if I may add) not exclusively.

Also, any phrase that begins “I am...” is extremely powerful, as you probably know. And as you have read in psychology books, wording things without saying “I am..” can help. If I am forced to identify with anything, I’d say that I am someone, I am no-thing, I am part of everything. All other identities are founded on that.

Quoting unenlightened

That's already complex enough, but there can also be another form of negation, that denies the whole thing, as self or other. One might say that sometimes I am happy, and sometimes I am miserable, and it is not a thing I have, or a thing I am, but just a flow of existence. Perhaps that is what you mean by dis-identification?

I was thinking more along the lines or associating a state of mind with being itself. This is manifest in terms such as "I am...", non-temporally.

Quoting unenlightened

I wonder what you mean by dis-identify?

What I mean to say is that we have identifications that we abide by, as you've already mentioned of being male, British or what have you, and being sad or depressed. Going back to the OP, one learns to cope with XYZ (depression as an example). Dis-identification abolishes the need for coping with some thing and instead allows one to live as a set of symptoms instead of a label.

Quoting unenlightened

This othering one might say is identification by negation - "I am" ... "not-depression", equates to "I have depression", or even "Depression has me". And in such case, dis-identifying with othered depression looks rather like identifying with depression.

This is interesting. So, how can you disidentify, at all, with depression? The otherness of depression eventually leads one to anti-depression; but, that is not fruitful in my opinion. Disidentification is, however.

When one goes to the doctor, they talk about symptoms and different feelings, culminating in the label or identifying oneself with depression.

In other words, how does one draw the exclusion between the two statements about being depressed and having depression?

Quoting 0 thru 9

True, one would want to be prudent and logical while attempting to disindentify. Like someone said above, turning down the volume can help.

I'm not sure you can turn down the volume on 'depression', it's a lingering feeling that doesn't just go away. It's a persistent and deep mood so to speak.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I'm not sure you can turn down the volume on 'depression', it's a lingering feeling that doesn't just go away. It's a persistent and deep mood so to speak.

Sorry, i was mixing metaphors and quotes. Always a tricky thing. What I was trying to say was something like turning the volume down on self-identity. Not completely off, because that might be like some strange drug trip where one doesn’t know where they end and the floors and rest of the world begins. Difficult to even make a cup of coffee like that. :yum:

Hi Posty,

I"m going to come at it maybe from a slightly different direction, maybe it speaks to what you are pointing at, maybe not…

So we have ideas about who we should be, based on social norms, temperament, position in a social context etc...Then we can compare those ideas with how we percieve ourselves to actually behave, and evaluate ouselves based on that.

In case of depression, we might have the idea that we should be happy (based on social norms that we have internalised etc), but we are feeling depressed so we think we aren't really living up to that standard, which creates another layer of mental anguish.

So one feels bad because of depression, and on top of that you feel extra bad because being/feeling depressed is not what you should be/feel.

So what I take your 'identification with depression' to be in this context is the adjustment of the ideal self to be more in line with the actual self. There is adjustment of goals, expectations etc so to avoid feeling extra bad about not meeting the standards of an unadjusted ideal self. This might be a good strategy in the beginning, and indeed even necessary to not make things worse... it may even be an overall good thing because social standards are at times absurd (nobody is happy all the time). But if I understand what you are saying, it may also be the cause of staying more depressed because that's what you come to expect (identify with).

I'm not sure what the solution is here, because it would seem to disidentify you would need to build up an ideal self again that doesn't take depression into account, but then that runs the risk of backfiring if you happen to feel depressed again…

Maybe the solution is to not evaluate yourself on the happiness axis alltogheter. It doesn't seem like a goal that we have all that much controle over anyway… and more of a byproduct of other things most of the time. The whole 'wisdom is changing what you can't accept, accepting what you can't change and knowing the difference'-thing. I do believe that some things just go away if you focus on other things…. and not by trying to not focus on a thing, attention doesn't seem to work that way.

Another thing that might help is the more general realisation that thoughts and identification are allways only mere abstractions. And abstractions are necessarily crude simplifications of what's really going on, and never the whole story... sort of a deflationary approach to though in general, so you don't take it so seriously anymore, either way. That's why they sometimes call it the chattering monkey in eastern philosophy, to reduce the importance it is typically given.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

Another thing that might help is the more general realisation that thoughts and identification are allways only mere abstractions. And abstractions are necessarily crude simplifications of what's really going on, and never the whole story... sort of a deflationary approach to though in general, so you don't take it so seriously anymore, either way. That's why they sometimes call it the chattering monkey in eastern philosophy, to reduce the importance it is typically given.

Well said and I would agree. If you left out one little thing, it might be this: :monkey: (darn... no “speak no evil” emoji!)

Thanks for the response.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

But if I understand what you are saying, it may also be the cause of staying more depressed because that's what you come to expect (identify with).

Yes, that's what I was pointing out.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

I'm not sure what the solution is here, because it would seem to disidentify you would need to build up an ideal self again that doesn't take depression into account, but then that runs the risk of backfiring if you happen to feel depressed again…

Yes, well, the point would be not to identify with a label and simply accept the symptoms of depression in this case. Is that possible?

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

Another thing that might help is the more general realisation that thoughts and identification are allways only mere abstractions. And abstractions are necessarily crude simplifications of what's really going on, and never the whole story... sort of a deflationary approach to though in general, so you don't take it so seriously anymore, either way. That's why they sometimes call it the chattering monkey in eastern philosophy, to reduce the importance it is typically given.

Interesting. So, identification is a crude simplification. Seems true. What do you mean by the chattering monkey analogy?

It's interesting because, in CBT, there's even an attempt at disidentification, at least not overtly. It's mainly to stop labeling oneself with various labels instead.

But, disidentification seems better suited to deal with other issues than mental health-related problems in my mind. I think it's best utilized to stop negative labeling, as per CBT, of various names or stereotypes. I think, that disidentification is too much to ask for in terms of trying to absolve oneself from depression, anxiety, or other maladies.

Posty:Yes, well, the point would be not to identify with a label and simply accept the symptoms of depression in this case. Is that possible?

Yes i think it is... a label is only a overarching designation given to a set of certain symptoms in this case. It is a further abstraction from the symptoms, by which i mean that the symptoms are a more detailed and closer description of reality anyway. Naming and labelling, it's only a convenience thing really… not allways an absolute necessity i don't think.

But isn't it more the negative connotations attached to the label that are the problem. I mean a label or name is just that, a name given to a set of things. Without (societal mostly) evaluations attached to it, it's just neutral value. Maybe it's more those negative connotation that need to be dissolved.

Posty:Interesting. So, identification is a crude simplification. Seems true. What do you mean by the chattering monkey analogy?

Well a monkey screetches and runs arround exited a lot of the time, making a lot of noise... it's something not to be taken to seriously. The idea is that the thoughts, the internal dialogue etc are like a chattering monkey.

Reply to Posty McPostface

Posty:It's interesting because, in CBT, there's even an attempt at disidentification, at least not overtly. It's mainly to stop labeling oneself with various labels instead.

Yeah I think the idea here is that you need to let go of the negative valuations attached to labels, the social stigma etc. That's the second layer i was talking about, the guilt and shame of being depressed, on top of feeling depressed.

Reply to ChatteringMonkey

Yeah, it's a futile concept in my opinion to address internal problems of the mind such as depression and other maladies. You don't negate depression by not identifying with it, I think.

Another interesting point would be the Cartesian claim that I think therefore I am. One out not identify with thought to exist in general.

Depression is part of who and what you are. If you're not depressed then you are blind or numb to reality... and trying to get rid of ones depression is like asking to become blind. I love my depression, it makes me hate the world and reminds me that the greater portion of humanity is deserving of little more than disgust and pity. As a consequence of this depressive view, the opposites; nature, animals, philosophy, art, litterature, food, old cars, whiskey, old buildings, culture mythology, my bicycle, and the rare encounter with an intelligent thinking human... fill me with consummate delight, a happiness and joy that makes the depression entirely worthwhile.

When you feel down, have a wank, look out the window, get drunk, make muffins, go for a walk, fuck the world.. it is only ugly wherever there are people and there should be no one else inside your soul (whatever that is when its at home).

M

Reply to Posty McPostface

Posty:Yeah, it's a futile concept in my opinion to address internal problems of the mind such as depression and other maladies. You don't negate depression by not identifying with it, I think.

You don't cure the depression itself maybe, but i think you can stop the feelings of guilt and shame assoiciated with labels that maybe prevent you from even starting to cure the depression itself.

Quoting Marcus de Brun

Depression is part of who and what you are.

Then there is only the ability to coping with it, yes?

Quoting Marcus de Brun

I love my depression, it makes me hate the world and reminds me that the greater portion of humanity is deserving of little more than disgust and pity. As a consequence of this depressive view, the opposites; nature, animals, philosophy, art, litterature, food, old cars, whiskey, old buildings, culture mythology, my bicycle, and the rare encounter with an intelligent thinking human... fill me with consummate delight, a happiness and joy that makes the depression entirely worthwhile.

How can you feel joy out of those things if your depressed? That seems contradictory, no?

Thanks for posting.

Posty

This question is totally out of order and I should not be asking it ... straight out... and I absolutely do not wish to cause any offence.. so please please ignore same or tell me to fuck off and mind my own business if you find it offensive. However I do think it has an impact on ones philosophy and ones depression

What is your sexual orientation?

M

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

You don't cure the depression itself maybe, but i think you can stop the feelings of guilt and shame assoiciated with labels that maybe prevent you from even starting to cure the depression itself.

Makes sense. I guess disidentification can only go so far. You can keep your hand warm near the fire but not so much as put it in the fire to keep it warm when already done once before to the detriment of the person .

Quoting Marcus de Brun

What is your sexual orientation?

I'm not sure I understand the point of this strange question. Is your point that some things are simply what they are and cannot be changed no matter how much one disidentification applies?

No that is not my point, and apologies for the question.

In my experience deep depression comes from unhappiness about the deepest of things. being loved, sharing love is probably the deepest and most fundamental 'things' for us all.

For most men, love and sexuality are intricately intertwined. Lots of men are unhappy because they have not found real, deep, meaningful love... this I think is the main antidote to depression, and often the barrier to this can be sexuality.

Sex and orgasims are mother nature's anti-depressant.. and when they come (no pun intended) in the form of a meaningful relationship.. the antidote is far better and more enduring than prozac, poetry or philosophy.


I guess what I am trying to say is that if one truly identifies with oneself in a deeply honest way... there is little to dislike and even less to dis-identify with.

M

Reply to Marcus de Brun

Yes, I understand this somewhat. To be honest I would call myself asexual. I am not driven (anymore, or much less so) to gratify feelings of lust or sensuality. I used to be attracted to women, and still am somewhat, though rather Platonically.

But, what are your thoughts on Disidentification? Is it BS in your opinion?

Reply to Posty McPostface

Complete BS (IMOP) the only thing that is more BS is the notion of an asexual person.

M

Reply to Marcus de Brun

Well, then. Then I guess, quite unfortunately, we cannot have a dispute or discussion over the issue.

A shame really.

Reply to Marcus de Brun

What makes you say it's BS, for the matter?

Reply to Posty McPostface

I think you might be right in the sense that you do not 'wish' to discuss the issue, but that is a little different to the notion that one 'cannot' discuss the issue.

The issue (if it can even be called an issue) is perhaps most deserving of discussion... at least with the self, as it is deeply personal and deeply relevant

These are the sexual orientations that I believe exist.

Gay
Straight
Confused/ashamed

M

Reply to Marcus de Brun

If you insist, then I think I lean towards being straight.

But, more about disidentification, please. Why is it utter BS in your opinion?

Because its validity or the need for it arises out of internal conflicts such as the following:

"I think I lean towards being straight"

It is the uncertainty here that legitimizes or creates the potential horizon for 'disidentification'

M

Reply to Marcus de Brun

And what's wrong about that? Disidentification is a valuable tool to use when confronted with conflict, no?

But, I am leaning on the assumption that one cannot disidentify with things. Identification is just too powerful in the mind and deeply embedded within it to try and negate its own validity.

I do mostly agree with what unenlightened has to say, for the matter.

Reply to Posty McPostface

Ah! I knew it was going to raise its ugly head. wrong and right.

Fuck wrong and right. Listen to Nietzsche and move beyond right and wrong.

Fuck wrong...

The problem with disidentification is that it sees a 'wrong' as wrong...

There is no wrong... with the self.. there is nothing to dis-identify from if one kills the wrongness of the wrong and loves the self.

M

Quoting Marcus de Brun

The problem with disidentification is that it sees a 'wrong' as wrong...

No, it is impartial to right and wrong. It doesn't distinguish between the valence of right or wrong.

Reply to Posty McPostface

If it is impartial to right and wrong then it cannot exist because within such a truly impartial space.. there is nothing to dis-identify from.

There is nothing in ones identity that one needs to distance ones self from... nothing at all! The distance becomes pathology illness and unhappiness, because the distance the dis-identity is a move away from the truth of the self.

There is nothing wrong with being oneself en toto. There is everything wrong in the compromise.

I'm off to bed so might be late to reply further

M

Quoting Marcus de Brun

If it is impartial to right and wrong then it cannot exist because within such a truly impartial space.. there is nothing to dis-identify from.

There's always stuff that can be dis-identified from. It is just a matter of what content I want to disidentify from. It can or rather, should be impartial to what is right or wrong. After all, right and wrong are social constructs, which are the very thing that one disidentifies from.

Quoting Marcus de Brun

There is nothing in ones identity that one needs to distance ones self from... nothing at all! The distance becomes pathology illness and unhappiness, because the distance the dis-identity is a move away from the truth of the self.

So, people who are depressed, anxious, or some other ailment, have no use in trying to dis-identify from those labels and their negative connotations? I think not.

Quoting Posty McPostface

In other words, how does one draw the exclusion between the two statements about being depressed and having depression?

Who is asking? Is depression expressing itself? Is depression curious? Probably not. Probably, depression doesn't give a damn.

But there is not an either/or absolute, because it's a matter of what one wants to think, what one finds acceptable to be. For example, folks know, somewhere, that they are not their wealth, it is something they have, but somehow they manage to identify pretty closely with it; you don't find a lot of people trying to dis-identify with it.

Reply to Posty McPostface

"There's always stuff that can be dis-identified from"

One (by definition) has only one self to identify with. The true and entire identity of the self . Dis-identity can never be accomplished in any real form, other than schizophrenia (which may be an unfortunate consequence of the unfortunate attempt)

Dis-identity is therefore ultimately pathological and is merely a euphemism for denial that is deemed essential by the self for the sake of the self, however all that is being facilitated is self delusion and unhappiness and perhaps ultimately self destructive pathology .

Be yourself... no compromise. If the true version of that self appears 'wrong' or immoral, then the basis of that morality must be examined, and or the actual truth of self is not really being understood by the self it may not be a truth but merely a self delusion.

Human beings strive to be happy and true happiness does not necessitate or entail immorality or harm to others or to self. As such the truth should be embraced and not feared, if it is to be feared.. perhaps it is not really a truth but a poorly understood aspect of the self.

Self knowing is perhaps the very purpose to human existence... dis-identity is its antithesis.


"So, people who are depressed, anxious, or some other ailment, have no use in trying to dis-identify from those labels and their negative connotations? I think not. "

'labels' come from 'the other' They should not be avoided, they should be smashed into little pieces of dust and blown into the ether. If the self labels the self then the self has become the enemy of the self. Fuck labels.

M

Quoting Posty McPostface

I'm not sure you can turn down the volume on 'depression'

In fact, one gets rid of depression entirely on a regular basis.

Like this...

We're driving to work thinking about the day ahead, depressed about a job we hate. We're thinking about all the mistakes we made to wind up in this job, and that depresses us further, etc etc.

And then a kid on a bike shoots out from a side street right in to our lane of traffic. Thinking is replaced by automatic reflexes as we swerve to avoid the kid. And in those few seconds we aren't depressed, because we're not thinking.

I'm sitting at my desk working on the computer. I hear somebody enter the room behind me. I turn to look to see who it is. And in that moment of looking I'm not depressed, because I'm not thinking, I'm looking.

This escape from thought, and thus from depression, is woven in to the fabric of every day life. It happens routinely but because it happens so fast and is so utterly normal we tend not to notice it.

Meditation is a collection of simple mechanical techniques for taking some conscious control of this process. Or, for some people it's fishing, or working in their garden. There are a thousand ways to the same place.

But the thing is, analyzing the situation is not one of them.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Disidentification simply means, as tim wood has provided, freedom from being labeled by oneself or others. What about the process of disidentification? Do you think you could add to that?

Ok, I hear you now. Well, we could start with something easier than not labeling ourselves. We could for instance people watch at the mall and practice just observing without labeling or judging. Or we could take a walk in the park and practice observing everything so closely and carefully that the process of thinking about what we're observing is pushed in to the background.

Perhaps this will help? There is observation, and then there is processing what's been observed (ie. thinking). The more we are observing, the less we are thinking. So we can practice observing in a thousand different ways.

Thinking will continually interrupt the observing. That's completely normal. When that happens, and it will happen a LOT, we can just patiently set the thinking aside and get back to observing. Again, this is simple and mechanical, but not that easy at first.

It's like doing situps. We just do them, and do them, and do them, and do them, and stick with it patiently and persistently, and over time it gets easier and easier with practice.

I doubt such a plan will cure depression. But as we learn how to carve out a temporary space free of depression, we'll probably become less afraid of depression, and thus stop identifying with it so much. You know, weaken the bonds of that feedback loop.

Again, like with situps, no amount of analysis is going to solve the problem. Analysis tends to make it worse as it just feeds the thinking machine, poring more fuel on the fire.

In the end it seems to boil down to this.

We either find a system that works for us AND WORK IT...

Or we don't.

Speaking of simple mechanical solutions, there's this, which I should have mentioned first.

Physical exercise.

The mind and body are not two things as the thought generated labels "mind" and "body" suggest, but rather one thing. This is good news as it means the mind can be positively influenced by work we do on the body.

1) So before we dive in to a pile of sophisticated analysis, let's have an exercise plan that we are loyal to.

2) If our diet can be improved, let's improve it.

3) Yoga is a secret weapon that has served many people very well. Definitely worth investing in that.

4) Massage is a miracle method! Don't miss out!

All of the above is work, but none of it is complicated. It's just a matter of rolling up our sleeves and actually doing it.

And if we don't do things like this, that's useful too, as the not doing informs us that we aren't really that serious.

After following the above plan faithfully for years I have totally cured myself of Manic Typoholic Bloviation disease, as you can clearly see for yourself in this thread. :smile:

Quoting Posty McPostface

I know it smells of Eastern philosophy; and meditation... But, whatever works, I guess.

Wow! Eastern philosophy, or even being associated with it, is a negative thing? :fear:

P.S. I found this short article, which seems to give a reasonable impression of what disidentification is, and why we should do it. It definitely has a flavour of Eastern philosophy. :up: :smile:

On the subject of Eastern philosophy and guru-ism etc...

Eckhardt Tolle is an excellent writer who communicates clearly on the kind of subjects being discussed here. He can be a good read for those new to such subjects, as his presentation is mostly in common sense everyday language. However...

The downside is that his students have built a silly new age guru worship circus environment around him, which he may have fallen victim to. But, if you can hold your nose and ignore all of that, he's still a good writer, a good introduction.

Quoting Jake

1) ... let's have an exercise plan that we are loyal to.

2) If our diet can be improved, let's improve it.

3) Yoga is a secret weapon that has served many people very well. Definitely worth investing in that.

4) Massage is a miracle method! Don't miss out!

All good suggestions. Anything that keeps the blood flowing and the chi energy moving is good, especially when one might be in a state of reduced physical activity due to feelings of depression.

Personally, I have found that a low carbohydrate diet steadies the body, preventing ups and downs in blood sugar and insulin, which might be causing a roller coaster effect in other neuro-chemicals. There is a dietary paradox which I’m still trying to wrap my head around, but I believe it to be true. Eating a high fat diet (more specifically a low-carb/high fat-fiber-protein diet) forces the body to go into fat-burning mode to produce energy. It has been theorized by proponents of the so-called Paleo diet that this is really the body’s preferred way of generating energy. With the evolutionarily-recent invention of mass agricultural of grains, humans potentially had more carbohydrates than our bodies had evolved to process.

Fat For Fuel by Joseph Mercola is an excellent indepth study of the issue.

Quoting Jake

Again, like with situps, no amount of analysis is going to solve the problem. Analysis tends to make it worse as it just feeds the thinking machine, poring more fuel on the fire.

You have made the point that analysis is doing more harm than good. However, I must in general disagree with that assessment. If one was not analyzing the situation, one would not be almost scientifically sizing up the situation, and looking for answers. It’s like trying to untangle a knotted clump of power cords and wires by simply pulling strongly on them. Occasionally, if there are only a few wires and they aren’t too tangled this might work. But for a big ball of cables (that seems to be mating and reproducing :lol:) a slow process of careful and nimble unwinding works better.

I agree with changing the thinking process. That is what the idea of dis-identification, and also this thread is about. But that requires thought and analysis. As the quote above from the Chan/Zen master Wu Hsin hints, trying to stop thought is going against the very nature of mind. Again, disidentification is the goal. However, I completely agree that activities where one can “lose oneself” and “get into the zone/flow” are helpful to all, especially one dealings with depression.

Quoting 0 thru 9

one would not be almost scientifically sizing up the situation

You think science is an appropriate tool to investigate disidentification? :chin:

Quoting Pattern-chaser

You think science is an appropriate tool to investigate disidentification? :chin:

Looking at the context of the statement will probably clarify what I was getting at. But to be more specific... not “Science” itself in lab coats and oscilloscopes. But rather a scientific and analytical approach of noting causes and effects and looking for patterns. We do this all the time anyway, maybe somewhat unconsciously. In a crucial situation, critical thinking is... well... critical. :nerd:

Quoting 0 thru 9

...a scientific and analytical approach of noting causes and effects and looking for patterns...

Oh, I'm all for looking for patterns! :wink: But seriously, there are some things that require considered thought if we are to learn about them. There are others for which no amount of thought will do, e.g. learning to ride a bike. And there are still others for which a wholly scientific approach yields the most useful results. Horses for courses, and all that. :wink: :up:

As regards disidentification, my guess is that nothing beyond considered thought will achieve anything useful. Disidentification seems to be a vague and (dare I mention the word? :chin: :wink:) subjective thing. Formal reasoning seems too, well, formal. IMO, of course. :up:

Quoting unenlightened

Who is asking? Is depression expressing itself? Is depression curious? Probably not. Probably, depression doesn't give a damn.

But there is not an either/or absolute, because it's a matter of what one wants to think, what one finds acceptable to be.

Depression doesn't exist in some independent manner or fashion from the mind. It often has a manifestation in being itself. Take, for example, "I am depressed". The sufferer identifies with the depression to a significant extent. How does one disidentify from that?

It seems to me that depression can be learned out of or come out of, and no amount of disidentification will be of any use. It makes no difference if I am a set of symptoms or a label; because, this is just how I feel.

And, yes. I don't think disidentification is useful for treating depression...

Quoting Marcus de Brun

Dis-identity can never be accomplished in any real form, other than schizophrenia (which may be an unfortunate consequence of the unfortunate attempt)

Quite interested in what do you mean by schizophrenia here?

Quoting Marcus de Brun

Dis-identity is therefore ultimately pathological and is merely a euphemism for denial that is deemed essential by the self for the sake of the self, however all that is being facilitated is self delusion and unhappiness and perhaps ultimately self destructive pathology .

If disidentification could be applied to dysphoric states of being, such as depression, then what's wrong with that?

Quoting Marcus de Brun

Self knowing is perhaps the very purpose to human existence... dis-identity is its antithesis.

But, if one wants to know who they truly are, then living by labels, stereotypes, and other means of identification, is quite contrary to that goal? Hence, disidentification?

Quoting Marcus de Brun

'labels' come from 'the other' They should not be avoided, they should be smashed into little pieces of dust and blown into the ether. If the self labels the self then the self has become the enemy of the self. Fuck labels.

Oh, so we're in agreement, cool.

Quoting Jake

I doubt such a plan will cure depression. But as we learn how to carve out a temporary space free of depression, we'll probably become less afraid of depression, and thus stop identifying with it so much. You know, weaken the bonds of that feedback loop.

Yes, depression doesn't go away like that. It takes some dedication to make it want to go away. But, disidentification is a poor means of doing so, I suppose.

How are you on Maslow's pyramid of needs? Just to wonder what the cause may be.

The topic though... what's better, misery or agony? I'd suggest that you construct an image of what the ideal, or at least, better you would look like, and then feel bad for not doing it, until you do it, and then feel great!

Those Indians, they have some interesting pyschological ideas too, in Hinduism. There are basically three vital energies that make up the drives, the sattvas, rajas, and tamas. People are said to be made up of the interplay between these drive types. The goal of spiritual practice, or the idea, is that sattva is the aspect of you drawn towards virtue, goodness, and truth, which you should cultivate. Rajas are more concerned with getting yours, moving you towards goals, active expressive displays. Tamas are basically negative energies. Inaction, lethargy, anxiety, disorder, and depression, one would think.

What you need is a clear vision of what a differently constituted you would look like, and then identify with that.

Quoting All sight

How are you on Maslow's pyramid of needs? Just to wonder what the cause may be.

All the basic needs are taken care of.

Quoting All sight

The topic though... what's better, misery or agony? I'd suggest that you construct an image of what the ideal, or at least, better you would look like, and then feel bad for not doing it, until you do it, and then feel great!

Well, it's more about identifying with depression in general. I am my symptoms but my symptoms aren't me. That sort of thing. I wouldn't say, I'm suffering. The depression is under control, so no worries there. It's just a basic feeling of unease about being depressed rather. Sometimes up sometimes down.

Quoting Pattern-chaser

Wow! Eastern philosophy, or even being associated with it, is a negative thing? :fear:

P.S. I found this short article, which seems to give a reasonable impression of what disidentification is, and why we should do it. It definitely has a flavour of Eastern philosophy. :up: :smile:

No, not at all. It's not a negative thing. I just find living as a Buddhist or with Eastern thought in mind to be exceedingly difficult in Western society.

Here's what I found in that link helpful and bears uncanny semblance to my discussion on the topic with @unenlightened

Quoting Seeds of Unfolding, No. 3, 1985

We can practice disidentification by changing our sense of self from being to having; that is, to change from “I am” to “I have.” When “I am” something, it is forever and it is the totality of me; when “I have” something, it is temporal and limited. “I have” also has a “not me” quality to it which helps me see that my deepest sense of self transcends the particulars of the moment. For example: “I am depressed” versus “I have a depression,” “I think…” versus “I have a thought…” Thoughts, feelings, reactions, judgments are all transient experiences of our being. Disidentification helps us see them as passing and relative so they don’t acquire the profound importance that they have when we are totally immersed in them. We learn that they are not “Me,” but only a small part of “Me.” We learn that all experiences pass, no matter how painful or how wonderful. We learn that momentary feelings, opinions, thoughts, reactions are for this moment and no more. In this way we learn to see how we think, what we feel, and how we react. With time we discover that everything is transient, that everything passes.

We can practice disidentification by remembering that we are not just the thought or feeling that we are experiencing at the moment. Thus, I can repeat to myself: “I am not my thoughts,” “I am not my feelings,” Ï am not my opinions,” “I am not my memories,” “I am not my reactions,” and so forth, depending on what is gripping my consciousness at the moment. Again, the tactic here is to create some distance in order to acquire more objectivity and to center myself in what transcends the experience of the moment.

In this way, disidentification leads to an expansion of consciousness because, by separating myself from what is transient—thoughts, feelings, reactions—I can be centered in what is not bound by time and space. There is an aspect of my consciousness that does not change—it only “Is.” That “Isness,” that pure consciousness, is my capacity to observe myself. If I can remain centered in the transcendent, I open myself to life with a new awareness. I can then integrate the transcendent and the contingent at each moment, because both dimensions exist always.

Thus, disidentification helps us to know ourselves as we truly are, and to remain connected to the transcendent dimension of consciousness, expanding our sense of self.

Reply to Posty McPostface

Oh, so we're in agreement, cool.

We are indeed in agreement on most things. We do not know each other but from an objective analysis of much of what you write, you appear to me (I may be wrong) to have an abundance of kindness in your heart. I know that sounds like having some smoke blown up your ass, or perhaps wishy washy stuff, however I mean it in the sense that one might observe that you are wearing a blue shirt or a red tie. The assertion that you have kindness in much of what you write, is not meant as a compliment simply an observation.

The reason for the observation is twofold. In the first instance I believe that kindness is an illconsidered form, variant, or essential component of true and worthy intelligence. Without kindness intellectuality is functionally retarded, morally redundant and often dangerous and destructive. Kindness is not measured in IQ testing and as such IQ is no reflection of true intelligence. Neitzsche for example is considered as intelligent but unkind, intolerant or even heartless, Schopenhauer is often characterised as such. A common criticism of Nietzsche is that the Nazi's were fans of his philosophy. If one overlooks Nietzsche's kindness there is much bitterness in his philosophy, and one can never read Nietzsche properly if one looses sight of the fact that he was as Christian as Christ, perhaps more so. He expected much of mankind, too much perhaps. However one only 'expects' when there is a hope of return. True misanthropy is pure ambivalence.

Unfortunately kindness is too often born out of suffering. Those who have rarely suffered are rarely kind. To be tolerant of others, one must must experience an intolerance for ones owns foibles. Intolerant people usually have the greatest tolerance or immunity to their own failings..

Often the worst kind of suffering is an intolerance for the self, self critcism, self doubt, self loathing... these are the bedrock of depression. most depressives are kind as a consequence of self inflicted suffering.

However once one has learned to be kind, the time for self-loathing or depression should come to an end, or at least be checked in a serious manner. Happiness is ones entitlement. The kindness of the depressive is an essential ingredient to the moral compass of humanity. Philosophy cannot and will not endure unless it is constructed upon a kindness. There are a few kind people on this forum, yourself, bittercrank and a few others come to mind. Your kindness (and that of others) makes a difference to this forum... it is one of the reasons I continue to read and write on this forum. The kindness in the world is one of the reasons I choose to continue living. When that kindness does not extend to the self in the form of tolerance and acceptance... dangerous self destructive things can happen.

As stated I believe that kindness is often born out of suffering and or a degree of depression. If Trump for example or people like him are ever to become kind, they would first need to become depressed and will also need to be erudite and intelligent. When erudition and kindness are present in the company of a single person... there is a good chance that person is worthy of friendship and an even greater possibility that he or she has something to say that is worth listening to.

Depression as such gives birth to kindness and kindness is the quintessential companion to intelligence.

Therefore I do not agree with dis-identity. one must identify thoroughly with ones depression, meet it head on, understand it and eventually overcome it.. by accepting the aspects of self that are the subject of depressive feelings.

There is a slightly interesting discussion on the forum in relation to Ayn Rand... and the criticism of her work is (as usual) constructed upon a lack of understanding of her particular form of 'kindness'. Which is little different to Nietzsche in that she too expects too much of mankind.

Where kindness is lacking there is no philosophy and when it is overlooked Philosophy is being misunderstood, when it does not extend to the self the consequence is depression.

Be kind to yourself... you deserve it!

M

Quoting Marcus de Brun

Therefore I do not agree with dis-identity. one must identify thoroughly with ones depression, meet it head on, understand it and eventually overcome it.. by accepting the aspects of self that are the subject of depressive feelings.

Insofar as much as I agree with you, and think depression must be accepted first, I find that many depressives don't treat their depression as such. It's constantly an anti-depressive attitude. Anti this anti that. Perhaps, some people can fake it till they make it; but, depression has to be accepted to be overcome.

Now, I don't know how to overcome depression, that's still a mystery to my mind. At the start of this thread, I was filled with hope and joy that depression can be dis-identified and thus in some sense negated; but, that doesn't seem like something one can realistically do in totality. The symptoms will always be there if the label isn't.

What's left is to simply not identify with the disorder and somehow live with the symptoms, though, I don't know how far that will lead you.

You seem to like Nietzsche a lot, which is understandable. Are you depressed too?

Thank you for the compliment for the matter. I have suffered quite a great deal; but, I don't think my depression is that bad. I don't think about suicide daily, or even on a recurring basis as of late. If I did, then that would be depression manifest. Yay.

So, essentially...

I have depression, and not, I am depressed.

The short and simple answer to this threads musings.

Quoting Posty McPostface

You seem to like Nietzsche a lot, which is understandable. Are you depressed too

To be awake, to be alive, to think and to interact with others in an honest way to see the world... is to be depressed.

Yes indeed I am depressed, it makes me happy to know that i am depressed. I am bitter, angry and intolerant. But I have my pills and they work in that they keep me alive.

My pills are: my love of myself, my suspicion that although often alone in my thinking.... I am distinct from the herd in that I can think for myself and am not a slave, my love for my wife, who is more kind and more beautiful than me, my children who remind me that despite my intellectual impotence, nature has allowed me to make something beautiful....., food, drink, my bicycle, sex, music, nature devoid of people, books that unfold the thought of great thinkers, solititude

I take great comfort from the fact that I am depressed.. if I was not depressed I would probably be stupid.

M

Quoting Marcus de Brun

I take great comfort from the fact that I am depressed.. if I was not depressed I would probably be stupid.

Nicely put.

Quoting Pattern-chaser

Oh, I'm all for looking for patterns!

Good, then we agree!
Quoting Pattern-chaser

As regards disidentification, my guess is that nothing beyond considered thought will achieve anything useful. Disidentification seems to be a vague and (dare I mention the word? :chin: :wink:) subjective thing. Formal reasoning seems too, well, formal. IMO, of course. :up:

Well, just about anything I talk about is a vague and subjective thing... :grin: But seriously, this may be an instance of old wine in new bottles. By which I mean that the term (disidentification) may be relatively new, but in some ways the concept is at least as old as the Indian Vedic culture that eventually gave rise to the Buddha, who sagely suggested not taking the matter to the point of physical collapse. But escaping the “small self” (or attempting to, whether by one method or another) is a perennial quest for seekers the world over.

Thanks for your interesting reply to my comments 0-9.

Quoting 0 thru 9

You have made the point that analysis is doing more harm than good. However, I must in general disagree with that assessment.

My argument is that human suffering arises from the nature of thought, from the way in which it operates. The evidence for this is that everybody suffers, and the differences between us are just a matter of degree. If suffering arose from bad thought content then surely by now we would have discovered which thought content prevents suffering and everyone would adopt those ideas to escape the suffering. So this theory is an analysis, agreed.

To put it bluntly, what most of us suffer from is spending too much time thinking about ourselves. Philosophers like us are perhaps particularly susceptible given our passion for thinking in general. Psychology would have us analyze all these ideas we have about ourselves. That sounds logical, and we tend to like the idea, because it involves spending even more time thinking about ourselves. Psychology might be compared to trying to cure oneself of alcoholism with a case of scotch.

I'm not proposing any of the above as "one true way" which everyone should follow. I'm for whatever works for an individual, even if what works for them violates all my wonderful theories. :smile:

What I'm trying to do is offer an alternative way of looking at suffering for those for whom psychological analysis isn't working. I'm attempting to strip away all the endless sophisticated complications of analysis (see this thread!) and reduce the issue to a simple mechanical problem which can be immediately acted on with simple mechanical techniques.

REALITY CHECK: One benefit of this approach is that it helps us pretty quickly discover how serious we are about reducing our suffering.

Quoting 0 thru 9

As the quote above from the Chan/Zen master Wu Hsin hints, trying to stop thought is going against the very nature of mind.

I'm not arguing that it's desirable or even possible to stop thought completely. It is however very possible to learn how to better manage thought. Here I'm referring not to thought content, but to the medium itself. As example, a drug can reduce the intensity of thought by purely mechanical means without editing thought content in any way. But of course drugs often have unwanted side effects so it's better when possible to seek more natural methods of managing thought volume.

I think the situation is more complicated than the quote from Hsin you shared above (I'm not aware of his work beyond that quote).

It seems our minds cycle in and out of thought all day long. There is observation, "data intake mode", and then there is thinking, "data processing mode". Observation is thought free and very natural. All techniques like meditation do is provide some level of conscious control over the natural shifts between observation and thought.

So there's a big pile of analysis for you. Yep, I like analysis too much too. I especially like to analyze why analysis is bad. :-)

A compromise between our perspectives might be achieved as follows. We might advise those suffering to dive right in to all the simple mechanical solutions such as improving diet, getting more exercise etc. If they pursue the readily available simple solutions with some earnestness then they are likely serious about reducing their suffering, and thus may very well benefit from analysis should it still be needed.

If the simple solutions are not pursued, then the person is likely not serious enough to benefit from analysis.

Quoting Jake

I think the situation is more complicated than the quote from Hsin you shared above (I'm not aware of his work beyond that quote).

No, it's actually very simple. One may use the word 'detaches' instead of 'disidentification' is so one chooses. He talks about detachment from the content of thought (pure mindlessness or mindfulness). What's left is pure awareness. The desired state of mind of Buddhists, Zen Masters, Tao).

I find 'disidentification' as too speculative a definition to play around with and I jump back to Buddhism terminology.

Quoting Posty McPostface

No, it's actually very simple. One may use the word 'detaches' instead of 'disidentification' is so one chooses. He talks about detachment from the content of thought (pure mindlessness or mindfulness). What's left is pure awareness. The desired state of mind of Buddhists, Zen Masters, Tao).

This is interesting because i have almost the exact opposite view of the quote.

He says the cessation of thought is not possible, but the cessation of identification with it is. To me this indicates that the content of thought is still there, there's no such thing as pure mindlessness if you believe the quote. What i take to be possible is changing your valuation of the thought, you don't think it's that important or you don't identify with it.

The way it works in my experience is that by taking it serious, or by identifying with it you actually strenghten it, and it comes back more often. And conversely, by not doing that, it merely passes from that thought to the next, and like any regular thought you don't focus on, it stays fleeting.

This also seems to be in line with a lot of meditation practices where to goal is not to force yourself not to think, but to merely observe thoughts and refrain from evaluation...

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

He says the cessation of thought is not possible, but the cessation of identification with it is.

Yes,

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

To me this indicates that the content of thought is still there, there's no such thing as pure mindlessness if you believe the quote.

No, I don't think so. The ultimate end of cessation with identification with thought is that it concludes that pure awareness is left. This is because If everyone has an I, then the ultimate end according to Wu Hsin is the cessation of identification with the "I". His books are on the non-duality of the being. (The Lost Writings of Wu Hsin: Pointers to Non-Duality) (For the matter I just bought the book, so I will post in due time if anything about this interpretation changes).

The similarity in our interpretation is simply the opposite of duality, which is the opposite of the opposite, which is sameness.

Reply to Posty McPostface

But thoughts do no come from the I, or removing identification with thought would not remove thought alltogether, I don't understand that jump you (or he) make there.

And yes keep us posted about the book.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

But thoughts do no come from the I, or removing identification with thought would not remove thought alltogether, I don't understand that jump you (or he) make there.

And yes keep us posted about the book.

I suppose the difference lay in the sense between "disidentification" and "not identifying with a thought" in the quote, which could also mean or come down to "detachment".

Quoting Posty McPostface

I suppose the difference lay in the sense between "disidentification" and "not identifying with a thought" in the quote, which could also mean or come down to "detachment".

Detachment, which would mean that there is a distance or lack of attachment (i.e. 'fleeting') also would not seem to imply to me that there is no thought at all. This to me means that thoughts just come and go without you as a person fixating on any particular one of them.

Maybe there is some equivocation going on here between 'identification' as the basic rule of logic, and 'identification' as something a person does as a part of the formation of an identity.

I would agree that without the law of identity, thinking is not really possible. But identification with yourself as a person doesn't seem necessary to me for thought to occur.

Quoting ChatteringMonkey

He says the cessation of thought is not possible

Ok, but to be a quibble monster, the cessation of thought happens naturally all the time. It happens when our brain is very interested in something being observed, the observation takes over and thinking is set aside. But anyway, this isn't that important, so...

Reducing the volume of thought is a more achievable and thus more practical goal. The serious person will set aside all the, books, experts, sophisticated theories, grand promises and all of that, and focus on developing a collection of simple mechanical exercises that help them manage thought.

The person who isn't serious will never get around to doing that work, and instead keep their heads in the guru books, much like the person who is constantly reading travel brochures on the comfort of their couch but never quite gets around to traveling anywhere. Guru books are very popular because they provide the illusion of movement towards something magical and wonderful etc, without having to actually do anything but read. If we were to burn all the guru books then there'd be nothing left to do but either get on with the work, or face that we're not going to, either of which provides more clarity than dreaming about whatever the guru book is promising.


LET'S GET SERIOUS

Here's an example of a simple mechanical exercise. This isn't a "one true way", just an example, so feel free to ignore this and design your own exercise. The idea here is just to manage the mind through the body.

==========

Start walking. Walk any pace that comes naturally. Observe that pace for awhile, just watch it.

Once you're in the groove of watching, tap the brakes a bit, slow the walking pace a little bit. Now watch that pace for awhile.

Repeat this pattern. Watch the pace. Tap the brakes. Watch the new pace. Keep gradually slowing the pace, spending some observation time with each pace before slowing again. A goal to shoot for might be to eventually be walking as slow as is possible while still moving.

Nothing complicated. Nothing sophisticated. And no more glamorous than brushing our teeth, just another act of routine management.

==========

I spend a lot of time in the woods and typically arise at sunrise all buzzed up from the Internuts. As I enter the woods I'll see myself pointlessly pounding down the trail like a man late for an important appointment. After doing the above exercise for awhile a few hours later I'll be standing in a field without moving for an hour just looking around, taking it in. The buzz is gone, replaced by peace.

If this was a guru book I would now tell a tale of some magical mysterious transcendent experience, blah, blah, blah, because that's why people are buying the book, to get that magic buzz. But this isn't a guru book and I'm not a guru, so I'm free to say that the magic buzz stuff is just a bunch of horseshit. All of that is just one more glamorous shiny toy becoming agenda getting in the way of peace, no different than the person dreaming of getting rich and famous and laid etc.

We don't need guru books. We don't need sophisticated sublime understandings. We just need simple mechanical methods for managing our minds.

This is little different than how we manage our bodies. When we're hungry we don't read a bunch of books on the science of digestion, we just go get something to eat. Simple, direct, practical, serious.

Eating a sandwich works for awhile, and then we have to eat again. We accept this system of routine management as being perfectly reasonable. We aren't foolish enough to go looking for some magic food that will end our hunger once and for all.

PS: How do I change my screen name to "His Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo, Founder Of Bozoism, The Next Great World Religion"? I changed my mind and decided I want to do the guru thing after all, I could use the extra cash. :smile:

Quoting Jake

We don't need guru books. We don't need sophisticated sublime understandings. We just need simple mechanical methods for managing our minds.

You repeat this like a mantra. But, the issue is that the mind is still overactive, or depressed, or some such issue, then no amount of mechanical activity will suffice to quell the mind. Hence detachment or disidentification...

Quoting Posty McPostface

But, the issue is that the mind is still overactive, or depressed, or some such issue, then no amount of mechanical activity will suffice to quell the mind.

Is any amount of analytical activity quelling the mind? We should reduce thought by doing more thinking?

No amount of mechanical activity will suffice to quell the mind? How about sleeping pills? If I take 10 sleeping pills after dinner, will I still be thinking at 80mph? Sorry, but the evidence clearly shows that mechanical solutions to overthinking exist. All I'm talking about are natural mechanical solutions which are healthier than taking drugs.

Quoting Jake

My argument is that human suffering arises from the nature of thought, from the way in which it operates. The evidence for this is that everybody suffers, and the differences between us are just a matter of degree. If suffering arose from bad thought content then surely by now we would have discovered which thought content prevents suffering and everyone would adopt those ideas to escape the suffering. So this theory is an analysis, agreed.

To put it bluntly, what most of us suffer from is spending too much time thinking about ourselves. Philosophers like us are perhaps particularly susceptible given our passion for thinking in general. Psychology would have us analyze all these ideas we have about ourselves. That sounds logical, and we tend to like the idea, because it involves spending even more time thinking about ourselves. Psychology might be compared to trying to cure oneself of alcoholism with a case of scotch.

I'm not proposing any of the above as "one true way" which everyone should follow. I'm for whatever works for an individual, even if what works for them violates all my wonderful theories. :smile:

What I'm trying to do is offer an alternative way of looking at suffering for those for whom psychological analysis isn't working. I'm attempting to strip away all the endless sophisticated complications of analysis (see this thread!) and reduce the issue to a simple mechanical problem which can be immediately acted on with simple mechanical techniques.

REALITY CHECK: One benefit of this approach is that it helps us pretty quickly discover how serious we are about reducing our suffering.

Thanks for your message and detailed response. Much appreciated. Because who likes to be ignored? :smile:
I think that there is probably much overlap in what we are both saying, with maybe varying degrees of emphasis. I agree that there are limits to the power of thinking, and limits to how much is needed or even beneficial at any given time. It can be like spinning one’s wheels trying to get out of a mud pile, sinking deeper. Good points about the difference between observation and data-processing types of mental activity. Merely observing, and really paying attention, can be a life-changing practice. Mindfulness definitely helps. :up:

Quoting 0 thru 9

I think that there is probably much overlap in what we are both saying, with maybe varying degrees of emphasis.

Yes, agreed. The bottom line I think we both share is that whatever works is good.

I think therefore I am?

Not so much with disidentification...

Quoting Posty McPostface

When does it stop?

The right person can make it stop. The right person can take away all decisions and responsibility. We only start to think when our will is thwarted. Reason is the circumference of the will.

Regarding identification and getting stuck in a particular definition of oneself, I think de-identification is hard to do by itself. The mind tends to identification. However there is an alternative. If you want to get out of an identity, identify with something else that is not consistent with the identity that you want to escape. To do that just pay lots and lots of attention to the new identity. Overwrite your hard drive rather than erase it, at least as a first step. What do you think?

Quoting bert1

Regarding identification and getting stuck in a particular definition of oneself, I think de-identification is hard to do by itself. The mind tends to identification. However there is an alternative. If you want to get out of an identity, identify with something else that is not consistent with the identity that you want to escape. To do that just pay lots and lots of attention to the new identity. Overwrite your hard drive rather than erase it, at least as a first step. What do you think?

Hmm, what do I think? I think it's true that disidentification is a hard sell. As you said it, identification is hardwired to some extent. Though, conversely, I think deidentification happens on a defense mechanism level. So, this could all be a defense mechanism at play. This is manifest in terms such as "I have... depression-or what have you". "I have", is defined as something not part of myself. It's troublesome more because we tend to identify with our thoughts on a primal level. I am not my thoughts, is what the depressive ought to remind themselves on a habitual level.

So, I think disidentification can be a useful tool; but, where we have endogenous substrates afflicting us, such as depression or anxiety, it can be too much to ask for to create some schism in the mind of what is or is not us. "I have depression vs I am depressed." Is there really any difference at all?

Furthermore, I feel as though "disidentification" is a Westernized term for "detachment" in the Eastern tradition. So, one might find it of better use to try and apply that term instead of "disidentification"?

Quoting Posty McPostface

It's said that depression never goes away, you just learn to cope with it. I tend to agree. I've been dealing with depression for quite some time now, and my life has turned into a constant battle with it. I almost live in fear from my depression. When I'm happy, I'm still depressed over the prospect of getting depressed again; but, when I'm sad I feel at ease...

I don't believe you.

Reply to creativesoul

What do you mean?

Being sad is not being at ease.

Being happy is not being depressed.

So, you've never had mixed feelings @creativesoul?

Quoting Posty McPostface

So, essentially...

I have depression, and not, I am depressed.

The short and simple answer to this threads musings.

I feel as though there is something to be explored still. Perhaps there is a truth of the matter; that there is that which I am, and that which I have, and that which I do, and these are distinguishable in a non-absolute way. Let's call the process of distinguishing them 'identification'.

So I have money, I am entitled to it, and I do whatever it enables me to do. On the face of it, it seems reasonable to set the boundary of what I am as my skin - I am embodied mind, I have money.

But of course we also talk of having a talent, or having an illness... there are degrees of separation, degrees of attachment, from what I identify as essential to my being, such that if I was gay, or female, republican, or demented, I wouldn't really be me any more, to peripheral things like a leg, that I am quite attached to, but would still be me if I lost it, though I would somewhat lose my talent for walking as well. So the language of being and having makes a division in what is more a continuum from inner to outer.

Thus there are folks with Tourettes who can be medicated so as to lose their tics almost completely, but some of them feel that they are losing something of themselves, and prefer to live with the tics most of the time. So it is a real question, how essential to your being is depression? There's a film that addresses this question in relation to manic depression, but I forget the name.

But there must also be people who desperately want to lose something of themselves, tics, depression, anger, gender, weight, ego ... is this dis-identification? And then, as @creativesoul suggests, there is a question of whether one can be content with one's misery - a self-satisfied depressive. It might be a pose. It might be that no one can be content with their own being short of enlightenment.

Quoting unenlightened

So it is a real question, how essential to your being is depression?

It is non-essential; but, I have learned to cope with it. Hence, what does that imply? A failure of disidentification?

Quoting unenlightened

But there must also be people who desperately want to lose something of themselves, tics, depression, anger, gender, weight, ego ... is this dis-identification?

I wonder, maybe disidentification is a defense mechanism that one either subdue or is subdued by if gone awry.

Quoting unenlightened

And then, as creativesoul suggests, there is a question of whether one can be content with one's misery - a self-satisfied depressive.

Most certainly. That's my depression of sorts. I've learned to live with it, like a monster in a lake, that we just never visit; but, all know it's there.

Quoting unenlightened

It might be a pose. It might be that no one can be content with their own being short of enlightenment.

Well, that's just irrational.

Quoting unenlightened

There's a film that addresses this question in relation to manic depression, but I forget the name.

If you recall, let me know. It sounds interesting.

Quoting unenlightened

So the language of being and having makes a division in what is more a continuum from inner to outer.

One of the points of disidentification, if I'm reading it correctly, is the disillusionment of these boundaries. We want to not identify with what is imposed or self-imposed on us. But, for endogenous complications like depression, I'm not sure if that can be accomplished.

Quoting Posty McPostface

So, I think disidentification can be a useful tool; but, where we have endogenous substrates afflicting us, such as depression or anxiety, it can be too much to ask for to create some schism in the mind of what is or is not us. "I have depression vs I am depressed." Is there really any difference at all?

I would propose that a "schism in the mind" is pretty much the definition of the human condition. Everybody experiences a division between the thinker and the thought. It is that perceived division which allows us to argue with ourselves, ie. be unhappy. That perceived division is generated by thought itself, thus it's not possible to overcome it with any collection of thoughts, however clever or insightful etc they may be.

Thus, what I'm suggesting is a shift of focus away from the content of thought, and towards the nature of thought.

If the content of thought was the source of the problem then by now surely some group of people would have stumbled upon the correct thought content which leads to peace. And then everyone else would have adopted that same thought content in order to obtain the highly valued peace. And we'd all be at peace. But that's not what happened.

What we see instead is that human suffering is universal in all times and places, no matter what thought content forms the group consensus of a community. The universality of the suffering points clearly to the source of the suffering being something all people everywhere in all times and places have in common. And that can only be thought itself.

Furthermore, I feel as though "disidentification" is a Westernized term for "detachment" in the Eastern tradition. So, one might find it of better use to try and apply that term instead of "disidentification"?[/quote]

The term detachment seems like a good plan here.

Quoting Jake

The term detachment seems like a good plan here.

It's odd. One thinks of detachment as a goal, and yet your earlier recommendations seem to favour a reattachment to the physical, as if the detachment of thought is the source of the problem. Paradox lurks here at every turn as if the search for a solution is the source of the problem.

Hi unenlightened,

Does this work for you?

1) If we're hungry, eat.
2) If we're tired, rest.
3) If thinking is making us nutty, take a break from thinking.

Point being, thinking is best seen as just another process of the body which needs to managed. We might observe how we don't complicate eating, sleeping, exercising, eliminating etc. When our body signals some action is needed in these areas we typically attend to the need in a simple straightforward obvious common sense manner. We don't turn it in to some complex sophisticated esoteric mysterious mystical process requiring experts etc.

What new age philosophers (and philosophers more generally) tend to hate about simple straightforward obvious common sense approaches is that strip away the glamour and make the subject ordinary. So, ok, that's bad for philosophers, I hear that.

But simple direct methods are good for those serious about relieving their suffering, because such methods are readily available to all.

A problem that comes up is that people have a bias for turning to authorities, and experts can't make a living without introducing complications that require an expert. And so folks go to the bookstore and buy all 34 books by their favorite expert and spend years reading all the complications, when maybe all they needed to do was get off the couch and go get some exercise. :smile:

Quoting Jake

Does this work for you?

1) If we're hungry, eat.
2) If we're tired, rest.
3) If thinking is making us nutty, take a break from thinking.

I keep reading it over and thinking about it, and nothing happens at all. :razz:

There used to be a kid's tv program with the theme tune "why don't you turn off the tv set and do something else instead." It was very popular... Now we have fdrake here telling us to get off the internet, and you telling a philosophy forum to think less.

[quote= His Bobness]
In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand
At the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not I'd become my enemy
In the instant that I preach
My existence led by confusion boats
Mutinied from stern to bow
Ah, but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now.[/quote]

My Back Pages

Quoting unenlightened

Does this work for you?

1) If we're hungry, eat.
2) If we're tired, rest.
3) If thinking is making us nutty, take a break from thinking.
— Jake

I keep reading it over and thinking about it, and nothing happens at all. :razz:

:lol: Well, for scientifically valid large sample size, best to repeat the experiment a thousand times.

Quoting unenlightened

There used to be a kid's tv program with the theme tune "why don't you turn off the tv set and do something else instead." It was very popular... Now we have fdrake here telling us to get off the internet, and you telling a philosophy forum to think less.

Stop the world, I want to get off! :gasp:

But slightly more seriously, sometimes life feels like being on a bus. You awaken after dozing off for a few minutes. It seems that you have passed your stop, as the view out the window looks unfamiliar. You go to talk to the driver only to notice the bus somehow is now a self-driving vehicle. Do you struggle against the feeling of being in quicksand? Or stay perfectly still? Flight, fight, or freeze? Or the enticing fourth option... freak out.

Quoting Jake

I would propose that a "schism in the mind" is pretty much the definition of the human condition. Everybody experiences a division between the thinker and the thought. It is that perceived division which allows us to argue with ourselves, ie. be unhappy. That perceived division is generated by thought itself, thus it's not possible to overcome it with any collection of thoughts, however clever or insightful etc they may be.

Interesting. I suppose that the schism in the mind is a source of unhappiness. When we feel happy, we ought to not feel anything else. The source of frustration arises when we don't feel happy when we feel happy, so talking about mixed feelings. How does one counter that? By disidentification from our feelings? I don't think so.

The reason why I don't think disidentification can work on feelings is due to not being able to disassociate from how we feel. It might be that someone is able to dissociate from their feelings; but, what would such a person be instead of their feelings? A strange entity.

Quoting Jake

The term detachment seems like a good plan here.

Do you think you can become detached from your feelings?

As @unenlightened posited, there's an issue of being, at the core of the issue here. How does one separate the feeling of depression from being depressed? I don't think there's a solution here provided by disidentification unless we can dissociate from our feelings. Is that possible?

Quoting Posty McPostface

The term detachment seems like a good plan here.
— Jake

Do you think you can become detached from your feelings?

Yes, detaching from feelings and avoiding being seemingly controlled by them is possible, I believe. Probably good to aim for for being somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, as usual. Between being a cold robot on one hand, and being a unpredictable mood-swinger on the other. Like the Stoics did: by not believing every feeling or thought that occurs, no matter how intense. And having simple awareness of passing feelings while attempting to avoid getting stirred up by them. But if that happens, one notices it, forgives it, and lets it go. Over and over til the end of time! :grin:

As you know, in the theories and tradition of the Chakras, having the fourth chakra (the heart) open and balanced allows vital energy to flow upwards from the food-sex-dominance levels to the subtle levels of mind and spirit. A closed heart chakra is said to not only make one like an animal, but a devious and dangerous one at that.

Quoting 0 thru 9

Like the Stoics did: by not believing every feeling or thought that occurs, no matter how intense. And having simple awareness of passing feelings while attempting to avoid getting stirred up by them. But if that happens, one notices it, forgives it, and lets it go. Over and over til the end of time! :grin:

The Stoics would have a hard time living in our modern age. Everything is vying for your attention. I don't think it's good to live as a Stoic or try and live as one in our modern age given how precious our attention is and hard to live with so many things out of our control.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I don't think it's good to live as a Stoic

BLASPHEMOUS! :scream: Turn in your membership card!





:rofl: :razz: :snicker:

Reply to Posty McPostface
Just kidding. But I know what you are saying, and definitely can sympathize. Been there. Am there now in fact. But the Stoics, Buddha, Lao-Tzu are like mother’s milk to the weary... which is just about everyone.

Quoting unenlightened

...and you telling a philosophy forum to think less

I see it as telling a philosophy forum to think this through to to the logical conclusion.

1) Suffering is made of thought, thus...
2) Less thought = less suffering.

Reply to Jake
OK, now that we've settled that we can stop thinking about it.

But here's the problem. Not only is suffering made of thought, but so is happiness. Contrary to what you claim, the problem really is the content, not the act of thinking itself. Consider your example of surfing in the wave. This activity doesn't make the thinking go away, it forces the content.

Quoting Jake

I see it as telling a philosophy forum to think this through to to the logical conclusion.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

the problem really is the content, not the act of thinking itself. Consider your example of surfing in the wave. This activity doesn't make the thinking go away, it forces the content.

Shall we say, then that, there is a kind of thought that creates the thinker, as part of, the centre of, thought - call it identifying thought, and a kind of thought that is purely external, about the world, about the present, that does not add to the suffering self?

I think that is the joy of the surfer, or the musician, that she is fully present, remembering the tune, and where she is in it, but concerned with the expression of this note, and unconcerned about the missed note in the last section or the difficult passage coming up. I wonder if it is possible to do philosophy like that? Thinking it through to the logical conclusion but unconcerned with the conclusion?

Quoting Posty McPostface

The Stoics would have a hard time living in our modern age. Everything is vying for your attention. I don't think it's good to live as a Stoic or try and live as one in our modern age given how precious our attention is and hard to live with so many things out of our control.

It's curious that the game of civilisation, of technology empowering control of the environment in so may ways results in the feeling of loss of control. Perhaps it is that the more one can control the environment, the more one loses control of the controller... easy to be stoical when there is nothing one can do, but when there is nothing one cannot do, it becomes impossible.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Not only is suffering made of thought, but so is happiness.

Yes, agreed. As I've said above, thinking is required to function in the world so we can't just get rid of it. So it's not a question of cure, but of management.

EATING: If eating is nourishing our body, ok, let's eat. When eating starts generating suffering, we stop eating.

THINKING: If thinking is nourishing our life, ok, let's think. When thinking starts generating suffering, we can take break from thinking.

Eating and thinking, both necessary mechanical functions of the body. Both good in moderation, both dangerous in excess.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Contrary to what you claim, the problem really is the content, not the act of thinking itself.

If that was true then we would have long ago stumbled upon the correct thought content and we'd all be happy. What we see instead is that suffering in one form or another, to one degree or another, is universal property of the human experience. This clearly points to the source of suffering being something that we all have in common.

Quoting unenlightened

Shall we say, then that, there is a kind of thought that creates the thinker, as part of, the centre of, thought - call it identifying thought, and a kind of thought that is purely external, about the world, about the present, that does not add to the suffering self?

Everyone is free to say such things if it pleases them. There's no crime involved obviously. But, the person who is suffering would learn more from conducting the following experiment.

1) Improve diet
2) Improve exercise
3) Do yoga

If the suffering person won't take simple straightforward readily available steps to at least improve the situation modestly, then they have learned something very important. They aren't actually that serious about their suffering. This may be an unwelcome discovery, but it's actually good news to achieve this level of clarity.

Here's a little cliche which may come in handy in some circumstances...

If the things we want to hear...
Could take us where we want to go...
We'd already be there.

Quoting Jake

If the suffering person won't take simple straightforward readily available steps to at least improve the situation modestly, then they have learned something very important. They aren't actually that serious about their suffering. This may be an unwelcome discovery, but it's actually good news to achieve this level of clarity.

People generally aren't very serious about their suffering, any more than they are about other people's. I imagine it's because they don't much like themselves. But being stuck with oneself, 'not liking oneself' leads to suffering, but not liking oneself one does not care that much to deal with it. This is called 'depression' in the trade.

Quoting unenlightened

This is called 'depression' in the trade.

And this is called sanctimonious lecturing in the trade. :smile:

Don’t exactly know how this relates, but a quote occurs to me somewhat dealing with identifying, etc.
I can’t remember the exact words or who said it. But something like...

Perhaps the problem with our egos is not that they are too big, but that they are too small. Too narrow, local, and limited. You’re the whole world. You are everything, all mass and all energy... everything you see, everything that is... that is your true bottomline identify.

Reply to Jake We don't have to be enemies, because I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm merely pointing out that good advice that would work if it was taken is not taken because the problem prevents it, just as it is good advice to an alcoholic to stop drinking, but poor practice to give such advice expecting it to be followed.

Quoting unenlightened

Shall we say, then that, there is a kind of thought that creates the thinker, as part of, the centre of, thought - call it identifying thought, and a kind of thought that is purely external, about the world, about the present, that does not add to the suffering self?

I think that is the joy of the surfer, or the musician, that she is fully present, remembering the tune, and where she is in it, but concerned with the expression of this note, and unconcerned about the missed note in the last section or the difficult passage coming up. I wonder if it is possible to do philosophy like that? Thinking it through to the logical conclusion but unconcerned with the conclusion?

I wouldn't say that it is so easy to make such a division of kinds of thought. There are different ways of being "fully present", and maybe some ought not actually be called "fully present" at all. The surfers, musicians, entertainers, sports players, are all engaged in activities which require a keen awareness of the future. Being focused on what one is doing, is really a matter of being focused on what one is about to do. As the future unfolds, it oppresses us with the need to make decisions, this is the real source of suffering, the oppression of the future forcing itself upon us. Other than suicide, we have no choice but to cope with this oppression. That is something beyond our power of will.

This is why I said that placing oneself into the context of a particular activity forces the content of one's thought. And since the person is practiced, it is a familiar, and comfortable place, mentally. We look at the person performing, and think about how difficult it must be for that person, but the difficulty of that act which you call being "fully present", is in the physical performance, forcing back at the future, so that the future will be as you will it to be, and the performance will be flawless. The mental difficulty of that act is all in the past, the training, through which one fights the oppression of the future, learning how to make it be as you will it to be, allowing yourself to find comfort in that place we call the present.

The nature of time is such that comfort requires effort. That is why "relax and be comfortable" is self-contradictory

Quoting Jake

THINKING: If thinking is nourishing our life, ok, let's think. When thinking starts generating suffering, we can take break from thinking.

The problem is that the future is always oppressing us, that is its nature, and we cannot change it. Because of this there is always an inclination to think. You can say "relax, live in the present, sit on the couch and take a break", but that doesn't stop the coming of the future, so it doesn't stop the inclination to think either.

Quoting Jake

If that was true then we would have long ago stumbled upon the correct thought content and we'd all be happy. What we see instead is that suffering in one form or another, to one degree or another, is universal property of the human experience. This clearly points to the source of suffering being something that we all have in common.

There's a bit of unsound logic here. You are missing a very important premise, and that is that at every moment of time the world is different from how it was at the last moment. The "correct thought content" is directly related to how the world is. Therefore the correct thought content changes at every moment, and it is impossible that we could have determined the correct thought content a long time ago, and left it at that.

However, I think you are correct to say that suffering is a universal property of human experience. But since thinking can provide us with relief from suffering, and we only blame thinking for our suffering when it fails to provide relief, it is clear that thinking is not the source of suffering. As I described to unenlightened above, I believe the source of suffering to be the oppressive nature of the future.

Quoting unenlightened

We don't have to be enemies, because I'm not disagreeing with you.

I don't consider you or anybody else here an enemy. We wouldn't be enemies if you were disagreeing with me, which after all is kind of our job on a philosophy forum.

Quoting unenlightened

I'm merely pointing out that good advice that would work if it was taken is not taken because the problem prevents it,

Yes, surely that is very often the case. We've got one of those cases in our family, so I know what you mean. This person has been hysterical literally since the day she was born, so obviously there's more going on than just being lazy and whiny.

I'm not proposing that I have a "one true way" cure for anybody and everybody. I'm just attempting to add something to the conversation that typically isn't already there, with the hope that somebody might find it somewhat useful.

There's a pattern of socially acceptable ways the group consensus tells us we should relate to folks with such issues. If a suffering person wishes to intersect with this common wisdom, ok, they should give it a try. If it works, I'm all for it.

So while having no argument with any of that, it's also clear that the group consensus wisdom which is readily available in a million places is not working for some. When I see people start conversations such as this I assume they are doing so because the group consensus approach is not working for them. And so I attempt to put something else on the table as best I can. I obviously have no control over whether such efforts will work, I only have control over whether I make the effort.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that the future is always oppressing us

The future is not oppressing us. The future doesn't even exist. Our RELATIONSHIP with the future is the issue, and we do have some level of control over that.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

it is clear that thinking is not the source of suffering.

Put more precisely, it's not clear to you. And to be fair, not clear to very many people, including some very bright folks.

But anyway, such an esoteric debate is perhaps interesting, but not really that important. What's important is to grab whatever real world practical solutions are available to us and make the best use of them.

Quoting 0 thru 9

You’re the whole world. You are everything, all mass and all energy... everything you see, everything that is... that is your true bottomline identify.

I agree with this intellectually. Regrettably, that doesn't help much because intellectualism is a weak stew indeed.

What is more helpful is to experience what you're referring to. And that can't be done to any significant degree within the medium of thought for the simple reason that thought operates by a process of division. So when we think grand thoughts about our oneness with reality or god etc what we're really doing is trying to achieve unity using a tool whose explicit purpose is to divide. Very understandable, not very logical.

History has debated which way of thinking about unity is the best, thus the various competing religions etc. The problem here is that all ways of thinking about unity are made of thought, and it is the medium of thought itself which is creating the illusion that we are separate.

Quoting Jake

The future is not oppressing us. The future doesn't even exist. Our RELATIONSHIP with the future is the issue, and we do have some level of control over that.

Do you have control over the passing of time? If not, the future is oppressing you. Some level of control over what you do does not exclude the possibility that you are being oppressed.

Quoting Jake

Put more precisely, it's not clear to you. And to be fair, not clear to very many people, including some very bright folks.

The "bright folks" see the logic which you are missing, thinking is not the source of suffering. I suppose it's clear to you that the sun orbits the earth? Sometimes what appears to be very clear, is not really the case, and that might be why "some very bright folks" are saying otherwise.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The surfers, musicians, entertainers, sports players, are all engaged in activities which require a keen awareness of the future. Being focused on what one is doing, is really a matter of being focused on what one is about to do.

I'm not a surfer, but a musician, and I assume that riding the wave is similar. And my experience is that when it is going well, one is focused on what one is doing and not the future; the music plays itself and one rides it, content to be in the groove and singularly un-oppressed. It is, to be specific, a state of mind that is devoid of narrative thought, and thus psychologically timeless as to past and future.

Quoting unenlightened

It's curious that the game of civilisation, of technology empowering control of the environment in so may ways results in the feeling of loss of control. Perhaps it is that the more one can control the environment, the more one loses control of the controller... easy to be stoical when there is nothing one can do, but when there is nothing one cannot do, it becomes impossible.

Well, yes. Much like the placebo effect, that one believes it is helping. But, to amend my post. I do think you can change your way of being or experience life differently, and still be a stoic.

@Jake, I thought identification with thought was the issue here. I don't see how thought itself is the issue. I can be happy or sad or melodramatic, but the thought remains. Identification with it, however, is the issue.

Substitute disidentification with detachment if you wish.

Quoting 0 thru 9

Don’t exactly know how this relates, but a quote occurs to me somewhat dealing with identifying, etc.
I can’t remember the exact words or who said it. But something like...

Perhaps the problem with our egos is not that they are too big, but that they are too small. Too narrow, local, and limited. You’re the whole world. You are everything, all mass and all energy... everything you see, everything that is... that is your true bottomline identify.

Thanks for the quote. Quite interesting to posit things that way. I think it's true that we have a small sphere of interest and enlarging it would result in more care in the world. But, then how does one enlarge one's ego without the negative connotation associated with it?

Quoting unenlightened

I wonder if it is possible to do philosophy like that? Thinking it through to the logical conclusion but unconcerned with the conclusion?

Can you expand on that? Genuinely interested.

Thanks for your reply. Like we’ve established, I think we have a common zone. The smaller differences and distinctions are interesting and important though. Plus, of course keep doing what works for you. :up:

Quoting Jake

I agree with this intellectually. Regrettably, that doesn't help much because intellectualism is a weak stew indeed.

Well, there other foods besides weak stew...

Quoting Jake

What is more helpful is to experience what you're referring to.

...like experience for one. Feelings, awareness, perception, dreams, sensation, knowing, and spiritual events are others perhaps.

Quoting Jake

And that can't be done to any significant degree within the medium of thought for the simple reason that thought operates by a process of division. So when we think grand thoughts about our oneness with reality or god etc what we're really doing is trying to achieve unity using a tool whose explicit purpose is to divide. Very understandable, not very logical.

History has debated which way of thinking about unity is the best, thus the various competing religions etc. The problem here is that all ways of thinking about unity are made of thought, and it is the medium of thought itself which is creating the illusion that we are separate.

From the Tao Te Ching, ch 1: (trans. Stephen Mitchell)

[i]The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.[/i]
—————-
Of course, it’s all been said before much better than you or I could, about the “deeper realities” or whatever. The mystics, singers, painters, and poets seem to pull the spiritual realm down as easily as pulling an apple off a tree. But most suffered for their art and visions; it rarely came without sacrifice. And there is “no one true religion”, nor one greatest poem. It seems impossible, in my estimation anyway.

So yes, thought can only go so far in general. And when dealing with that which is not clearly in the visable realm, thoughts and words don’t do much literal justice to the actualities, whatever they may be. Any more than a doodle of a mountain on a napkin equals either the mountain itself or the experience of being there.

So if there is a way to completely scrub the mind free of thought for at least a short time, then that could be worth having. Maybe dreamless sleep is like that, or deep meditation. However, no answer anyone gives will be completely free of thought, including yours. Is that such an illusionary or unbalanced thing? To claim that something is the source of all suffering is quite a large assertion, and the burden of proof is on them. How is one supposed to prove (or even communicate) anything without committing the wrong act of thinking itself? Thought can only take one so far. Then carefully go that far, and travel the rest of the journey in another way.

Quoting Jake

Very understandable, not very logical.

I must say the same about your untenable argument against thought itself, unfortunately. I’m sympathetic to it, but as of yet still unconvinced. Keep trying though if you’d like, for I think it an interesting discussion.

The Buddhists posited that the source of all suffering is desire. Just throwing that out here.

Quoting 0 thru 9

Thought can only take one so far. Then carefully go that far, and travel the rest of the journey in another way.

I agree, with the sentiment insofar as thought can entertain itself. I'm reminded of Schopenhauer's will, in that it cannot will itself; but, can be distracted by art or the aesthetics. Disidentification though can serve as some outlet to the pangs of suffering induced by too much thought.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I wonder if it is possible to do philosophy like that? Thinking it through to the logical conclusion but unconcerned with the conclusion?
— unenlightened

Can you expand on that? Genuinely interested.

Well it's somewhat of an intuition, but suppose you face every question afresh, rather than rehearsing a theory that one has adopted. Rather like playing music, there is a learned facility and a familiar theme and structure, but one is playing it now, and each time it is particular, each time one is learning something new, and then letting it go again. Like this...

Depression - you say you have depression; I wonder what that is? A score on a questionnaire, an experience, an identity, a disease? Where does it come from and what does it do?

Can you not quite know, and explore?

Quoting unenlightened

Well it's somewhat of an intuition, but suppose you face every question afresh, rather than rehearsing a theory that one has adopted. Rather like playing music, there is a learned facility and a familiar theme and structure, but one is playing it now, and each time it is particular, each time one is learning something new, and then letting it go again. Like this...

So, you're trying to roll a stone without gathering moss on it?

I'm afraid that is impossible.

Quoting unenlightened

Depression - you say you have depression; I wonder what that is? A score on a questionnaire, an experience, an identity, a disease? Where does it come from and what does it do?

Can you not quite know, and explore?

It's an identity that I have formed of myself. What can I do about it? It's another one of those self-fulfilling wishes/ prophecies, that I don't wish/prophesize upon anyone else.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I'm afraid that is impossible.

I don't think it is, but even if it would be impossible as an absolute, one can hold it as an ideal towards which to strive, even without a clear understanding of it.

Quoting unenlightened

I don't think it is, but even if it would be impossible as an absolute, one can hold it as an ideal towards which to strive, even without a clear understanding of it.

And, what is that you think is an ideal worth striving towards? It's an ideal after all.

Reply to Posty McPostface I think it partakes of and extends the principle of charity - the intention to understand. The extension is that to understand deeply what is being said requires one to hear it from a place of quiet, with no preconceptions.

An old friend played me this, a long time ago, and afterwards, I said I wasn't sure if liked it. His reply: - "that's the wrong question, the question should be 'can you hear it?'. That's about as close as I can get at the moment.

Quoting unenlightened

I think it partakes of and extends the principle of charity - the intention to understand. The extension is that to understand deeply what is being said requires one to hear it from a place of quiet, with no preconceptions.

Well, first comes empathy and then the principle of charity ensues. Don't you think? Is empathy a great deal for depressives?

Quoting unenlightened

An old friend played me this, a long time ago, and afterwards, I said I wasn't sure if liked it. His reply: - "that's the wrong question, the question should be 'can you hear it?'. That's about as close as I can get at the moment.

I'm not getting it too. Sounds otherworldly, perhaps to my mind at least. It does have a thing to it though.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I thought identification with thought was the issue here.

Ok, if that's working for you, go for it.

Reply to Jake

But how? How do you disidentification yourself from thought? I don't think it's possible to disidentify with feelings,.but with thought it may be possible.

Quoting 0 thru 9

So if there is a way to completely scrub the mind free of thought for at least a short time, then that could be worth having.

A lack of precision in my words above may have given the impression that I'm arguing for a "mind free of thought". What I meant to suggest, and should have said more better :smile: is to enhance our ability to manage thought. That's a more realistic goal, a more practical plan, something that can be acted on immediately. Again, we generally take such a common sense, practical, ongoing management approach with other functions of the body, and no one has presented a convincing argument as to why we shouldn't do the same with the bodily function we call thought.

Quoting 0 thru 9

I must say the same about your untenable argument against thought itself, unfortunately. I’m sympathetic to it, but as of yet still unconvinced. Keep trying though if you’d like, for I think it an interesting discussion.

I would agree from long experience that tracing the problem back to it's source in the medium of thought is not especially useful, because what almost everybody prefers to do is debate at the level of the content of thought. So for example, I'd suggest that taking up yoga would be far more useful than my intellectual analysis of the problem. But intellectually, within that limited sphere, I agree it's interesting. It surely is to me obviously.

The best I seem to be able to do at the moment in terms of persuading you that human suffering arises from the way thought itself operates is to point to the universality of human suffering. Perhaps we need another thread on the nature of thought so we don't further clog this thread with that subject?

So, I'll posit with my understanding of how to apply or how the process of disidentification takes place.

We have a thought about something, and that thought bothers us for some reason.

There are two ways to deal with this thought.

One is to replace it with another more pleasurable thought, that distracts us from the thought that causes some dysphoria. This can work and people often resort to it; but, the unpleasurable thought remains still.

The other method borrows from the first method but, is more 'complete' in that it resolves the thought into another more powerful thought, hence no distraction or returning nagging or intrusive thoughts.

One has to have a superseding thought of pure awareness or just the observing mind. When one has a negative thought, they picture the thought of pure awareness and imposes that thought on the dysphoric thought. I guess you can call this mindfulness without the behavioral component.

Thoughts? :blush:

Eventually, if one is able to disidentify with enough thoughts, then a spiritual element remains. The resolution of thought.

Getting there would be quite a challenge. But, I think I laid out the bare bones of how one can get there.

Quoting Posty McPostface

But how? How do you disidentification yourself from thought?

Here's another try. Let's imagine you asked, "how can I be a great guitar player?" The answer would be that you not worry about being great just yet, and spend a great deal of time mastering very basic aspects of the guitar.

In that spirit, I would suggest you might stop trying to leap frog in to "enlightenment" in a single step and instead focus on very basic things. Diet and exercise are great places to start. Yoga and massage are highly recommended. Make your body as happy as you reasonably can, and that will create good foundation for the things you wish to do in your mind.

Quoting Jake

Here's another try. Let's imagine you asked, "how can I be a great guitar player?" The answer would be that you not worry about being great just yet, and spend a great deal of time mastering very basic aspects of the guitar.

I feel as though, all this 'management of thoughts' requires a higher awareness or meta-thought/meta-narrative which acts on the lower base thought process. Is that something you are advocating?

I'm quite intrigued by the idea of governing basic thoughts with an meta-thought or narrative if this is at all possible.

So, I'm reading about metacognitive therapy, which sounds somewhat similar to what we are talking about.

http://mct-institute.co.uk/metacognitive-therapy

The following is interesting from that link:

One of the features of psychological disorders such as anxiety or depression is that thinking becomes difficult to control and biased in particular ways that lead to a worsening and maintenance of emotional suffering. Many patients report that they feel that they have lost control over their thoughts and behaviours. Another important feature is that the persons thinking and attention becomes fixed in patterns of brooding and dwelling on the self and threatening information. Metacognitive therapy recognises this change in thinking patterns and believes it is very important. It gives it a name: the Cognitive-Attentional Syndrome (CAS).

This pattern consists of worry, rumination, fixation of attention on threat, and coping behaviours that the person believes are helpful but many of which backfire and keep emotional problems going. The CAS is controlled by metacognitions and it is necessary to remove the CAS by helping patients develop new ways of controlling their attention, new ways of relating to negative thoughts and beliefs, and by modifying metacognitive beliefs that give rise to unhelpful thinking patterns. This approach has been developed into specific ways of understanding and treating disorders such as generalised anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress, obsessive-compulsive disorder, social anxiety, depression, and health-anxiety.

So, again the issue seems to be about control. From the above, control is facilitated by directing or managing thoughts by isolating attention. By isolating attention, I wonder though, what is then the focus of the subject directed at? What thoughts are being entertained instead of the negative ones through attentive control? From what I read, detached mindfulness is one of the tools used to direct attention to another more useful outlet. But, isn't that just disidentification, also in some form?

What do other posters think about all this talk? Interested in any input.

Quoting unenlightened

I'm not a surfer, but a musician, and I assume that riding the wave is similar. And my experience is that when it is going well, one is focused on what one is doing and not the future; the music plays itself and one rides it, content to be in the groove and singularly un-oppressed. It is, to be specific, a state of mind that is devoid of narrative thought, and thus psychologically timeless as to past and future.

I am a musician as well, but I do many other things, and I know that being focused on what one is doing means being focused on the future, even if that future is just a split second ahead. That's why making a mistake is not a problem for a good musician, it's in the past as soon as it's made, and the musician's focus is on the future. If the mistake distracts you, your focus sips from the future to the past, and a worse mistake will follow.

I don't know what instrument you play, but can you play it without looking at your fingering? If you can, then the fingering is done correctly by being focused on where your fingers will be, and making sure that they move to get there on time. If you rely on your sight to make sure that your fingering is correct, you see where you want your fingers to go and you move them there. So either way, you are actually always focused on the future when playing music. You must always be prepared to play each note when the appropriate time comes to play it. If you ever take the time to think about what you are doing when you play music you will see that timing is incredibly important, and timing is impossible without being focused on the future. Each beat must be anticipated by every member of the band or orchestra, or else the band is out of synch. I've never before heard a musician say "the music plays itself". Playing music is not a cinch.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I've never before heard a musician say "the music plays itself".

I think he was referring to the term 'flow' in music or being in the 'zone'. One is in the present moment and doesn't deviate from it.

Quoting Posty McPostface

being in the 'zone'

I was once in the zone for 4 months straight. Unfortunately, it was of the twilight variety... :confused:

Quoting 0 thru 9

I was once in the zone for 4 months straight. Unfortunately, it was of the twilight variety... :confused:

Sorry to hear. Must have been quite a trip. :razz:

Reply to 0 thru 9

So, what are your general thoughts about all this? I can't get my mind off of it. I feel trapped in my obsession in a somewhat good way. I want to figure out or tame this disidentification beast.

Reply to Posty McPostface
:smile: Thanks for asking. Well, I think there is a tremendous amount of literature about the subject in a general sense. Like you mentioned with the metacognitive therapy, or some Jungian stuff if one wants to have a Western slant to it. Joseph Cambell, Ken Wilber, and the whole transpersonal thing (as you mentioned) if a mixture of Eastern and Western is sought. And of course the Eastern and non-dual Advaita Vedanta traditions. Whatever it takes to break out of near-solipsism, which I think almost trapped me, and has become more common recently. But, as I think @Jake was implying, thinking is thinking and practice is practice. Both have their place. I like chanting and drumming to fly me above the clouds of thought. Above the clouds, the sun is always shining.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I think he was referring to the term 'flow' in music or being in the 'zone'. One is in the present moment and doesn't deviate from it.

The present is a division between the future and the past. There is no "present moment" because by the time you say "now" it is in the past. So what we call "living in the present" is not living in that moment which is a dimensionless boundary between past and future, because there is no such thing. What we call "living in the present" is living in a time which is partially past and partially future. Depending on what we are doing, and thinking about, we might sometimes focus more on the past part, and other times more on the future part. We can't focus on the present part because there is no such thing. That would be delusional. In doing something like playing music we must be very much focused on the future part "what is coming", and very little focused on the past part, "what has just happened".

Quoting 0 thru 9

Whatever it takes to break out of near-solipsism, which I think almost trapped me, and has become more common recently.

This sticks out from your post. Or has significance to me. If you feel trapped in solipsism, then is doubt possible? No, hence you live in reality if doubt is possible. So, the Cartesian evil demon is there to remind us that we live in reality, and not in some solipsistic world. That's how I resolved the problem of solipsism.

Here's the thread I started on the issue.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The present is a division between the future and the past. There is no "present moment" because by the time you say "now" it is in the past. So what we call "living in the present" is not living in that moment which is a dimensionless boundary between past and future, because there is no such thing. What we call "living in the present" is living in a time which is partially past and partially future. Depending on what we are doing, and thinking about, we might sometimes focus more on the past part, and other times more on the future part. We can't focus on the present part because there is no such thing. That would be delusional. In doing something like playing music we must be very much focused on the future part "what is coming", and very little focused on the past part, "what has just happened".

Yes, I understand; but, how does this relate to 'disidentification'? I can see some relation to it in terms of the futility of disidentification in regards to confronting the present if that's all possible as you say.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover "narrative" I think is the word you missed. Anticipation happens, but in the absence of narrative thought, which is the sense of self, the music plays itself.

Quoting Posty McPostface

This sticks out from your post. Or has significance to me. If you feel trapped in solipsism, then is doubt possible? No, hence you live in reality if doubt is possible. So, the Cartesian evil demon is there to remind us that we live in reality, and not in some solipsistic world. That's how I resolved the problem of solipsism.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Don’t exactly know how this relates, but a quote occurs to me somewhat dealing with identifying, etc.
I can’t remember the exact words or who said it. But something like...

Perhaps the problem with our egos is not that they are too big, but that they are too small. Too narrow, local, and limited. You’re the whole world. You are everything, all mass and all energy... everything you see, everything that is... that is your true bottomline identify.
— 0 thru 9

Thanks for the quote. Quite interesting to posit things that way. I think it's true that we have a small sphere of interest and enlarging it would result in more care in the world. But, then how does one enlarge one's ego without the negative connotation associated with it?

I think most of us have and a need a comfort zone of personal mental space and attention that is sort of like a bubble around us. This is not a bad thing necessarily. We are preoccupied with our needs because the needs affect us, sometimes greatly. Though greatly interested in disidentification / detachment / ego reduction, I see the place and goodness of the ego and identity. But like I’ve mentioned, it is like physical fitness. We might benefit from putting the ego on a weight-loss program. Make it lighter, yet stronger and more flexible (less brittle and vulnerable). But like body fat, to lose the ego completely or too quickly could send one into shock, and cause damage. This pain could make the person avoid the issue all together.

So there seems to be many ways one could reduce the ego. Doubt, as you mentioned, could halt the path into the bubble-world of solipsism. By skeptically doubting its permanence and its reality as our true nature, we stop feeding it. Or perhaps, to continue the food and diet analogy, we should feed it carefully. Give it small amounts of positive reinforcements when needed, and small corrections when needed. Avoid over-praising and harsh criticism to the self; for that is a nauseating manic-depressive-inducing roller coaster we have all been on at some point.

One way to slowly and gradually break through the ego-bubble is to identify with everything, at least in some small way. Everything and anything we see, is connected to us somehow in the big picture. And “the everything” becomes our bodies, which is undoubtedly part of ourself. Our bodies are made out of the gases, water, minerals, plants, and animals of the world. Even minerals from outer space are part of our body. You are that, Tat Tvam Asi (as the Sanskrit phrase goes). We are everything; we contain multitudes. We are both the winner and the loser. We are the predator and the prey. The sinner, the saint, the slouch, and the seeker. The matter and the energy.

How does one identify with the entire universe, and even its Creator, and not get a larger ego? It is an important consideration. One could misuse this power, like any other power or knowledge. Care is required. Humility and thankfullness help keep one grounded. Bless everyone and everything, all the time. (Blessing is a topic I’m still trying to understand and implement. It seems to me that it may help define what blessing is NOT. Blessing is not necessarily knowing, understanding, approval, condoning, liking, or even forgiving. Blessing seems to be a way or intention of sending out energy of a good/positive/balanced nature. Even if the target of the blessing is negative, painful, or simply evil. Bless even the unknown thing that will one day end one’s life, strange as that sounds. Like the parable says, when stuck between a tiger and a high dangerous cliff, notice and appreciate a flower. )

Thanks again for your replies, comments, and questions. :up:

Quoting Posty McPostface

But how? How do you disidentification yourself from thought?

Maybe this will help?

What is your top priority? Pick one of the following:

1) Understand detachment theory.
2) Experience detachment.

This is a philosophy forum so if your priority is to understand the theory that would be appropriate here of course.

However, you've also referenced your personal life. If managing that is your priority then you should know that understanding the theory won't do much good other than perhaps provide some modest intellectual entertainment.

I'm not making any judgment about what your priority should be because that is of course your choice to make, your business. I am however urging you to sidestep "cake and eat it too" answers like "both" and instead pick one of the choices above as priority to focus on. The reasoning here is that we'd be unlikely to reach our goal if we don't know what our goal is.

What is the primary purpose of this thread from your point of view?

1) Understanding detachment theory.
2) Experiencing detachment.

Quoting Jake

What is the primary purpose of this thread from your point of view?

1) Understanding detachment theory.
2) Experiencing detachment.

Both! And as soon and completely as possible! :grin: Like understanding music theory and jamming with what you learned and know.

Quoting Jake

So if there is a way to completely scrub the mind free of thought for at least a short time, then that could be worth having.
— 0 thru 9

A lack of precision in my words above may have given the impression that I'm arguing for a "mind free of thought". What I meant to suggest, and should have said more better :smile: is to enhance our ability to manage thought. That's a more realistic goal, a more practical plan, something that can be acted on immediately. Again, we generally take such a common sense, practical, ongoing management approach with other functions of the body, and no one has presented a convincing argument as to why we shouldn't do the same with the bodily function we call thought.

I must say the same about your untenable argument against thought itself, unfortunately. I’m sympathetic to it, but as of yet still unconvinced. Keep trying though if you’d like, for I think it an interesting discussion.
— 0 thru 9

I would agree from long experience that tracing the problem back to it's source in the medium of thought is not especially useful, because what almost everybody prefers to do is debate at the level of the content of thought. So for example, I'd suggest that taking up yoga would be far more useful than my intellectual analysis of the problem. But intellectually, within that limited sphere, I agree it's interesting. It surely is to me obviously.

The best I seem to be able to do at the moment in terms of persuading you that human suffering arises from the way thought itself operates is to point to the universality of human suffering. Perhaps we need another thread on the nature of thought so we don't further clog this thread with that subject?

Thanks for your thoughts and responses. I quoted from the Tao Te Ching because it sounds like what you are getting at. Have you been influenced by the TTC?

I’ve never heard “thought” referred to as a “bodily function” before. But I appreciate creative writing. My high school teacher said don’t write something in the same way that you have read somewhere before.

However, I would agree that thought is intimately related to many if not all problems one experiences. Our perceptions of the situation and the narratives/stories we tell ourselves are critical. I’m still trying to figure out how much of a cause my mind is in any particular situation, and how much of an “innocent bystander” it is. Maybe as the joke goes, “there are no innocent bystanders”.

And if you start another thread to expand on the topic, that would be fine. But it is definitely relevant in this thread, IMHO. :up:

Quoting Jake

1) Understand detachment theory.
2) Experience detachment.

Both. :blush:

Quoting 0 thru 9

Or perhaps, to continue the food and diet analogy, we should feed it carefully.

It's an always hungry beast. One has to feed it carefully, yes.

Quoting 0 thru 9

’ve never heard “thought” referred to as a “bodily function” before. But I appreciate creative writing.

Well, it's not really creative writing, it's literally true.

Quoting 0 thru 9

However, I would agree that thought is intimately related to many if not all problems one experiences.

Not intimately related. Problems are literally made of thought. Situations exist independently of our minds. Problems are our relationship with a situation, ie. thoughts.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Both.

Both = Neither.

Quoting Jake

Both.
— Posty McPostface

Both = Neither.

Bummer. :confused:

Quoting Jake

However, I would agree that thought is intimately related to many if not all problems one experiences.
— 0 thru 9

Not intimately related. Problems are literally made of thought. Situations exist independently of our minds. Problems are our relationship with a situation, ie. thoughts.

Ok.. what about being hit by a bolt of lightning? That’s a problem not made of thought.
We live in a relative world. The absolute realm is of the gods, imho. Taking something like an absolute always/never position is tricky. One small true counter-argument and the whole thing is disproven. I agree with the general point, but allowing for at least the possibility of there being some exceptions.

Just my take on it, please carry onward...

Is disidentification only a conscious process or do we employ it on a subconscious or unconscious level?

I seem to think that we are inherently processing what is identifiable or not on an unconscious level too.

Quoting Jake

1) Understand detachment theory.

So, then let's start with this if both can't be had.

Quoting 0 thru 9

Ok.. what about being hit by a bolt of lightning? That’s a problem not made of thought.

That's a situation. It becomes a problem when we conclude (ie. think) that being alive is better than being dead based on, um, no evidence of any kind. :smile:

Quoting Posty McPostface

So, then let's start with this if both can't be had.

Ok then, so here's a little story.

When I was in college I read a lot of Jiddu Krishnamurti, a speaker/writer who addresses these kinds of topics. His career lasted something like 60+ years and he was quite prolific, so there was a lot to read.

Around the same time the book Be Here Now was published by Ram Dass. The book looked much like a children's comic book so I thumbed through it once and then dismissed it because after all, I was a college sophomore, I was an intellectual, I don't read baby books!! :smile:

Here we see a comparison between tons of theory by Krishnamurti, and the theory boiled down to the three simple words "Be Here Now" by Ram Dass.

Thus, my question to you.

THEORY: If theory is what you want there is tons of it available, and you could easily spend your entire life reading it, as many already have. Krishnamurti alone could keep you busy for years, and he might be worth a look, if it's theory that you want. As you've seen above, the theory can be quite entertaining for those of us with nerd minds. I still find it interesting as you can see. But...

EXPERIENCE: The three words "be here now" from Ram Dass are an extremely more efficient way to proceed towards experience. And putting the theory so concisely is very much in the spirit of the experience itself, whereas theorists like Krishnamurti (and this post!) are essentially heading in the opposite direction.

How people might answer your questions in this thread and elsewhere will depend a great deal on what your goal actually is. And whether you should reach your goal will depend a great deal on whether you know what your goal is. As example, do we want to read about sex, or have sex? Whatever the goal might be, it's going to help a lot to know what the goal really is. So if you want to do philosophy,this is how you might proceed, clarify your goal, get clear on where exactly it is that you're trying to go.

In most things in life theory is the necessary first step towards the experience. We have to read the car repair manual and understand it before proceeding to repair the car. Thus, an interest in theory here is very understandable.

But this subject doesn't really work like that. A little theory might be useful as a kind of circus to get the attention of compulsive over thinkers like you and me, a kind of bait. But the theory very quickly becomes more of an excuse standing in the way of the experience rather than a path to the experience.

So, here's my theory.

1) If it's theory you want, enjoy the vast pile of it already available.

2) If it's peace you want, proceed towards "be here now" by the shortest possible path.

3) If you don't know what you want, you probably won't get it.

Quoting Jake

When I was in college I read a lot of Jiddu Krishnamurti, a speaker/writer who addresses these kinds of topics. His career lasted something like 60+ years and he was quite prolific, so there was a lot to read.

Yes, I've read Krishnamurti quite a bit a couple years back. I prefer plain old vanilla Buddhism though. What did you get out of Krishnamurti? At times I found his writings too wordy and imprecise.

Quoting Jake

Around the same time the book Be Here Now was published by Ram Dass. The book looked much like a children's comic book so I thumbed through it once and then dismissed it because after all, I was a college sophomore, I was an intellectual, I don't read baby books!! :smile:

Never read him. Could be interesting.

Quoting Jake

EXPERIENCE: The three words "be here now" from Ram Dass are an extremely more efficient way to proceed towards experience. And putting the theory so concisely is very much in the spirit of the experience itself, whereas theorists like Krishnamurti (and this post!) are essentially heading in the opposite direction.

I guess I can entertain the theory for a while, and then proceed to the experience part.

Quoting Jake

But this subject doesn't really work like that. A little theory might be useful as a kind of circus to get the attention of compulsive over thinkers like you and me, a kind of bait. But the theory very quickly becomes more of an excuse standing in the way of the experience rather than a path to the experience.

I see so theory can be a distraction from inner peace and enlightenment. That's understandable.

Quoting Jake

1) If it's theory you want, enjoy the vast pile of it already available.

2) If it's peace you want, proceed towards "be here now" by the shortest possible path.

3) If you don't know what you want, you probably won't get it.

It's more like 2 for me now. So, I guess it's 'be here now' for me.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Yes, I understand; but, how does this relate to 'disidentification'? I can see some relation to it in terms of the futility of disidentification in regards to confronting the present if that's all possible as you say.

To tell you the truth, I've been reading this thread, and haven't yet figured out exactly what disidentification is. Maybe it involves recognizing that we live in the past and future, rather than at the present. Therefore there is no such things as "I am", only what I was, and what I will be.

Quoting unenlightened

"narrative" I think is the word you missed. Anticipation happens, but in the absence of narrative thought, which is the sense of self, the music plays itself.

Yes, I see that now, your reference to a "state of mind that is devoid of narrative thought", and perhaps were not so far apart in our opinions. Would you agree that narrative thought refers to past? So anticipatory thought, referring to the future, still occurs in the absence of narrative thought. Thought about "self" refers to the present. When we recognize that reality consists of past (referred to in narrative thought), and future(referred to in anticipatory thought), then we see that thought about the present (self) is delusional.

Quoting Jake

Problems are literally made of thought. Situations exist independently of our minds. Problems are our relationship with a situation, ie. thoughts.

A "problem", so described, is not the cause of suffering, it is the result of suffering. The problematic situation, which is suffering itself, induces the mind to create "a problem" in an effort to bring about a resolution to the problematic situation. Problems are things which the mind can solve, and as such, they are tools by which the mind acts to bring about an end to the problematic situation (suffering).

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

To tell you the truth, I've been reading this thread, and haven't yet figured out exactly what disidentification is. Maybe it involves recognizing that we live in the past and future, rather than at the present. Therefore there is no such things as "I am", only what I was, and what I will be.

So, I've been working on this issue and think disidentification is detachment. Detachment from the process of identity formation of an existing identity. Does that make sense?

Reply to Posty McPostface
My question would be what is identity in the sense being used here, as one's personal identity? Is your identity what others assign to you? In this case detachment would be to separate yourself from this, and create your own identity. Or is your identity what you give to yourself, in which case detachment would be to separate yourself from this and allow others to give you your identity. What is your "existing identity" and which way are you going in your detachment?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

My question would be what is identity in the sense being used here, as one's personal identity? Is your identity what others assign to you?

Yes, and yes.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

In this case detachment would be to separate yourself from this, and create your own identity.

Yes. This is the whole goal

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What is your "existing identity" and which way are you going in your detachment?

I think of it as your ideal self if that makes any sense. Transpersonal psychology night be of service and here.

Reply to Posty McPostface
So which identity is it that you are seeking detachment from, the identity you have assigned to yourself, or the identity which others have assigned to you?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So which identity is it that you are seeking detachment from, the identity you have assigned to yourself, or the identity which others have assigned to you?

Both.

Reply to Posty McPostface
Wouldn't that just be assigning yourself an identity though? How could you detach yourself from this "ideal identity" you've assigned to yourself, without turning back to the identity which others have assigned to you?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Wouldn't that just be assigning yourself an identity though? How could you detach yourself from this "ideal identity" you've assigned to yourself, without turning back to the identity which others have assigned to you?

You could stop the disidentification process and begin a new identity, in theory. What I was referring to the ideal self, was the concept of applying disidentification until no identity is left; but, the self.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

To tell you the truth, I've been reading this thread, and haven't yet figured out exactly what disidentification is. Maybe it involves recognizing that we live in the past and future, rather than at the present. Therefore there is no such things as "I am", only what I was, and what I will be.

Interesting. No present, just past and future. Kind of the inverse of Eckert Tolle’s main focus, “the now”. But I could see your point, I think. Constant change, ever becoming. All is flowing, away from self and to self...

My take on disidentification is akin to the Eastern “large mind” as opposed to the “small mind”. When one strictly and absolutely only identifies with their own existence and body/mind, is seems to me something is missing. Like a wonderful radio that isn’t plugged in or something. Now, that is somewhat of a theoretical example. I truly doubt many people are completely self-contained and solipsistic. Any kind of relationship or caring for someone or something brings one “out of oneself”. Also theoretical is completely identifying with the world outside oneself. A balance needs to be struck. But it seems many lean towards the self-contained, myself included.

And also, on a mundane level disidentification is a necessary part of growth. One disengages from being a child to become a teenager. And then detaches from that identity to become an adult. Or when one changes careers. We are like hermit crabs, discarding one shell to find another that fits better.

So, there seem to be several various types of disidentifications. The movement out of the solitary self. The constant changing of personae. And also the disidentifying with others’ definitions and classifications to find or make an identity.

Reply to 0 thru 9

:up:

Reply to Posty McPostface
The identity which the others give you is your past. They've known you, and hand you your identity based on what they know about your past The identity you want, the ideal self, is your future. The problem is that you cannot disidentify with your past, you cannot remove the identity bestowed on you by others, because this is beyond the power of your will. Therefore you cannot have, in the future, the identity which you want, the ideal self, either, because what you want is impossible.

Reply to Posty McPostface :smile: :up: Quoting Posty McPostface

So which identity is it that you are seeking detachment from, the identity you have assigned to yourself, or the identity which others have assigned to you?
— Metaphysician Undercover

Both.

Ha! Yep, same here...

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

I think 0 through 9, did a better job at describing disidentification than I did. Reference to his post in case I might have made things ambiguous.

Reply to 0 thru 9

It's interesting to note that we achieve our ideal selves once cleansed from all identifications. As an adult we have plenty ty of identifications to deal with. Detachment from the process of identification is key and somewhat ambiguous. Do you know how to explain the process of identification?

Quoting Posty McPostface

It's interesting to note that we achieve our ideal selves once cleansed from all identifications. As an adult we have plenty ty of identifications to deal with. Detachment from the process of identification is key and somewhat ambiguous. Do you know how to explain the process of identification?

Still trying to figure that one out.

Like I mentioned above, there seem to be many kinds of identifying and its opposite. I think we are trying at any given moment to be our best selves and our true selves, and simultaneously trying to escape ourself. “The world is too much with us” said William Wordsworth. True. Also perhaps we are too much with ourselves, and tired of the echo chamber. The internet can provide some sense of being connected, being joined to the rest of the world. I remember before I got internet and a cell phone, the library was my connection with the world outside of home and job. I’d feel claustrophobic if I didn’t visit the library often. If i was forced to live without internet for a week, it would be very, VERY difficult. Maybe it’s a illusion of connection, a placebo. Nonetheless...

Quoting 0 thru 9

Still trying to figure that one out.

Yeah, that's a tough question. Just look at the wiki entry on "Identity formation."

Quoting Posty McPostface

So, you've never had mixed feelings creativesoul?

Mixed, as in more than one kind? Sure. Mixed, as in having completely contradictory ones all at the same time? No. Mixed, as in having completely contradictory ones at different times? Sure. That can lead to confusion and uncertainty.

I just do not see how one can be depressed and happy all at the same time.

I would think that many folk have had some depression of some sort for so long that they get used to it...

Is that what you're describing here? That you've become so used to being depressed that it's basically your normal state of being, and that during the rare times of happiness that when you allow your mind to wander into the realm of the future, that you 'see' yourself being depressed again, and that that negatively affects/effects the happiness at the time?

Don't forget that one's self-identity is largely a social construct, and as such is not at all immune to people doing things to fit in or simply to get a certain kind of attention from others. Hence...

Trans-trenders...

:wink:

Quoting creativesoul

Is that what you're describing here? That you've become so used to being depressed that it's basically your normal state of being, and that during the rare times of happiness that when you allow your mind to wander into the realm of the future, that you 'see' yourself being depressed again, and that that negatively affects/effects the happiness at the time?

Yes. Have I identified too closely with depression then? What use can disidentification serve?

Quoting Posty McPostface

Yes. Have I identified too closely with depression then? What use can disidentification serve?

I cannot help you with that.

Simply put, be very careful when you decide what's important and what's not.

Quoting creativesoul

I cannot help you with that.

Understood. I keep on using my depression as a template. But, what would you say in the abstract about people who identify with some affliction too closely? What kind of advice would you offer them?

See above...

Quoting creativesoul

See above...

So, a matter of choice or significance about what we value? Is that the issue?

Well, I think coming to understand what one values and why is imperative to understanding oneself. Understanding oneself is necessary for overcoming depression.

Above all... as stupidly simple as it may sound...

Accept the way things are. Change what can be changed for the better. Accept what cannot. Learn the difference between the two.

Habits of thought play a crucial role... Habits of thought.

Quoting creativesoul

Accept the way things are. Change what can be changed for the better. Accept what cannot. Learn the difference between the two.

Habits of thought play a crucial role... Habits of thought.

But, I've already accepted my depression. So, now what?

Well, if you're ok with it, then who am I to dissuade you?

Quoting Posty McPostface

What did you get out of Krishnamurti? At times I found his writings too wordy and imprecise.

At the time he served my need to analyze things to the 99th degree. I wasn't ready for simpleness yet. I'm still not and never will be in a complete way, such is my nature. I still do the theory analyzing for entertainment, but now I know it doesn't matter much.

Yes, Krishnamurti circles endlessly round and round, never quite delivering "the answer". This is frustrating for many people, agreed. His teaching style is much like the philosophy professor who answers every question with another question, forcing the student to do his own work. It's perhaps helpful to realize that JK was from another time and place, India early 20th century, and he's kind of out of date in the sense that he doesn't really match up very well with today's American style fast paced instant gratification culture.

Imho, Eckhardt Tolle has done a good job of updating the message for today's audience, though the new age hoopla surrounding him might make some people puke.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I see so theory can be a distraction from inner peace and enlightenment.

If we feel that inner conflict is a result of bad thought content then we would attempt to fix that thought content through philosophy and analysis, such as dominates this thread (and about a billion others).

If we feel that inner conflict arises from the medium of thought itself, then it should become clear that adding even more thought to the pile is essentially a process of poring gasoline on the fire.

Imho, enlightenment is a bunch of baloney. If it exists at all, it is so rare to be essentially irrelevant to the human experience.

Quoting Jake

If we feel that inner conflict is a result of bad thought content then we would attempt to fix that thought content through philosophy and analysis, such as dominates this thread (and about a billion others).

No, this is about disidentification and not philosophy and analysis. More psychology if you ask me.

Disidentification is contrary to the identification process, and we haven't established yet how identity formation occurs?

So, we're kind of slow in this thread due to the nature of the self. Keep in mind that if you disidentify with everything, that doesn't mean you don't exist.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I think 0 through 9, did a better job at describing disidentification than I did. Reference to his post in case I might have made things ambiguous.

But it seams to me, that what is being described is self-identity. How could it be possible to detach oneself from self-identity in general, by giving oneself a new self-identity? Isn't your true identity the one which others have given you?

Quoting 0 thru 9

My take on disidentification is akin to the Eastern “large mind” as opposed to the “small mind”. When one strictly and absolutely only identifies with their own existence and body/mind, is seems to me something is missing. Like a wonderful radio that isn’t plugged in or something. Now, that is somewhat of a theoretical example. I truly doubt many people are completely self-contained and solipsistic. Any kind of relationship or caring for someone or something brings one “out of oneself”. Also theoretical is completely identifying with the world outside oneself. A balance needs to be struck. But it seems many lean towards the self-contained, myself included.

This distinction is common in philosophy, expressed in different ways. It's sometime expressed as semantics (intrinsic meaning), and context (external relations). It may be expressed as content and form, and there are other ways to express the same sort of distinction. Notice how this distinction exists in theory, but the division cannot be made in practise. You might think, for instance, that any given word has a meaning proper to it, regardless of its context, but in reality context plays a big part in determining the meaning. So the two are not readily separable. Likewise, the identity of "I", "self", though it is separable from the "others" in theory, when it comes to applying that theory, it's fundamentally impossible because the meaning of "what I am", which is my self-identity, is given by context.

This is why I prefer the temporal analogy, because it allows us to remove the spatial representation which is implied by terms like "internal/external", and context, etc.. The spatial representation, because of this implication, tends to extend to the self/other distinction, and this produces the difficulty. If we make a temporal representation instead, we can produce a much cleaner division. The past is "other", it is the context, the external. The future is "self", it is what is within me, what I want, what I can do.

Notice that in the nature of time itself, the division between past and future is very sharp and clear. There cannot be any mixing of past and future, because this is completely contradictory and impossible. it is a very clean divide. However, the things which exist in time appear to extend across that divide. So. when I identify myself as a thing, existing in time, (and this might be how others identify me), it appears like my existence straddles the division between past and future. From this perspective, that I am a thing extended in time, the clear sharp division between past and future is lost. My identity is a straddling of that very clean divide. But this clear sharp division is of the utmost importance to maintain, in order to avoid the contradiction of the past mixing with the future. If you allow your identity to straddle this division, all your descriptions of yourself will be lost into the confusion of this contradiction. That identity, as a thing straddling this sharp divide, which nothing can straddle without self-contradiction, is the identity which must be released.

Three aspects of identification:

1. Separation. Identity always has a negative, that is other. I am human, not animal, English not French, philosopher not politician, depressed not elevated, self, not world.

2. Narrative. Identity is the tale told by an idiot, or a hero, or the depressed person, that makes a thread from past to future. Persistence through time, and projection into the future of the past is what allows for concern about what will happen, complaint about what is happening, remorse about what has happened.

3. Performance. Identity is always enacting itself according to its own image. I am a person who does not go to parties, therefore I do not go to parties. I am depressed, therefore I do not enjoy anything very much.

Cat has memories of Bird, flighty things and tasty, and has learned to creep up slowly, always anticipating the catch or the escape.

Here are all the elements of identity, memory anticipation, performance separation and narrative. But my claim is that Cat has no identity. We narrate, we identify Cat and Bird, we see that Cat is not Bird, that Cat performs according to its memory and anticipates. Cat is in the flow with Bird, and the flow encompasses past as memory, future as anticipation, Bird, and Cat performing, all without separation, without identification of a self.

Cat pounces, Bird flies off, and Cat sits down and starts washing itself as if nothing has happened.

Something about distances and reaction times has been learned and remembered for the future, but there is no connection of identity between Cat-hunting and Cat-washing. There is no story but the one I, the human, tell.

Now suppose I were to tell the story of Posty-depressed becoming Posty-elevated, by means of enlightenment philosophy. Alas, that story would make the connection, identify them as the same, and thus drag depression back into the world of Posty-elevated. The two identities are mutually dependent on their independence, the way my identity as not going to parties is dependent on the parties I don't go to, and my continuing no to go to them.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Isn't your true identity the one which others have given you?

Not at all. I don't think so at least.

Quoting unenlightened

memory anticipation, performance separation

What are these two terms you use so, I can understand you better? I understand that they can work in tandem or one on the other; but, I don't know the psychodynamics of the beast.

Thanks!

Quoting unenlightened

Now suppose I were to tell the story of Posty-depressed becoming Posty-elevated, by means of enlightenment philosophy. Alas, that story would make the connection, identify them as the same, and thus drag depression back into the world of Posty-elevated. The two identities are mutually dependent on their independence, the way my identity as not going to parties is dependent on the parties I don't go to, and my continuing no to go to them.

*Posty wonders*, what is the narrator making of all this mockery? Where does disidentification factor in?

Quoting Posty McPostface

No, this is about disidentification....

It's about disidentification THEORY.

Reply to Jake

Yes, what about it? I keep on asking.

Quoting unenlightened

Three aspects of identification: Separation

To be more precise, an illusion of separation.

Thought operates through a process of division, thus creating "me" experienced as being divided from "everything else".

Thought operates through a process of division, thus creating the thinker experienced as being divided from the thought.

Our identity is as "me", experienced as a separate thing which is divided both from the external world and internal world.

The separation is only conceptual, not real. It's an illusion.

As example, the word "tree" proposes a separate object. Conceptually this is useful. But the reality is that the tree is intimately connected with everything else. The boundary between "tree" and "not tree" is a convenient human invention, as is the boundary between "me" and "not me".

If you study the above theory very very carefully over many many years you will accomplish something truly remarkable...

Nothing. :smile:

No mockery intended. I'll stick to myself for a minute. I have been posting as 'unenlightened' for ten years or so, and perhaps in that time I have changed somewhat. But to say that I have changed is already to link myself as I am now to the person who started to post. My changing presupposes my self-sameness - my identity.

Perhaps tomorrow, I will attain enlightenment, and this person will no longer post, because he will no longer exist. This is unenlightened's fantasy, that 'unenlightened' will dis-identify with himself.

I call it a fantasy because although it is conceivable that it happens, it is inconceivable that I, unenlightened, should do it. It is similarly inconceivable that a depressed person be not depressed. Dis identification is incoherent, because it requires the continuation of that which it ends.

Quoting unenlightened

Dis identification is incoherent, because it requires the continuation of that which it ends.

I'm just going to point out that this may be as close as we can get to specifying what is disidentification. An unobtainable ideal.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think 0 through 9, did a better job at describing disidentification than I did. Reference to his post in case I might have made things ambiguous.
— Posty McPostface

But it seams to me, that what is being described is self-identity. How could it be possible to detach oneself from self-identity in general, by giving oneself a new self-identity?

Yes, in that post which was being referenced I was describing self-identities. One of which (let’s call it the non-dual identity) is still technically a self-identity. But since in this example one is reaching beyond oneself on a radical level (what am I? who am I?) it could conceivably satisfy the conditions of being “disidentification” , which is our made-up term.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Isn't your true identity the one which others have given you?

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that one’s “true identity” IS one given by others?
Or just asking if Posty thinks it is?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This distinction is common in philosophy, expressed in different ways. It's sometime expressed as semantics (intrinsic meaning), and context (external relations). It may be expressed as content and form, and there are other ways to express the same sort of distinction. Notice how this distinction exists in theory, but the division cannot be made in practise. You might think, for instance, that any given word has a meaning proper to it, regardless of its context, but in reality context plays a big part in determining the meaning. So the two are not readily separable. Likewise, the identity of "I", "self", though it is separable from the "others" in theory, when it comes to applying that theory, it's fundamentally impossible because the meaning of "what I am", which is my self-identity, is given by context.

Thanks for your reply. (Let me just say about the rest of this post that it is highly likely that I’m not fully understanding your concepts or wording. This is no one’s fault. I don’t feel sure enough to specifically respond to (let alone disagree with) something I am not entirely sure I understand. (These are perhaps some complex theories and ideas here, imho). I’ll ask as many specific questions as I can think of, but in general I would ask for further clarification and elaboration. Thanks!)

But to restate something (hopefully relevant in order to show what I’m getting at) from a post on page one of this thread:
[
1. As far as the individual is concerned, there are two sides (or poles) of reality: Self and Other.
2. The Other is comprised of other people, and also other things, objects, energies, etc.
3. The distinction between Self and Other is often relatively distinct, but it is not completely black-and-white. It is not an absolute yes or no question.
4. The distinction between Self and Other is a fluid, moving boundary. Like the heap of sand Sorites paradox.
5. The Self/Other question is affected by several things, two of which have a noticeable effect: awareness and identification. Awareness reflecting one’s current apprehension of the situation. Identification reflecting one’s current choice of defining one’s nature.
6. It is possible to identify with that which is outside of one’s strict notion of oneself. For example, identifying with a city, nation, or tribe.
7. To further elaborate on the moving boundary between Self and other... awareness and identifications with Self and Other can be simultaneous. (I find it helpful to visualize it like the Bass/Treble equalizer settings on a stereo. It is an “X-Y” map. Both co-ordinates can be any number from zero to maximum, from low to high.)

When a person is a child, one is probably very fuzzy about the difference between themself and their surroundings or mother, for instance. But put in a positive way, children seem in general to be very aware of the “connectedness” of things. They are in the moment, in the flow of life. Thus they often seem to have wisdom beyond their years. Adults gain the critical knowledge of individuality, but often lose the sense of immersion or connection with anything beyond oneself. The goal (as some have said) is to have the ability to recognize both, in whatever proportion is necessary at the moment. To be deficient as a part, or as a whole is to be an incomplete human. For an individual is a whole, which is a part of a another whole. Not unlike viewing energy as both a wave and as a particule.
]
.............
I would agree that one’s self identity is in relation and in context to others and the surroundings. That actually what I was getting at, obviously it is not really a radical idea. But why I think it is a crucial point is because it is possible to believe that one is almost completely separated from the rest of the world. At least as separate as possible while still interacting with the world. Here I’m speaking from personal
mental or psychological experience. There have been times when I viewed people and objects like a bunch of marbles bouncing off each other, but having absolutely no commonality, no intersection. Now, I view things and people as deeply intertwined and interrelating in some shape or form. Even strangers who will never meet, or even exist at the same time. Even if I can’t imagine or dare to speculate HOW and WHY they interrelate. But let me add that the marble metaphor above was not totally inaccurate. It reflects a certain reality, the reality of separation which is real. Relatively real, only partially real, but nonetheless real.

I think what I am most interested in and focusing on (for therapeutic value, personally at least) is the BOUNDARIES of what one considers “self” and “not self”. Like I mentioned before, our bodies are made of water, minerals, gases, plant, and animal materials that were somewhere else, were something else before they were part of us. So there is a connection physically, and I would imagine in other ways as well.

So to clarify, I’d say that I agree with the doctrine of the “two truths”, the relative and the absolute / ultimate. Half of our reality seems to be the separate nature and reality of each individual. The hidden or invisible or perhaps unknown half might be the indivisibility of nature and reality.

(I hope to address the rest of your post later, if possible)

Quoting 0 thru 9

So to clarify, I’d say that I agree with the doctrine of the “two truths”, the relative and the absolute / ultimate. Half of our reality seems to be the separate nature and reality of each individual. The hidden or invisible or perhaps unknown half might be the indivisibility of nature and reality.

The indivisible single unified reality is the fact. The appearance of separation is an illusion created by the divisive nature of thought.

Imagine that we were born wearing tinted sunglasses. Everywhere we went reality would look tinted. The tint would not be a property of reality, but rather of the tool being used to observe reality. If everybody was wearing the tinted sunglasses all the time it would easy to get confused about this.

To the degree we attempt to analyze the illusion of division with thought we are adding fuel to that which is creating the illusion.

As example, consider Christianity, a well intentioned attempt to overcome division and conflict via an ideology, ie. a collection of thoughts. And what was the result? More division and conflict.

We could reason that the resulting division and conflict was a result of flaws in Christian ideology, in the content of those particular thoughts. But this theory wouldn't explain why EVERY ideology ever invented has inevitably resulted in that ideology subdividing in to competing internal factions, ie. more division and conflict.

Quoting Jake

The indivisible single unified reality is the fact. The appearance of separation is an illusion created by the divisive nature of thought.

Yes, I am trying to argue for at least the possibility of the reality of an ultimate unity, an underlying connection and identity of all things. I am glad that you concur. And you have a very interesting point (and one that I happen to agree with, ie that the knowledge/experiences one potentially can get from spiritual practice, meditation, yoga, etc. cannot be completely explained by words). But, I must admit that if you respond to my posts with flat out assertions in bold like this:

Quoting Jake

To the degree we attempt to analyze the illusion of division with thought we are adding fuel to that which is creating the illusion.

... then (with much due respect) I’m inclined to believe that you are not arguing your case very well, and are possibly and inadvertently using some fallacies. We seem to have hit a wall here. I understand that “the map is not the territory”. And that words can be meaningless or empty. But when you repeat how limited thought is compared to the metaphysical or non-thought, I am reminded of the Liar’s Paradox. (I’m not calling you a liar, btw.) If someone says “everyone is a liar, so don’t believe a word anyone says”, then one naturally wonders if that statement includes the speaker, or somehow the speaker is exceptional. So basically... why and how are your thoughts and theories exempt from this “illusion”?

It seems that you are committing some fallacy here. Maybe it is a “shifting the burden of proof”, “faulty generalization”, or “begging the question” fallacy. This is not entirely certain for I’m neither a philosophy major nor an expert in logic. So feel free to dismiss this post as simply inaccurate or as being just more illusionary thoughts. That is your right of course. But if I am to continue to respond to your posts, then I feel that this issue should be dealt with or disproven. In any case, I do appreciate your ideas and hope this will not discourage. And I only respond to people and posts that I think have merit, for whatever it’s worth. Thanks for your consideration.

Hi 0-9,

I don't object to the challenge at all, entirely appropriate on a philosophy forum. However, instead of a vague wandering concern about possible fallacies, perhaps you could simply address the bolded assertion itself?

Quoting 0 thru 9

So basically... why and how are your thoughts and theories exempt from this “illusion”?

They aren't exempt. Which is why I keep arguing for a shift from theory to experience. Above I suggested that the three words "be here now" are more useful than a library full of Krishnamurti books, and that applies to the 4 billion Jake posts as well. :smile:

As I see it the key issue is, what is the source of suffering?

If one feels the source of suffering is bad thought content, then a philosophical investigation such as is being conducted here is an appropriate response.

1) As part of such a philosophical investigation I'm asking, where is the evidence that ANY philosophy or ideology ever invented has ended human suffering?

2 As part of such a philosophical investigation I'm observing that human suffering has been universal in all times and places. Doesn't that suggest a source which is also universal?

As I see it, I am participating in the philosophical investigation members are insisting on, and the problem we're having is that members don't like where such an investigation inevitably leads. I can't help where the investigation leads, I'm just following the logic.

As I see it, members are interested in exploring many different approaches, on the condition that any approach must somehow involve philosophy, ie. more thinking. Members are willing to conduct a philosophical investigation only up to the point that such an investigation becomes inconvenient to the investigation itself. And to my mind, that's not actually philosophy at all.

As I see it, the problem we're sharing here is that philosophy nerd people like us (definitely including me) tend to be over thinkers. And so we want to solve the problems we've caused ourselves by overthinking, with more thinking. :smile: This is very much like the alcoholic who wants to cure themselves using a case of scotch.

Quoting Jake

1) As part of such a philosophical investigation I'm asking, where is the evidence that ANY philosophy or ideology ever invented has ended human suffering?

2 As part of such a philosophical investigation I'm observing that human suffering has been universal in all times and places. Doesn't that suggest a source which is also universal?

If I may interject. I think Buddhism provided the answer. The source of suffering is desire. Also, the permanence of treating the self as an entity that is non-temporal, which it isn't.

Quoting Posty McPostface

So, again the issue seems to be about control. From the above, control is facilitated by directing or managing thoughts by isolating attention. By isolating attention, I wonder though, what is then the focus of the subject directed at? What thoughts are being entertained instead of the negative ones through attentive control? From what I read, detached mindfulness is one of the tools used to direct attention to another more useful outlet. But, isn't that just disidentification, also in some form?

According to Wiki the CAS ( Cognitive Attenetional Syndrome) consists in three processes:

" [i] In the metacognitive model,[1] symptoms are caused by a set of psychological processes called the cognitive attentional syndrome (CAS). The CAS includes three main processes, each of which constitutes extended thinking in response to negative thoughts. These three processes are:

1.Worry/rumination
2.Threat monitoring
3.Coping behaviours that backfire

All three are controlled by patients' metacognitive beliefs, such as the belief that these processes will help to solve their problems (although the processes all ultimately have the unintentional consequence of prolonging distress).[3][/i] "

As I understand from the little reading I've done of Adrian Well's Metacognitive Therapy for Anxiety and Depression the central idea is that the prolonged suffering of anxiety and depression is caused by the patient's metacognitive beliefs which, as guiding (really misguiding) thoughts about the the nature and significance of thoughts, beliefs and symptoms, lead to recurrent or continuous fixations on the three processes, the very fixations that prolong the suffering. So, perhaps it could be said that coming to see and disconnect from these attentional fixations might be called (to return to the OP) "disidentification".

Quoting Janus

So, perhaps it could be said that coming to see and disconnect from these attentional fixations might be called (to return to the OP) "disidentification".

Yes, but what about the underlayer of the process of disidentification? How do you not think about the white polar bear?

Reply to Jake Doubling down, eh? :cool: Interesting move. We’ll see where this goes. I may not have much more to add, but I’ll be watching... and thinking. :victory:

Reply to Posty McPostface

If you become convinced that thinking about it is useless, even counterproductive, then you may be inclined to stop.

Quoting Janus

If you become convinced that thinking about it is useless, even counterproductive, then you may be inclined to stop.

But, on a meta-cognitive level, how does one stop?

Reply to Posty McPostface

One changes one's metacognitive beliefs, I suppose, by gaining insight into, and becoming convinced of, the fact that the dysfunctional set has been previously unexamined; and merely taken for granted, and is now recognized as the source of unnecessary suffering.

Quoting Janus

One changes one's metacognitive beliefs, I suppose, by gaining insight into, and becoming convinced of, the fact that the dysfunctional set has been previously unexamined; and merely taken for granted, and is now recognized as the source of unnecessary suffering.

But, isn't there an issue here. Beliefs are altered by meta-cognitive beliefs, and meta-cognitive beliefs are altered by meta-meta-cognitive beliefs?

Reply to Jake

Everything we do and experience, both negative and positive, involves thinking, so it seems that what you are advocating is somewhat over-simplistic.

Reply to Posty McPostface

I don't see that. It seems to me that metacognitive beliefs can be replaced by other metacognitive beliefs. Just as beliefs can be replaced by other beliefs. Why not? "Metacognitive beliefs" just means 'beliefs about thinking' as opposed to merely thinking without any thought about that thinking, both of which we do all the time.

Quoting Janus

It seems to me that metacognitive beliefs can be replaced by other metacognitive beliefs.

I think, by disidentifying with those beliefs that are inconsistent with achieving happiness through suffering? After all, one has to suffer to know how not to suffer.

How does one determine such a thing; by trial and error or conventional wisdom?

Quoting 0 thru 9

Yes, in that post which was being referenced I was describing self-identities. One of which (let’s call it the non-dual identity) is still technically a self-identity. But since in this example one is reaching beyond oneself on a radical level (what am I? who am I?) it could conceivably satisfy the conditions of being “disidentification” , which is our made-up term.

I think that to dissolve identification, to "disidentificate", it is necessary to acknowledge the dual nature of identity, one way or another. When you see that it is impossible to deny the duality of identity, then the idea that you have "an identity" seems very doubtful.

I find the division to be quite readily drawn along the division between past and future. There is a "myself" of the past, and a "myself" of the future. These two cannot be the same because the one is defined by what I have done, and the other by what I will do, and these are distinct. Consider what unenlightended says:

Quoting unenlightened

Now suppose I were to tell the story of Posty-depressed becoming Posty-elevated, by means of enlightenment philosophy. Alas, that story would make the connection, identify them as the same, and thus drag depression back into the world of Posty-elevated. The two identities are mutually dependent on their independence, the way my identity as not going to parties is dependent on the parties I don't go to, and my continuing no to go to them.

Notice that unenlightened makes the same point. The "me" of the past is distinct from the "me" of the future, and having this attitude, knowing this, allows us to change as human individuals, and improve ourselves.

Now let me tell you the difficult, counter-intuitive part. The "me" of the past, and this is what I called the identity assigned to you by others, according to the acts you have carried out in the past, is actually produced, or created by the "me" of the future. I can identify with what I want to be, in the future, and act accordingly, such that as time passes these activities become the new "me" of the past, and the new identity of me in the past. So Posty wants to become elevated, and unenlightened wants to not go to parties. As "what you want", this is the half of your identity which is in the future, it is the future "you", your future identity, the part of your identity which is not evident to others. Posty begins to act in ways to become elevated and unenlightened ceases going to parties. Then this becomes your past identity, Posty is elevated and unenlightened does not go to parties.

It is counter-intuitive because we think of causation in the sense of activities of the past causing the future situation, in the determinist way. But in the case of self-identity, the past part of my identity has always been caused by the future part of my identity. When I want something, this is the future part of my identity, inspiring me to act. After the act occurs, it becomes a part of my past identity. Now when I was young, I wanted to play guitar. I couldn't even hold the instrument at that time, so playing guitar wasn't a part of my "identity", in the sense of past identity. But that "want" was still a part of my identity at that time, so I give it reality as the part of my identity which was in the future at that time. So I was inspired and I practised, and now playing guitar is a part of my identity in the sense of past identity. I can analyze aspects of my "past identity", which by inductive reasoning make me "what I am" today, and try to determine the future part of my identity which was active at that time creating this identity.

Quoting 0 thru 9

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that one’s “true identity” IS one given by others?
Or just asking if Posty thinks it is?

Yes, just asking. it's a rhetorical question, it can't really be properly answered, but it was devised to make Posty think about the question, and ultimately to consider the dual nature of identity.

Quoting 0 thru 9

1. As far as the individual is concerned, there are two sides (or poles) of reality: Self and Other.

Let me ask you to try on something new 0 thru 9. Forget this Self/Other distinction which the mode of thinking that you have been trained in, has conditioned you into believing are the two sides, or poles, of reality. Consider that perhaps the real fundamental two sides, or poles of reality, which the individual is concerned with are past and future. The individual is concerned with distinguishing memories from anticipations, and establishing relations between these. This is basic, and the self/other distinction is secondary.

Quoting 0 thru 9

3. The distinction between Self and Other is often relatively distinct, but it is not completely black-and-white. It is not an absolute yes or no question.
4. The distinction between Self and Other is a fluid, moving boundary. Like the heap of sand Sorites paradox.

That is the problem with the self/other distinction, it is far too vague. The past/future distinction offers a much more clear-cut division. Further, there is nothing inherent within the self/other distinction which makes it an essential aspect of human nature, it has just been chosen as an analytical principle, and many have addressed its flaws. It is based in the spatial assumption that objects are separate from each other. But we know that objects really overlap by gravity and other fields, and that's why the self/other division doesn't make a good boundary, there is no such boundary in reality.

Quoting 0 thru 9

When a person is a child, one is probably very fuzzy about the difference between themself and their surroundings or mother, for instance. But put in a positive way, children seem in general to be very aware of the “connectedness” of things. They are in the moment, in the flow of life. Thus they often seem to have wisdom beyond their years. Adults gain the critical knowledge of individuality, but often lose the sense of immersion or connection with anything beyond oneself. The goal (as some have said) is to have the ability to recognize both, in whatever proportion is necessary at the moment. To be deficient as a part, or as a whole is to be an incomplete human. For an individual is a whole, which is a part of a another whole. Not unlike viewing energy as both a wave and as a particule.

See, this very passage demonstrates that you really believe that the self/other distinction is not the fundamental division of the individual's reality. The child doesn't recognize this division, but is taught it, and learns it through social training, so much so that the adult often forgets that it is an artificial, manufactured division. But this social convention doesn't approach the real fundamental boundary, which is the division between past and future, a division which is recognized by children, naturally, without requiring social conditioning.

Quoting 0 thru 9

I would agree that one’s self identity is in relation and in context to others and the surroundings. That actually what I was getting at, obviously it is not really a radical idea. But why I think it is a crucial point is because it is possible to believe that one is almost completely separated from the rest of the world. At least as separate as possible while still interacting with the world. Here I’m speaking from personal
mental or psychological experience. There have been times when I viewed people and objects like a bunch of marbles bouncing off each other, but having absolutely no commonality, no intersection. Now, I view things and people as deeply intertwined and interrelating in some shape or form. Even strangers who will never meet, or even exist at the same time. Even if I can’t imagine or dare to speculate HOW and WHY they interrelate. But let me add that the marble metaphor above was not totally inaccurate. It reflects a certain reality, the reality of separation which is real. Relatively real, only partially real, but nonetheless real.

This is the inevitable (bad) result of upholding this social convention of the self/other division, isolation. Propagating this ideal cannot lead anywhere else but to isolation because once the separation is produced, it cannot be bridged except by a further manufactured, or artificial principle, and this would leas us a further step into the unreal..

Quoting 0 thru 9

I think what I am most interested in and focusing on (for therapeutic value, personally at least) is the BOUNDARIES of what one considers “self” and “not self”. Like I mentioned before, our bodies are made of water, minerals, gases, plant, and animal materials that were somewhere else, were something else before they were part of us. So there is a connection physically, and I would imagine in other ways as well.

You ought to consider the possibility that these boundaries aren't real. Our bodies are made up of water, minerals, gases, etc., but there aren't boundaries separating these things. We are made up of atoms, and molecules, but they are not separated by boundaries. Neither is there a boundary between self and not self. If you want to analyze a real boundary which is fundamental to human identity, you ought to check into the boundary between past and future. When this becomes your fundamental boundary in analysis, then there is no need to create the artificial (and divisive) distinction between self and other.

Quoting 0 thru 9

If someone says “everyone is a liar, so don’t believe a word anyone says”, then one naturally wonders if that statement includes the speaker, or somehow the speaker is exceptional.

Rename this the Trump paradox.

Reply to Posty McPostface

By gaining insight into the unexamined beliefs that are, and the ways in which they are, causing you to fall into recurrent patterns of worry, self-hatred, feelings of inadequacy and so on. You don't believe people can be capable of such insights? If not, then right there is a good example of a meta-cognitive belief that may be holding you back.

Quoting Janus

By gaining insight into the unexamined beliefs that are, and the ways in which they are, causing you to fall into recurrent patterns of worry, self-hatred, feelings of inadequacy and so on. You don't believe people can be capable of such insights?

So, do these metacognitive beliefs change into other metacognitive beliefs? Therefore metacognitive beliefs disidentify and become new or altered ones? What happens to the content of the metacognitive beliefs that were replaced? And, how do unexamined beliefs form, through cognitive distortions?

Quoting Posty McPostface

So, do these metacognitive beliefs change into other metacognitive beliefs? What happens to the content of the metacognitive beliefs that were replaced? And, how do unexamined beliefs form, through cognitive distortions?

I can't see any reason to think that meta-cognitive beliefs are any different than ordinary beliefs, other than that they are about thought and belief, rather than about the world, people, things etc. So, how do you think our ordinary beliefs change? Do they "become other beliefs" or do they merely replace them?

What happens to the content of ordinary beliefs when you replace them? I'm not clear what this question could even mean, to be honest. I'm not sure what your question as to how unexamined beliefs form means either. It seems to be obvious by definition that they do not form consciously. So, I guess they are unconscious, unanalyzed assumptions that we make about our thinking, and what it might do for us, how it might protect us or whatever. Also, what exactly do you mean by "cognitive distortion"?

Quoting Posty McPostface

Accept the way things are. Change what can be changed for the better. Accept what cannot. Learn the difference between the two.

Habits of thought play a crucial role... Habits of thought.
— creativesoul

But, I've already accepted my depression. So, now what?

Let me try this again...

What I meant to point out was that your depression, I would venture to say, is the result of certain things being certain ways. Notably, these things and ways are not the way you'd like them to be, or supposed that they were. Expectation didn't match up to reality.

Change the reality.

Quoting Janus

So, how do you think our ordinary beliefs change? Do they "become other beliefs" or do they merely replace them?

I don't know I'm asking you or others.

Quoting Janus

What happens to the content of ordinary beliefs when you replace them? I'm not clear what this question could even mean, to be honest.

Yes, how is it altered? Think of a hard drive being the brain and software being the belief, how is the software changed to fit a new perception or altered belief of reality or oneself?

Quoting Janus

It seems to be obvious by definition that they do not form consciously. So, I guess they are unconscious, unanalyzed assumptions that we make about our thinking, and what it might do for us, how it might protect us or whatever. Also, what exactly do you mean by "cognitive distortion"?

I mean that how does the maladaptive thought become maladaptive? Through an incorrect identification of a situation or belief about the world through a conscious cognitive distortion?

Quoting creativesoul

Change the reality.

Reality is hard to change. Besides suffering is an endemic feature of depression in many cases that persists in different environments, hence it's dysphoric.

Or...

You could just as easily talk yourself into the idea that you are depressed. You could know all there is to know about being depressed. You could confirm that you've met all of the criterion.

You could always come to better understand what part of reality is so bothersome... and why.

You can do this solely by virtue of trying to remember how you felt at the worst times. That would be during the times when things were either horrible in your mind, horrible in the world, or horrible in both. Talking about your own thoughts during the horrible times, is expressing your memories. Memories are malleable. How did those events make a lasting impression?

Do you want to change it?

Come to more acceptable terms about the same events.

What is it that is so importantly wrong such that it requires you to be continually and/or repeatedly depressed and/or sad about it?

Quoting Posty McPostface

Yes, how is it altered? Think of a hard drive being the brain and software being the belief, how is the software changed to fit a new perception or altered belief of reality or oneself?

I think the orthodox neuroscience story is that new neuronal complexes form. The brain is certainly understood to be plastic these days; which means it can physically alter...which you could say is analogous to a computer being re-programmed, I guess.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I mean that how does the maladaptive thought become maladaptive?

It's maladaptive thought according to MCT because instead of protecting you from, or enabling you to come to some resolution of, your anxieties, depression, OCD or whatever, it reinforces them as recurrent or continuous phenomena that obviously cause suffering.

So, on the definition of 'cognitive distortion' you provided; I would say that unhelpful meta-cognitive beliefs could be the result of cognitive distortions or at least rational distortions (since we are talking about the meta-cognitive here). The distortion consists in the notion that the beliefs are helpful, when they are not.

Quoting Janus

As I understand from the little reading I've done of Adrian Well's Metacognitive Therapy for Anxiety and Depression the central idea is that the prolonged suffering of anxiety and depression is caused by the patient's metacognitive beliefs which, as guiding (really misguiding) thoughts about the the nature and significance of thoughts, beliefs and symptoms, lead to recurrent or continuous fixations on the three processes, the very fixations that prolong the suffering.

What is a metacognitive belief? On the face of it, it looks as though it is a belief about the nature of cognition, which is a psychological theory. Such as the one being described. Which makes this about as close to a religion as you can get without mentioning God. 'Believe, and you will be saved.'

Quoting Janus

Everything we do and experience, both negative and positive, involves thinking,

I'm sorry, that simply isn't true. We take in data from the environment (experience) and then we process that data (thinking). You can see this for yourself if you look closely enough.

You're sitting at your desk reading this post. Someone enters the room behind you. You turn to see who it is and in that moment of looking, of observation, you're just taking in data, you're experiencing. And then your mind shifts to processing the data that's just been received. The person is identified and judged to be welcomed or not etc.

Our minds routinely shift back and forth between these two modes, data intake and data processing, experience and thinking, all day long everyday.

Many or most of the activities that we find engaging involve shifting our focus out of thinking and in to experience. Surfing was offered as an example above. There are a million others.

Quoting Janus

so it seems that what you are advocating is somewhat over-simplistic.

It's over simplistic in comparison to determined efforts to make this as complicated as possible so that we can do more thinking, and position ourselves as experts, gurus, philosophers, insightful people etc.

Imagine the person who is physically hungry. They can read an endless number of books about food and digestion. They can develop a thousand theories on those subjects. They can debate their theories with other theorists. All these books and theories may indeed be quite complicated and sophisticated etc.

But in the end the hungry person is only going to be fulfilled by one thing. Eating. Is this a simplistic fact? I suppose it is. It's also the reality of the situation.

Imagine the mind as a machine, for that is what it is. If a person isn't interested in finding the on/off button for this machine, they have no business presenting themselves as sophisticated users of this device.

Quoting Posty McPostface

The source of suffering is desire.

And the source of desire is the experience of "me", of being divided from everything else. And the source of that experience of division is thought.

Psychology is a surface level examination of symptoms. Underneath the surface lies a mechanical process of the body, thought, which operates by a process of conceptual division. That process creates the "me" an experience of being divided from everything else, which gives rise to fear, which gives rise to desire, conflict and suffering.

No amount of fancy talk however clever can change the underlying mechanical process which is the source of suffering, just as no amount of knowledge about food can end our need to eat.

Reply to Jake I agree with most of what you say, but I wish you would drop the machine analogy, it isn't very helpful or illuminating. how about a flower analogy instead?

Quoting unenlightened

I agree with most of what you say, but I wish you would drop the machine analogy...

Would it offend you to call the digestive system a machine? Is "machine" not new agey enough?

Anyway, I think you get the point, however imperfectly I've made it. The mind is another organ of the body which can be managed with simple, direct, mechanical methods, just as we manage other processes of the body. This is good news.

Diet, exercise, yoga, massage all influence the mind in positive ways and are readily available to pretty much anyone who wishes to exert such influence. Certain drugs in certain circumstances can also assist those suffering from depression. These types of mechanical assistance are available to almost anyone, without the need of any sophisticated psychological understandings. This is good news.

This is good news because unlike sophisticated psychological understandings, such mechanical techniques are very widely accessible, and either free or (usually) affordable.

This is also good news because the ready availability of such techniques can help us understand how serious we are about addressing suffering. I'm not making a moral argument about how serious someone should be, I'm just suggesting that clarity is usually a good place to start.

This is a philosophy forum after all, so a focus on clarity seems appropriate.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think that to dissolve identification, to "disidentificate", it is necessary to acknowledge the dual nature of identity, one way or another. When you see that it is impossible to deny the duality of identity, then the idea that you have "an identity" seems very doubtful.

I find the division to be quite readily drawn along the division between past and future. There is a "myself" of the past, and a "myself" of the future. These two cannot be the same because the one is defined by what I have done, and the other by what I will do, and these are distinct. Consider what unenlightended says:

Now suppose I were to tell the story of Posty-depressed becoming Posty-elevated, by means of enlightenment philosophy. Alas, that story would make the connection, identify them as the same, and thus drag depression back into the world of Posty-elevated. The two identities are mutually dependent on their independence, the way my identity as not going to parties is dependent on the parties I don't go to, and my continuing no to go to them.
— unenlightened

Notice that unenlightened makes the same point. The "me" of the past is distinct from the "me" of the future, and having this attitude, knowing this, allows us to change as human individuals, and improve ourselves.

:up: Thanks for your response and further elaboration. Most appreciated, for it is clearer now. (But correct me if I happen to misinterpret your position.)

Yes, I would definitely agree that identity has a dual nature. Thanks for your relating it in terms of time. That makes supreme sense, as does @unenlightened’s post. The relation of time to itself (past, present, future) and to us (past me, future me) is one of the main philosophical topics for sure. It touches on physics and metaphysics, mortality and morality. I’ve wondered about the nature of time, as everyone probably has. Like for instance, the direction of time. Does time move from past -> present-> future ? This is the time-line view. Or does it move from future -> present -> past ? This is like being in a car and seeing up ahead a mile or so. Then that space ahead is soon where one is at, becoming the present. Then it is in the rear view mirror, representing the past. I tend towards the latter view, though I don’t dismiss the former. It seems to be relative to the point of view. Also... do we move through time like a boat on a river, or does time flow through us like water through a hose? I would agree that the “future me” is distinct from “past me”. So it seems the “future me” causes “past me” (like the car-time analogy) and not the other way around. I would agree, if I’m understanding your ideas accurately.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

1. As far as the individual is concerned, there are two sides (or poles) of reality: Self and Other.
— 0 thru 9

Let me ask you to try on something new 0 thru 9. Forget this Self/Other distinction which the mode of thinking that you have been trained in, has conditioned you into believing are the two sides, or poles, of reality.

Yes. That is what I was getting at: moving beyond the duality; which is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there! :smile:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

3. The distinction between Self and Other is often relatively distinct, but it is not completely black-and-white. It is not an absolute yes or no question.
4. The distinction between Self and Other is a fluid, moving boundary. Like the heap of sand Sorites paradox.
— 0 thru 9

That is the problem with the self/other distinction, it is far too vague. The past/future distinction offers a much more clear-cut division. Further, there is nothing inherent within the self/other distinction which makes it an essential aspect of human nature, it has just been chosen as an analytical principle, and many have addressed its flaws. It is based in the spatial assumption that objects are separate from each other. But we know that objects really overlap by gravity and other fields, and that's why the self/other division doesn't make a good boundary, there is no such boundary in reality.

Oh yes. The self/other distinction (which at first appears so clear, certain, and definite) upon further inspection at any point DOES become fuzzy and vague. That actually was my point, though awkwardly crammed into a list for the sake of brevity. I was not contradicting the first point about self/other being polar opposites. It was furthering the idea by introducing the more metaphysical concept of radical oneness. I usually try not to jump too quickly into claiming “all is one” lest I be dismissed for magical thinking, or for putting the cart before the horse (or heart before the course?) The goal in my view is to completely accept and contemplate the mundane (separateness) AND the almost unimaginable (unity and oneness). To accept (what could be called) “both sides of reality”. Or duality and non-duality. Separateness and unity. Even matter and energy/mind.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

When a person is a child, one is probably very fuzzy about the difference between themself and their surroundings or mother, for instance. But put in a positive way, children seem in general to be very aware of the “connectedness” of things. They are in the moment, in the flow of life. Thus they often seem to have wisdom beyond their years. Adults gain the critical knowledge of individuality, but often lose the sense of immersion or connection with anything beyond oneself. The goal (as some have said) is to have the ability to recognize both, in whatever proportion is necessary at the moment. To be deficient as a part, or as a whole is to be an incomplete human. For an individual is a whole, which is a part of a another whole. Not unlike viewing energy as both a wave and as a particule.
— 0 thru 9

See, this very passage demonstrates that you really believe that the self/other distinction is not the fundamental division of the individual's reality. The child doesn't recognize this division, but is taught it, and learns it through social training, so much so that the adult often forgets that it is an artificial, manufactured division. But this social convention doesn't approach the real fundamental boundary, which is the division between past and future, a division which is recognized by children, naturally, without requiring social conditioning.

Well, I think you may be anticipating my idea’s conclusion rather than contradicting it. Which is fine. One can’t say everything at once! I think “the undivided” happens to be the source of the “divided world” which we see around us. (Maybe that is a belief about what might indeed be a fact, but as a belief falls into the general category of religion.) I would agree that the child doesn’t at first recognize the artificial, manufactured boundaries that prevail. And that a child’s perception of time is much different than an adult’s. They seem much more “sensitive” to time. Waiting for Christmas to arrive is an eternity.

It reminds me of being a child, and playing in the backyard. When all the neighborhood kids wanted to play a game, it would invariably expand out onto many different properties. We didn’t necessarily care if we played on other people’s backyards. We just wanted a big open space. Now, sometimes the owners of the property understandably had something to say about it, especially if we were trampling their garden while trying to retrieve the baseball! :lol: Now days, of course I’m painfully aware of property lines, boundary lines, and road lines. Because I may wish to merge with the flow of traffic while entering a freeway, but I don’t wish to merge into another vehicle!

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You ought to consider the possibility that these boundaries aren't real. Our bodies are made up of water, minerals, gases, etc., but there aren't boundaries separating these things. We are made up of atoms, and molecules, but they are not separated by boundaries. Neither is there a boundary between self and not self. If you want to analyze a real boundary which is fundamental to human identity, you ought to check into the boundary between past and future. When this becomes your fundamental boundary in analysis, then there is no need to create the artificial (and divisive) distinction between self and other.

Good points for sure, which I have considered and thanks to your ideas, am considering even further. But I would repeat that on some level, separateness has a certain reality. A relative and impermanent and maybe ultimately illusionary nature, but still having a certain superficial factual nature. Like the difference and physical boundary between the United States and Canada. Sure, it is totally artificial, except for lakes and such. But one disregards that boundary at their own risk. But anyone who completely and absolutely denies the distinction between self and other... please contact me! I am accepting monetary donations, and will give you my Paypal address! :yum:

Quoting 0 thru 9

Yes. That is what I was getting at: moving beyond the duality; which is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there!

I heard a story on NPR about a lady who had an accident that put her in a coma. When she emerged from the coma she couldn't form even short term memories. Thus, she was forced in to "be here now" on a 24/7 basis. This of course created many practical problems for her. Eventually they were resolved as her memory ability gradually returned.

She was glad to have her regular life back, but also deeply missed the "be here now" immersion, calling it the most profound and beautiful experience of her life.

I found it a very interesting story, and regret I can not link you to it.

Quoting Jake

Would it offend you to call the digestive system a machine? Is "machine" not new agey enough?

Anyway, I think you get the point, however imperfectly I've made it. The mind is another organ of the body which can be managed with simple, direct, mechanical methods,

I'm not offended, though there you go again with your mechanical analogy. But let me try you with spinach. Given a moist soil, spinach will grow plenty of leaves, which is what tiggers like. But if the soil starts to dry out, it gets anxious and rushes to make flowers and set seed. From my point of view, this is a malfunction on its part, because leaves are what I want. But from the plant's point of view, it's a sensible reaction to the danger of drought. So, by analogy, one might wonder what depression is a sensible response to. Because why would it be part of the repertoire of normal behaviour if it were never of any value to the organism?

Quoting unenlightened

I'm not offended, though there you go again with your mechanical analogy.

It seems your concern here is primarily aesthetic. Ok, each of us is entitled to our own taste in words, no problem.

Quoting unenlightened

So, by analogy, one might wonder what depression is a sensible response to.

Hmm, good question...

Physical pain is a signal the body sends us to alert us to a problem area that may require our attention. Mental pain may perform the same function.

Quoting Jake

I heard a story on NPR about a lady who had an accident that put her in a coma. When she emerged from the coma she couldn't form even short term memories. Thus, she was forced in to "be here now" on a 24/7 basis. This of course created many practical problems for her. Eventually they were resolved as her memory ability gradually returned.

She was glad to have her regular life back, but also deeply missed the "be here now" immersion, calling it the most profound and beautiful experience of her life.

I found it a very interesting story, and regret I can not link you to it.

I am that lady! That story was about me. At least as far as I can remember... it’s still a little fuzzy. :chin:

Sorry, bad joke. Seriously though, interesting story. Thanks for sharing it.

Quoting Jake

It seems your concern here is primarily aesthetic.

Not really.

Quoting Jake

Hmm, good question...

Good analogies provoke good questions.

It seems to me that depression is not so much pain as it is a general lowering of affect, almost a withdrawal from the world. Perhaps a better vegetative picture would be a tree shedding its leaves in autumn. And the candidate for an environmental trigger that comes to mind is a hostile social situation - there might even be an epigenetic effect whereby a parent's experience of aggressive dominance, for example, that cannot be avoided or resisted leads to a proclivity for depression in their offspring.

Edit: Wiki definitely thinks that's a thing.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

To tell you the truth, I've been reading this thread, and haven't yet figured out exactly what disidentification is.

I had to DuckDuckGo it before I worked it out. :up: :smile:

Quoting unenlightened

What is a metacognitive belief?

A belief about the effects, positive or negative, your strategies of thought will have on you.

Quoting Jake

We take in data from the environment (experience) and then we process that data (thinking). You can see this for yourself if you look closely enough.

I don't accept theories of cognition that posit raw sense data; all human experience is concept-laden. To separate experience and thinking is possible only in the abstract.

Quoting Janus

What is a metacognitive belief?
— unenlightened

A belief about the effects, positive or negative, your strategies of thought will have on you.

Sorry , but what's a strategy of thought?

Reply to unenlightened

A repeated pattern of thinking that is believed to be helpful, protective or whatever.

Quoting unenlightened

What is a metacognitive belief? On the face of it, it looks as though it is a belief about the nature of cognition, which is a psychological theory. Such as the one being described. Which makes this about as close to a religion as you can get without mentioning God. 'Believe, and you will be saved.'

I've only just begun reading about MCT, on account of hearing about it in this thread. I am not an adherent or a practitioner, just an interested layman, but from what I have heard and read about the effectiveness of various forms of psychotherapy, CBT (of which MCT is in some ways apparently an extension) has been one of the best performers. The effectiveness of MCT is yet to be definitively shown, but the theory seems, so far, to be eminently commonsensical to me, and to have nothing at all to do with any kind of "religious" belief. Have you read Andrew Well's book, or examined studies of the effectiveness of MCT? If not, then you are criticizing something you know little or nothing about, which is never a good idea.

Links to some empirical studies (in case you are interested):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3939994/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5052963/
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b&ei=T7-RW7eqIZCmoASo0b_IAQ&q=metacognitive+therapy+effectiveness&oq=metacognitive+therapy+effectiveness&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0i8i30k1.11120.17232.0.21612.21.20.0.0.0.0.383.3054.2-9j2.11.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..10.11.3038...0i7i30k1j0i8i7i30k1.0.Us-WYYuDcTw

Reply to Janus Quoting Janus

I don't accept theories of cognition that posit raw sense data; all human experience is concept-laden. To separate experience and thinking is possible only in the abstract.

I think there are many experiences that do not have concepts attached to them. If you only have experience of already understood, demarcated and distinguished, formal gestures of concepts how could your experience be authentic? Would you not just be a machine of language; of an impoverished conscious mind completely separated from the wealth of imagination and fantasy, belief and vision within, rejected for the without? How could you thus be creative, if all experience is concept-laden? If all experience is concept laden then what is experience? Does this idea not assume that all experience can be conceptualized?

I disagree.

Or perhaps I have misinterpreted you?

Quoting 0 thru 9

The relation of time to itself (past, present, future) and to us (past me, future me) is one of the main philosophical topics for sure. It touches on physics and metaphysics, mortality and morality.

I think that the notion of immortality is derived from the idea of being at the present. If one could truly exist at the present then that person would not take part in the past or the future, and have an existence which is non-temporal, eternal. But on the other hand, when we look at a thing's continued existence in time, we consider that it has existed in the past, and will continue existence into the future, neglecting the importance of the present. The present is the only time when change occurs, and to understand change we must allow for a discontinuity at the present. The immortal self is a continuous existence at the present. The mortal self is an object with continuous existence through the past and into the future. The discontinuity of the present annihilates both these selves.

Quoting 0 thru 9

I’ve wondered about the nature of time, as everyone probably has. Like for instance, the direction of time. Does time move from past -> present-> future ? This is the time-line view. Or does it move from future -> present -> past ? This is like being in a car and seeing up ahead a mile or so. Then that space ahead is soon where one is at, becoming the present. Then it is in the rear view mirror, representing the past. I tend towards the latter view, though I don’t dismiss the former. It seems to be relative to the point of view.

I agree with the conceiving of time in this direction, future>present>past. That's why I said that the future is like a force of oppression on us. We can consider that at the present, the past is coming into existence. As time passes, there is always more and more past, so the past is coming into being at the present. If we were to assume a beginning of time, there would be no passing of time prior to this, therefore no past. But we cannot eliminate the possibility that there was a future, at this point, when time started to pass. So if something forces time to pass, or causes time to pass, that must be the future.

I like your car analogy, but this is the way I see it. All we are seeing is the past. That is all that is evident to any of our senses. It takes time for light to reach the eyes, from what is seen, so what is seen is always in the past. Likewise, it takes time for the neurological activity required for any sensation, so everything sensed is in the past by the time it is sensed. Say you are looking out the back window of the moving car. In the case of time, unlike the car, you can imagine the present as a static observation point, and everything else is moving past you, into the past.

Everything is coming from the future, and what you are seeing is things flying by you and disappearing into the past. We can't turn around and face the front because the nature of sensation does not allow this. We only grasp the future with our minds, its existence is a logical necessity to account for where everything is coming from, but our senses cannot sense anything there. It is like a black wall in front of us, where sensation cannot go, when we face it directly. But now that we've turned around to face the true forward direction, we must account for this "turning", and this is where we need the "rear view mirror" analogy. When we were facing the past, and learning about things from our senses, we didn't realize that we were looking backward in time. Our minds, however, were always oriented to look forward into the future, we being intentional beings, so when we were "facing the past" with our senses, we weren't really facing the past, we were looking into a rear view mirror, while our minds were facing the future. The mirror inverts the appearance of directions, so when we establish the real orientation, of facing the future which is coming at us, we need to account for this, sort out, and "deconfuse" all the confusion which was caused by thinking that what we see while we are looking into the rear view mirror, is really what is in front of us.

Quoting 0 thru 9

But I would repeat that on some level, separateness has a certain reality. A relative and impermanent and maybe ultimately illusionary nature, but still having a certain superficial factual nature. Like the difference and physical boundary between the United States and Canada. Sure, it is totally artificial, except for lakes and such. But one disregards that boundary at their own risk. But anyone who completely and absolutely denies the distinction between self and other... please contact me! I am accepting monetary donations, and will give you my Paypal address!

I agree with the need to accept the reality of boundaries, individuals, and separate objects. After all, this is what we sense, especially with our eyes. We sense boundaries and separations. The problem is that the existence of these boundaries is not a good starting point because they are so difficult to define. We cannot define these boundaries because we really do not know what they consist of. This problem foils any analysis which proceeds in this direction. Analysis is dependent on creating such divisions, so if the division cannot be created cleanly, the analysis is doomed to failure. The temporal division between past and future however, gives us a much cleaner boundary to start an analysis, than does the spatial separation between individuals.

Quoting Blue Lux

How could you thus be creative, if all experience is concept-laden?

Creativity consists in the imaginative combination of concepts. Surely you don't think any creative works are concept-free?

Whenever we perceive anything we perceive it as something; this means we have a concept of what we are perceiving. When we see a tree this is made possible by the fact that we understand the concept 'tree' for example.

Quoting Blue Lux

If all experience is concept laden then what is experience? Does this idea not assume that all experience can be conceptualized?

What do mean when you ask "what is experience?"? We all know what experience is. All conscious experience can of course be conceptualized, otherwise how could we be conscious of it? Do you mean to claim that you could consciously experience something that you would be unable to say anything at all about?

Quoting Blue Lux

I think there are many experiences that do not have concepts attached to them.

Yes, the concepts get attached AFTER the actual experience.

You're walking down the hall and someone emerges in to the hall from a room. You look to see this addition to the scene and for a moment you are just looking, observing, absorbing data. And then your mind begins organizing the data, ie. thinking.

It's easier to see this process if we use exaggerated examples. You're walking down the hall and someone sets off a firecracker behind you. This could be a mortal threat, so your mind pushes the thinker and thinking aside, no time for that right now.

Quoting Janus

the theory seems, so far, to be eminently commonsensical to me, and to have nothing at all to do with any kind of "religious" belief.

A metacognitive belief is "a belief about the effects, positive or negative, your strategies of thought will have on you."

A strategy of thought is "a repeated pattern of thinking that is believed to be helpful, protective or whatever."

CBT is a practice based on a psychological theory. Psychological theory is a repeated pattern of thinking that is believed to be helpful and protective.

Belief in CBT is a metacognitive belief.

Now as a philosopher, or a scientist, one is committed to believing and advocating belief in whatever is true, rather than whatever makes one feel good. This is in stark contrast to the CBT therapist who has in common with the religionist a commitment not to truth in the first place, but to - what shall I say? - "benefit". It doesn't matter whether CBT is true or not, or possibly, at least in public, the guarantee of its truth is that it makes folks feel better.

And so what it comes down to, without the cloaking of complicated scientific terminology is "think happy thoughts and don't worry whether they are true."

It's all rather depressing, and therefore it must be wrong.

Quoting unenlightened

And so what it comes down to, without the cloaking of complicated scientific terminology is "think happy thoughts and don't worry whether they are true."

It's all rather depressing, and therefore it must be wrong.

I don't think it's that bad as you say. CBT and MCT have their foundations in scientific inquiry. They have empirical grounds where their efficacy has been determined. Therefore, they aren't just another set of metacognitive beliefs devoid of meaning. Their use is determined by the ability to get one out of depression. And, they seemingly work for that purpose.

I've been pretty stable for about 4 years now, following decades of depression. Medication has played its part, and so has CBT and rTMS. Despite the mental and emotional training I've done, there are still certain triggers that will send me into a mini depressive episode. Thankfully, though very uncomfortable, the effect is very temporary now, and seems to lessen with every occurrence.

There's also a lot to be said for treating your body and mind right, as hard as that can be when you lack motivation. Proper sleep, a decent diet, plenty of exercise, healthy relationships, fairly regular sex (if you can get it haha), and healthy distractions/hobbies go a long way toward improving your chances of maintaining a more positive or at least more neutral state of mind.

Reply to CasKev

And, what are your thoughts about disidentification, if I may ask? My depression isn't that bad recently. Manageable; but, still bothersome.

As far as 'disidentification' goes, CBT and mindfulness practices played the biggest roles in that for me. Having been depressed for so long, the associated narratives became quite ingrained, but I learned to stop seeing them as significant when they arose - kind of just observing them without attaching meaning to them or identifying with them as being part of 'me'.

Quoting Posty McPostface

their efficacy has been determined. Therefore, they aren't just another set of metacognitive beliefs devoid of meaning. Their use is determined by the ability to get one out of depression. And, they seemingly work for that purpose.

This is why it is so depressing; It makes people happier, therefore it is true.

Reply to unenlightened

I don't quite see what is so depressing about it. Care to elaborate?

Suppose I said to you that if you believe in Jesus as your saviour, and showed you with statistics that people who believe in Jesus as their saviour are much happier, than those who don't, would you believe in Jesus as your saviour?

I think that's a little different than what Posty was saying...

I can't just decide to believe in Jesus. I have to first be convinced of his existence.
However, I can decide to engage in CBT to exercise my brain, just like I can decide to lift weights to exercise my muscles. I don't have to believe in CBT or lifting weights for them to work.

That being said, CBT in isolation will not necessarily work for everyone (some forms of mental/emotional trauma may be too severe), and definitely not at a pace that most would find palatable. That's why it's useful to combine CBT with things like medication and rTMS, especially when dealing with someone in the midst of deep depression. The effort required to fully engage in CBT can be difficult to muster when you don't really feel like being alive.

Also, the road to recovery from depression is usually a very winding one, where it sometimes feels like you're right back where you started. Especially early on in the process, if something triggers a depressed mental/emotional state, it can feel like you've made absolutely no progress. However, over the long term, the negative reactions typically become less frequent and less intense. The trouble with depressive episodes is that when they do come on, it often feels like it will never go away. But over time, every time you resurface intact, your strength and confidence builds.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Now, I don't know how to (dis)-identify with depression anymore, it's been with me for so long, that I've become accustomed to it

I've had meetings with therapists where I've pretended to accept I have depression but I'm always unconvincing, I feel. In the long run I've just concluded: I have a melancholy disposition, and the way things have turned out seem to demonstrate how right I was to be melancholy.

But depression is a thing in a systematic world of diagnoses and therapies, pills and cures, that I don't subscribe to. I have subscribed to it, but not now. Is this dis-identification?

A more fundamental example for my personal situation over a period of time is 'alcoholism'. I drink too much and some days my primary thoughts have been about where the next drink is coming from. Still, I got most of my best ideas when boozed up, even though I needed to sober up to get them straight and in order. People who want to help me use this word 'alcoholic' and it bugs me. The founders of AA died, one of drink, he relapsed, the other of lung cancer as an addictive smoker. This stuff about helplessness, a higher power and disease that is built into the system that uses the term 'alcoholic' just leaves me alienated.

I would add: therein lies a danger of disidentification. Alienation. If you refuse the label you're given when you go into the therapeutic room you'll find yourself isolated, and that itself may not be wise. I remember Lawrence Block novels with affection: he had a melancholy detective called Matthew Scudder who went to AA meetings whenever he could, not out of belief, but in a habitual practice that to me resembled religious practice: you may not believe the theology ('alcoholism', 'depression') - but to enact the rituals, to join in the fellowship, to experience the mutuality, all these activities are tremendously helpful and enhance your feeling of your own humanity. So maybe it's best to keep going to the Depression/Booze clinic, and take some of the medication if it doesn't ruin your creativity too much, and keep doing your best.

Quoting unenlightened

Now as a philosopher, or a scientist, one is committed to believing and advocating belief in whatever is true, rather than whatever makes one feel good.

If you are, just for example, someone who suffers from health anxiety, and act unconsciously on the unexamined, misplaced and indeed untrue metacognitive belief that continually checking for physical signs that something might be wrong and compulsively reading about what kinds of nasty health conditions could afflict you is the right way to maintain your best chance of remaining physically, emotionally and mentally healthy, then why would seeing the error of this way of 'coping', and ceasing to act on it not be beneficial?

It is with these kinds of insights, and asking the critical questions about the compulsive behaviors that undermine our wellbeing and the erroneous and unexaminesd beliefs that support them that MCT seems to be concerned.

By referring to psychotherapies as "metacognitive beliefs" you seem to be conflating explicit theories about the effectiveness of various psychotherapeutic methodologies with implicit individual beliefs about the effectiveness of various coping strategies.

You make a distinction between truth and "benefit" contrasting the CBT practitioner with the philosopher, claiming the former is concerned with truth and the latter with mere benefit. This is misleading; CBT is concerned with discovering the truth about which kinds of thoughts and coping strategies are actually, as opposed to being merely imagined to be, beneficial.

The fact that you personally find it all "very depressing" has absolutely no bearing on whether it is beneficial to others.

Reply to mcdoodle

This reads like an apologetic for personal addiction. I used to be addicted to various substances, then in my early 60s I finally gave them all up. Now I am much happier and much more productive with my creative pursuits, work and other activities. So here is an alternative apologetic for sober self-awareness and discipline.

Quoting unenlightened

Suppose I said to you that if you believe in Jesus as your saviour, and showed you with statistics that people who believe in Jesus as their saviour are much happier, than those who don't, would you believe in Jesus as your saviour?

Pragmatically, I would have nothing against believing in Jesus. But, I could create another belief in something else that may better suit my inclinations. But, I guess I see where you're coming from. It's just that psychotherapy, be it CBT or MCT, is validated by empirical studies and since it would be hard to argue that no person does not have cognitive distortions, then what's wrong with pointing them out if they actually do occur, which they do.

Thanks for sharing mcdoodle.

Quoting mcdoodle

In the long run I've just concluded: I have a melancholy disposition, and the way things have turned out seem to demonstrate how right I was to be melancholy.

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

Quoting mcdoodle

I would add: therein lies a danger of disidentification. Alienation. If you refuse the label you're given when you go into the therapeutic room you'll find yourself isolated, and that itself may not be wise.

There is that danger, yes. But, the goal is to get better, so, as long as that goal is being satisfied then why worry? But, I no longer believe in disidentification. I find it impossible to not think of the polar bear once brought up, or the fact that I have depression...

Quoting CasKev

I can't just decide to believe in Jesus.

Why not?

Quoting CasKev

I have to first be convinced of his existence.

I think you have this backward, believing in it is what convinces you of it. That's known as "faith". One has faith in Jesus (believes in Jesus), practises religion, and becomes convinced. How does this differ from having faith in CBT? You believe in CBT, practise it, and become convinced of it, just like a religion. Faith and belief are first. Practise follows. When the practise works, one becomes convinced. It's like learning how to play a musical instrument, if you do not believe in your ability, you will not succeed, because the practise will appear useless for one reason or another. Belief is prior to practise, conviction follows from practise.

Results

Presence of depression was related to less frequent worship attendance, more frequent private religious practice, and moderate subjective religiosity. Among the depressed group, less severe depression was related to more frequent worship attendance, less religiousness, and having had a born-again experience. These results were only partially explained by effects of social support and stress buffering.

Conclusions

Religion is related to depression diagnosis and severity via multiple pathways.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3266521/

I need to make clear that I am not down on religion, and I am not down on CBT etc. Whatever gets you through the night.

What I am down on is the mask of scientism; and in particular the claim that the efficacy of practice demonstrates the truth of theory. The world is such a state that it is perfectly understandable that folks should prefer to live in Lala Land and be happier there. But personally, I do not advocate for it; I advocate for facing the horror that pervades one's being and the world, and doing one's negligible bit to ameliorate it.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think that the notion of immortality is derived from the idea of being at the present. If one could truly exist at the present then that person would not take part in the past or the future, and have an existence which is non-temporal, eternal. But on the other hand, when we look at a thing's continued existence in time, we consider that it has existed in the past, and will continue existence into the future, neglecting the importance of the present. The present is the only time when change occurs, and to understand change we must allow for a discontinuity at the present. The immortal self is a continuous existence at the present. The mortal self is an object with continuous existence through the past and into the future. The discontinuity of the present annihilates both these selves.

Thanks very much for your reply. This paragraph was particularly interesting, dealing with the present and its possible relation to the person. Could you expand on the idea, if you don’t mind? I think i was following up until the last three lines of the quote, especially the last sentence. (Or maybe I wasn’t following as well as I thought! :wink: )

Also, this reminds of a quote or an idea, but can’t remember who said it and Google failed me. It was something along the lines of “in our dimension, time is limited but space is infinite. In higher dimensions (or approaching light speed) time expands and space contracts.” Thoughts?

What clinical experience teaches in fact is not that psychological distress and emotional suffering are the result of individual faults, flaws or medical disorders, but arise from the social organizations in which all of us are located. Furthermore, damage to people, once done, is not easily cured, but may more easily (and that not easily at all!) be prevented by attending to and caring for the structures of the world in which we live. These are questions neither of medicine nor of 'therapy'. If anything, they may be seen more as questions of morality and, by extension, politics.

David Smail Power, Responsibility and Freedom

Quoting unenlightened

What clinical experience teaches in fact is not that psychological distress and emotional suffering are the result of individual faults, flaws or medical disorders, but arise from the social organizations in which all of us are located. Furthermore, damage to people, once done, is not easily cured, but may more easily (and that not easily at all!) be prevented by attending to and caring for the structures of the world in which we live. These are questions neither of medicine nor of 'therapy'. If anything, they may be seen more as questions of morality and, by extension, politics.

David Smail Power, Responsibility and Freedom

Yep. Sad but true. Personal responsibility and morality still being important... However, it might be easier for all involved if the problem was like a car needing new brakes or spark plugs. What if this is a manufacturer defect? Is our civilizational factory putting out the human equivalent of the famous lemon-car Edsel? How could one even follow all the our culture tells us? It is too contradictory. And even when following the dictums of “more is better” and “you are great! / terrible!” (whichever works to sell the product of the moment), it seems to dead-end much faster than the average lifespan. With a few notable exceptions who, following the [s]POTUS[/s] Peter Principle, rise to the level of their incompetence.

Edit: somewhat reminds me of the thread you started called Psychology, advertising, and propaganda.

Hello Posty,

"How does one resolve this process of identifying with something negative or detrimental that it becomes a secondary disability, almost in some manner or form a dialectical fictitious entity of the mind or rather a neuroticism?"

Is to work out the very object that you are identified with. It may be a particular person, it maybe a series of events that were blanketed with loss resulting in an extreme case of vulnerability to any form of loss. They serve as constant reminders. It would be good to isolate this object that ruminates in your mind where you have no control over. It is the nature of the body to associate all from the past to the current object of identification. Everyday there is something that triggers this process in your mind, in your body. The slightest movement of your body, your face expression can also trigger this process.

Find a time in your day and a location in your home where you don't usually occupy e.g your favorite chair or room as they potentially serve as trigger points particularly if you have spent time here in these deep vulnerable states.

Once you find this new location in your home, gently sit down, allow your eyes to see what is around you while observing the state of mind, the state of emotion, the state of posture that you find yourself in. This practice opens neutral perspective point for you to observe. After a time, close your eyes and maintain presence to your surroundings using your sense of hearing, while observing where you are right now inside. When you begin to feel an impulse to stop this practice, allow and open yourself to this being mindful on where it is you are about to go.

As you continue with your daily life, aim to become aware of the impulse of identification, note the surroundings you are in, the interactions when this impulse emerges. At that moment allow the impulse of identification to be there, observing it while being attentive to your daily task at hand. Continue the practice of daily or evening sitting.

Bonnie

Quoting unenlightened

What I am down on is the mask of scientism; and in particular the claim that the efficacy of practice demonstrates the truth of theory.

So, psychology isn't a science? I don't understand the negative outlook here.

Quoting unenlightened

But personally, I do not advocate for it; I advocate for facing the horror that pervades one's being and the world, and doing one's negligible bit to ameliorate it.

To be honest, I doubt my depression can be solved by this means. I don't really know the source of my depression. It seems as if it runs in the family, and no psychotherapy will help.

Reply to Bonnie

Thanks, Bonnie, I'll think over it.

Quoting Posty McPostface

To be honest, I doubt my depression can be solved by this means. I don't really know the source of my depression. It seems as if it runs in the family, and no psychotherapy will help.

No, it's not offered as a cure for you. It's a cure for a shitty world - a shovel and a lot of work.

Quoting unenlightened

No, it's not offered as a cure for you. It's a cure for a shitty world - a shovel and a lot of work.

It doesn't seem like anyone cares. Not your or my problem. And the depression continues.

Well, I gave it a try at disidentification, and it didn't seem to help with my depression, as thought.

Guess not disidentification, then.

What now?

I want to analyze why disidentification didn't work for my depression.

It seems to me that internal problems of the mind are harder to treat with disidentification than external afflictions. This is due to having the mind be constantly aware of its own internal workings. One can disidentify from being called a nerd, geek, or what label people can invent; but, for depression or anxiety or OCD, it's not possible to dissociate from the condition. It's too endemic to treat with disidentification.

Thoughts?

It all sounds to me like wishful thinking to want to "wish away" the depression.

I really do wonder how would a Buddhist tell a student or follower, how to disidentify or detach from depression. I doubt they would think it was sound advice to try and do so. It seems to me that to want to disidentify from a feeling, one is incapable or not feeling it.

Reply to Posty McPostface

You mean that in your experience, in your particular case, it has proven to be too entrenched to treat with disidentification? But what of the possibility that you haven't tried hard and/or consistently enough? (I'm not saying you haven't, but I'm just asking the question).

Reply to Posty McPostface

I think a Buddhist would say that suffering (including depression) is on account of attachment (identification). As I understand it the aim of insight meditation and mindfulness is not to try to force the mind to detach from (dis-identify with) anything, but to gain insight into the actuality of attachments as evidenced by compulsive thought patterns. The growth of insight is believed to result in the loosening and final relinquishment of attachments, as I understand it.

Quoting Janus

You mean that in your experience, in your particular case, it has proven to be too entrenched to treat with disidentification? But what of the possibility that you haven't tried hard and/or consistently enough? (I'm not saying you haven't, but I'm just asking the question).

Yes, that thought occurred to me, that I wasn't trying hard enough or my method of doing so was faulty. But, I did give it a good try. I didn't seem to feel any better thinking of myself as a set of symptoms instead of depression.

I don't know. What could have gone wrong?

Quoting Posty McPostface

I didn't seem to feel any better thinking of myself as a set of symptoms instead of depression.

I'm not sure how you are thinking about it, but I would have thought the depression just is the "set of symptoms" and that you are neither that nor those, nor the compulsive patterns of thought which may be giving rise to them. You are the one suffering, or put another way, you are more than merely the set of symptoms, depression and suffering.

Quoting Janus

I'm not sure how you are thinking about it, but I would have thought the depression just is the "set of symptoms" and that you are neither that nor those, nor the compulsive patterns of thought which may be giving rise to them. You are the one suffering, or put another way, you are more than merely the set of symptoms, depression and suffering.

I was thinking about it in terms of distancing myself away from the diagnosis, and the symptoms as just self-labelling. I was trying to not identify with the diagnosis and my symptoms. I guess you can say I was trying to consciously dissociate myself from the disorder; but, to little avail.

The issue crept up once I started feeling the symptoms again (laying in bed, rushing to get home to lay in bed, lack of interest in getting better). Once the symptoms surfaced, the automatic thought that "I have depression", resurfaced. I didn't make it more than 2-3 days before I returned to the negative talk and realized that it's depression and not anything else.

I can add that, the process of dissociating yourself from a diagnosis, such as depression, might be a topic worth pursuing; but, isn't something that would come to fruition in terms of remission from depression, anxiety, or OCD. I think...

I guess there's a difference between dis-identification in the sense of not identifying with some definition of ourselves; as a depressive, a set of symptoms, a process of suffering or whatever, and dis-identification in the sense of gaining an insight into compulsive negative thought patterns that we may have been too identified with to be able to see what they have been doing to us.

Quoting Janus

I guess there's a difference between dis-identification in the sense of not identifying with some definition of ourselves; as a depressive, a set of symptoms, a process of suffering or whatever, and dis-identification in the sense of gaining an insight into compulsive negative thought patterns that we have been to identified with to be able to see what they have been doing to us.

I agree; but, that distinction is blurry when it comes to problems like depression. It's a mood that pervades your entire being. So, the latter reinforces the former.

Reply to Posty McPostface

Yes, that's probably true. Dealing with depression is certainly not easy!

Quoting Janus

Yes, that's probably true.

In CBT, there's a term called "mental filter". It basically, is stating the reality of what you experience regardless of whether it corresponds to reality or not.

It's an interesting term because it is in a figurative sense the lowest common denominator. All other cognitive distortions are dependent on affecting how your mental filter is processing information. It's my personal opinion, that you can't really have any effect on your baseline "mental filter", well, maybe more than a little. But, anyway, what I'm getting at is that disidentification can have the positive effect of altering your mental filter through changing what you conceptualize thoughts to be.

In my experience, there were brief periods of stillness and tranquillity, very Zen-like, when I was trying to apply disidentification.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I really do wonder how would a Buddhist tell a student or follower, how to disidentify or detach from depression. I doubt they would think it was sound advice to try and do so. It seems to me that to want to disidentify from a feeling, one is incapable or not feeling it.

I was wondering what @Wayfarer might think about this topic. (*lights Bat-signal*)

Quoting Posty McPostface

I want to analyze why disidentification didn't work for my depression.

It seems to me that internal problems of the mind are harder to treat with disidentification than external afflictions. This is due to having the mind be constantly aware of its own internal workings. One can disidentify from being called a nerd, geek, or what label people can invent; but, for depression or anxiety or OCD, it's not possible to dissociate from the condition. It's too endemic to treat with disidentification.

Thoughts?

Do you feel you have given it enough time? Didn’t see how long you said you have been trying it. It might take months or even years of trial and error. That seems to have been my general experience. Still going at it a step at a time. What else is there to do? But I’m sure it feels like you’ve been on the same road for a long time.

It’s hard to give up something, to “not do” something. It’s easier if there’s something to replace it with, something to do. Perhaps don’t think of it as stopping to identify. Identify bigger maybe. By identifying with anything or everything that is beyond one’s self, a hole in is punctured in the walls that insulate us from the rest of creation. We should only do things if we feel safe to do so. By mentally (and even spiritually) opening, we can do it in the safety of our minds. Possibly then we could realize not only the connections with all, but the oneness. That most likely will have a positive effect on one’s life, given the time and effort.

What makes depression worse?

Isolation. Loneliness. Boredom. Anger. Wallowing. Etc.

What makes depression better?

Engagement. Companionship. Interests. Resolution. Exercise (mental, physical). Etc.

If depression can't be banished (no pill, no self help book. no talk therapy scheme, no surgery, no magic...) then one is well advised to do what one can to enjoy life as much as possible. This is where problems arise, of course, because enjoying life as much as possible does require energetic effort to get off the couch, get to the party, get to the movie, get to the library, get to the bar, go for the bike ride--whatever one likes to do.

The depressive ends up sitting in the chair poised to move, but can not quite get out of it. So, that's where the Therapeutic Ejection Chair comes in. When sensors detect when the depressive has experienced a desire to do something but lacks resolve, it ejects the person out the door. (Mechanical door openers are under the control of the chair.) The doors will not let the depressive back in for a pre-determined period of time -- like, however long it takes to go to the movies. There are also Artbots that will clamp on to the depressive and not let go until they have actually entered the museum. The Barbot will go out on the town with the depressive, help him or her find interesting people in the bar, and will do what can be done to help the depressive score (the bots have ways of being persuasive...)

Quoting 0 thru 9

I was wondering what Wayfarer might think about this topic

One way of understanding the basis of Buddhist meditation is that it's a process of 'dis-identification'. All things are shown to be anicca/anatta/dukkha - impermanent, not-self, unsatisfactory. 'This is not me, this is not myself'. But seeing that doesn't necessarily trigger a dramatic epiphany (although it might). The point of mindfulness meditation is to learn to actually see what is happening moment to moment without commenting on it, trying to shut it down or judge it. The instruction is, to 'follow the breath' i.e. when you become aware that you're chasing thoughts, come back to awareness of the breath as an anchor point. But this practice is also hopefully situated in a supportive milieu as part of an integrated understanding and philosophy. If practiced conscientiously, it definitely 'works', in my experience.

Actually I do know a therapist who did a PhD in treatment of depression with mindfulness meditation (although he's now an academic and not in private practice). But there's quite a lot of interest and literature available about it. Jon Kabat-Zinn is a well-known writer in this area, along with Mark Epstein ('Thoughts without a Thinker'). But there are quite a few others as well. It's a recognised method for dealing with such issues but depending on the individual might also require counselling and guidance.

Reply to Posty McPostface
Yeah, what they said! (@Bitter Crank and @Wayfarer Thanks guys.) Double goes for me. :up:

Oh, BC... please mark me down for a Therapeutic Ejection Chair, if they go into production. On further thought, better make it two chairs. :mask: :sweat:

I read something the other week which stuck with me. It was an interview with a woman who fell into the role of counselling people online. The point she made was that a big part of the role is deleting comments from people trying to help. You know - ‘come on, cheer up. Life’s not that bad’. She made the point that to really help she had to be in the space of those people that needed help, and that these well-meaning bystanders actually make it a lot worse for them. Paradoxical as that might seem.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I want to analyze why disidentification didn't work for my depression.

analyze = thought
disidentification = thought
depression = thought

You're trying to cure alcoholism with a bottle of scotch, so to speak.

Quoting 0 thru 9

Could you expand on the idea, if you don’t mind? I think i was following up until the last three lines of the quote, especially the last sentence. (Or maybe I wasn’t following as well as I thought! :wink: )

OK, I'll see what I can do. Consider the existence of an object. It has a temporal extension past and future. From this perspective the present is irrelevant, the object has a period of time when it exists, and so be it. But if you consider changes to the object, they only occur at the present, as time is passing. We might say that changes occurred in the past, and will occur in the future, but they only actually occur at the present.as time is passing. So the present presents us with a certain discontinuity of existence of the object if we allow that change occurs at the present.

That's one way of looking at the present, as the discontinuity of existence. Another way is to look at it as the time in which we (subjects) exist. This separates us from objects which extend into past and future, allowing the concept of immortality as something which doesn't partake in past or future, but is always at the present. This makes the present a continuity of existence.

So we have two distinct ways of thinking of the present, one is as the time when change to physical objects occurs, and the other is as something distinct from past and future. Since we associate the self, with being at the present, these two ways give two distinct approaches to self-identification. One is as a source of change in the physical world, and the other is as something distinct from the physical world. The problem is that there seems to be reality to both perspectives, so it would appear necessary to establish compatibility between them. To establish compatibility requires recognizing, in a sense, that they are both wrong. So we need to dismiss them both in order to come up with a real representation of the self.

Interesting read:

https://donaldrobertson.name/2013/01/18/cognitive-distancing-in-stoicism/

Anyone try microdosing LSD?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Anyone try microdosing LSD?

I'm on medication that nullifies the effects of microdosing. I tried microdosing while on that medication, but, didn't notice too many effects.

Reply to Posty McPostface
I think that the idea with the microdosing of acid is that you are not really supposed to notice effects. If depression is the problem, then there is an issue with "noticeable" effects, and one issue is the likelihood of mania. Whenever there are "noticeable" effects of medication, there is a question of the criteria whereby the effects are judged as negative or positive.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

OK, I'll see what I can do. Consider the existence of an object. It has a temporal extension past and future. From this perspective the present is irrelevant, the object has a period of time when it exists, and so be it. But if you consider changes to the object, they only occur at the present, as time is passing. We might say that changes occurred in the past, and will occur in the future, but they only actually occur at the present.as time is passing. So the present presents us with a certain discontinuity of existence of the object if we allow that change occurs at the present.

That's one way of looking at the present, as the discontinuity of existence. Another way is to look at it as the time in which we (subjects) exist. This separates us from objects which extend into past and future, allowing the concept of immortality as something which doesn't partake in past or future, but is always at the present. This makes the present a continuity of existence.

So we have two distinct ways of thinking of the present, one is as the time when change to physical objects occurs, and the other is as something distinct from past and future. Since we associate the self, with being at the present, these two ways give two distinct approaches to self-identification. One is as a source of change in the physical world, and the other is as something distinct from the physical world. The problem is that there seems to be reality to both perspectives, so it would appear necessary to establish compatibility between them. To establish compatibility requires recognizing, in a sense, that they are both wrong. So we need to dismiss them both in order to come up with a real representation of the self.

:up: Very well put. Thanks!

;;;

Reply to Janus Yes absolutely. I have had a recurring dream since childhood that is absolutely incapable of description or concept.

Reply to Jake hmmmh. Idk about that. That reminds me of Freud's censor, which I don't know that I agree with. Quoting Jake

It's easier to see this process if we use exaggerated examples. You're walking down the hall and someone sets off a firecracker behind you. This could be a mortal threat, so your mind pushes the thinker and thinking aside, no time for that right now.
5d

I have had a dream since before I can remember that absolutely has no concept. It is absolutely impossible to derive any conceptualizable information from it. I have tried.

@Janus or perhaps you have heard of DMT or dimethyltriptamine. It is an endogenous chemical in the human body that functions as a pseudoneurotransmitter , and it is also one of the most potent psychedelic, hallucinogenic substances in the world. It is found in just about every mammal, if not every organism.

Native Amazonians for thousands of years have been brewing it in a drink called Ayahuasca. This drink is spiritual and provides an experience absolutely indescribable and free from concept. How these primitive people knew that if you mix Mimosa Hostilis rootbark with another plant, I forget which, you get a form of DMT metabolizable in the human gut, I have absolutely no idea... It has been said that this chemical, taken in a drug form, causes ego-dissociation, powerful hallucinations, the experience of God, self-transformation, contact with spirits\ancestors, etc. Etc. Ayahuasca or DMT also can treat drug addiction, PTSD, depression and rape victims, as well as cancer patients fearing death, just as LSD and MDMA can. But this information is repressed, of course. The active chemic in 'magic mushrooms' is 4-HO-DMT ( psilocin ).

There is a good book called Food Of The Gods by Terence McKenna about this subject.

There are indeed experiences native to the human of which are absolutely incapable of description and concept. This is what Carl Jung knew. And he formed his whole analytical psychology based on this.

And BTW, I have taken DMT. It is absolutely indescribable and is one of the most interesting and powerful things I have ever experienced in my life.

Reply to Jake "In the beginning was the deed."

Reply to Blue Lux

So, there are no images, colours, tones, sounds, sensations or feelings involved? I don't see how it could be counted an experience.

I accept that there are experiences which cannot be adequately verbalised, but that is a different matter; the experience is never identical with what is said about it.

I have experimented extensively with hallucinogens including LSD, Mescaline, Psilocybin, DMT and Sylvia divinorum, and I have had the most bizarre experiences, but never one about which nothing all could be said. I have also experienced very strange dreams most of my life, so I think I am familiar with the kinds of experience you allude to. I have also read Terence Mckenna.

Quoting Janus

I have experimented extensively with hallucinogens including LSD, Mescaline, Psilocybin, DMT and Sylvia divinorum, and I have had the most bizarre experiences, but never one about which nothing all could be said.

Do you think to elicit self-induced psychotic states of mind are beneficial to disidentification? Psychosis is a form of disidentification from thought altogether. And, if I may ask, what have hallucinogens taught you? Have they been a net positive or negative for you?

Reply to Posty McPostface

I don't count experiences engendered by psychotropics as "psychotic" , and as to the cost/ benefit analysis, I have no way to quantify it.

Quoting Janus

I don't count experiences engendered by psychotropics as "psychotic"

I was speaking from my sole personal experience with psilocybin. It triggered a psychotic state in me. Though the setting wasn't right. I guess it wasn't for me or my makeup.

Reply to Janus Yes, there are colors and sounds and all sorts of sensations in this dream; however, the dream also has aspects that I cannot put into words. Such a compilation would lack the necessary components that would amount to a realistic representation.

It goes like this.

'I' am flying through something. But I'm not really flying. It is like I am a part of all these others just like me and 'we' are flying around each other in this strange dimension. Time is absolutely nonexistent in the form, for instance, required for me to write this. It is more-so a temporal flux, as well as a physical one. I am aware that there are other beings like me and there are colors and shapes all around me. There are all sorts of emotions. Mostly fear. Then it becomes extremely terrifying. And I become on this 'path', away from all the others, I am not sure where they went. Its like the whole world twists into this other dimension and I am on a path gain speed toward another being just like me. And this other being is coming toward me. And I cannot escape. I can feel the other being's fear and we go faster and faster until I can see the other right in front of me and we are both terrified and confused and wondering why?! But there are no words. It is not human. It is something much different I wish I could explain it. And right when we collide I always wake up in sweat and in panic. One time I woke up screaming when I was 17 calling for my sister. I have even woke up and had the feelings, sensations and visions still going on looking at my hands and the new world I am in, and the pillows and the covers always feel so intense but intense to a very uncomfortable and almost painful degree. But trying to put all of this into words I can barely even begin to try and tell you what it is like.

That is awesome by the way, that you have experience with psychedelic compounds. I, like McKenna, believe it is our birthright to explore these natural chemicals which provide a means of exploring the world and consciousness like nothing else. And psychedelic experiences are so profound. These experiences are all I have when I think of perhaps something 'greater' or more than the vague seeming that is understanding and knowing this existence. I have yet to not be astonished by these experiences, especially with psilocin/psilocybin (psilocybin breaks down into psilocin in the body) , LSD and DMT. I have not tried mescaline or salvia, but I would like to.

My last experience with LSD was very bad though. I think I know the factors of why it was so harsh and bad, but it was very revealing. Perhaps it was too revealing. It showed me the horrors of capitalistic machinery, conditioning associated with this, modern economics and infrastructure and nihilism. I felt helplessly confused in this trip. I haven't taken a psychedelic since, and that was a year and a half ago.

I became interested in psychedelics when I realized that it was the closest I could get to the dream I have had since I was a toddler, or maybe before. Sometimes I wonder if this dream was a dream I had in the womb, representations of that experience? Or maybe remnants of experiences prior in some fetal form? I am not sure. But if you take LSD or mushrooms, do it in the dark and close your eyes and that is the closest I can get to the dream. Though... The dream is much much more. The human mind is extraordinary.

@Posty McPostface

Reply to Posty McPostface some would say disidentification or ego dissociation or ego disillusionment even... Is a necessary experience for understanding oneself and ones strange place in this universe. I call it deconditioning. The unfortunate thing about this is it lacks polity. It lacks all the components of a civilization set on materialism, labor, resource management, etc. It stands in stark contrast to modern man...

I like Carl Jung's essay entitled 'Archaic Man.'

I think the primitive way of life was probably the prototype of humanity, and nowadays there are serious problems the result of which is absolutely new, and potentially tremendously catastrophic.

Reply to Posty McPostface Psychedelic experiences... It all depends on so many factors. The rule of thumb is to be in a healthy state of mind before going into one. This is a good environment, positive outlook, etc... But this is not a have-to. I have gone into an experience depressed and then felt emotions that one is incapable of feeling off of the psychedelic. The psychedelic takes you on an adventure. The biggest rule is to LET GO. LET GO OF EVERYTHING. and then let your mind take its course to wherever. Fighting it is what causes 'bad trips.' Personally the most revealing psychedelics are LSD, DMT and mushrooms (excluding amanita muscaria).

Reply to Janus I take back one thing I said. In terms of thinking about something 'greater' than the mundane philosophical... Which is great at times and extremely frustrating at others... Is the experience of love, art, creation, poetry and music... What I call the pneuma, the 'spirit of life' present in music, art, poetry, creativity and love... Something deeper than words could ever go. And the source of so much joy that seems absolutely unfounded in any logical sequence of thought. It is unbounded.

Psychedelics can reach this too.

Quoting Blue Lux

Psychedelic experiences... It all depends on so many factors. The rule of thumb is to be in a healthy state of mind before going into one.

True.

Quoting Blue Lux

This is a good environment, positive outlook, etc...

Yeah, set and setting comes to mind.

Quoting Blue Lux

The psychedelic takes you on an adventure.

I just like staying home, so, yeah.

Quoting Blue Lux

Fighting it is what causes 'bad trips.'

How do you avoid fighting? Could this be why I experienced a psychotic state or is it just my genes in play?

Quoting Blue Lux

Personally the most revealing psychedelics are LSD, DMT and mushrooms (excluding amanita muscaria).

I just ordered some 1P-LSD to microdose with. Hope it works out. :blush:

Reply to Posty McPostface Reply to Blue Lux

As they say, set and setting are extremely important. But it's probably also true that psychedelics are not suitable for some people ( and this is by no means to say I am convinced you are one of those Posty; that is something you must decide according to your own experience). I myself have always been wary of them; whilst also taking them many, many times during two mains phases of experimentation.

And I have experienced bad trips, absolutely hellish trips, in fact; although for me in my first phase (!7-20 years old) of experimentation each trip usually started out like that and then came good (very good!) later. In my second phase (46-48 years old) I found that I always had one foot in heaven and the other in hell. I haven't taken them since (except for the odd MDMA) (now 65 years old). Not sure if I will again...probably will though...I'm not in any rush because it is not only intriguing but scary, too...

Quoting Janus

And I have experienced bad trips, absolutely hellish trips, in fact; although for me in my first phase (!7-20 years old) of experimentation each trip usually started out like that and then came good (very good!) later.

Holy shit, man. Tripping at 7.

Anyway, I used to be schooled by a private tutor that I've been keeping in contact with and he told me I need to try some Peyote or Ayahuasca. I've been stuck with this idea that I'm broken and schizophrenic (which is my official diagnosis). Here's what happened that changed my mind. I found an antipsychotic (Haldol) that doesn't target the 5-HT2A receptor at low enough doses, which is responsible for the psychedelia. I'm hoping I can limit the extent of the drug to induce psychosis while enjoying the experience. I can't understate how badly I want to have a good trip. I've read literature and the overabundance of online reports of amazing experiences and the long-term persistent change in personality; but, just have been somewhat apprehensive to break myself again.

Anyway, I hope this time will be different by modulating the drug as to not be able to cause psychosis, as these drugs typically tend to do that in an uncontrolled manner.

Quoting Posty McPostface

Holy shit, man. Tripping at 7.

Ha, that's 17 Posty.

Quoting Janus

Ha, that's 17 Posty.

Phew, you had me scared there.

In many instances 'depression' can be willful in that its persistence is willed or is in accordance with the will and the self. The depressive, complaining about his symptoms and not engaging with them is akin to the fat person who insists that their fat is genetic or is someone else's fault (sometimes it is, mostly it isn't).

At the outset of this exploration into your depression, and depression in general you equivocated upon a question that strikes at the heart of human self identity.

If you wish to find the source of your depression. I suggest you begin at the heart of the matter. A logical or philosophical approach to the symptoms can then, and only then, be formulated.

M

Quoting Marcus de Brun

At the outset of this exploration into your depression, and depression in general you equivocated upon a question that strikes at the heart of human self identity.

What if I said, that consistency in formulating one's identity (having a narrative) is of supreme importance to an individual. What do you then say to someone that is depressed? Snap out of it?

How does a patient gain insight into their own conundrum of labelling themselves as depressed, or on the other hand experiencing the symptoms of depression without having them in a self-fulfilling prophecy commit a confirmation bias about their own health?

Quoting Posty McPostface

What if I said, that consistency in formulating one's identity (having a narrative) is of supreme importance to an individual. What do you then say to someone that is depressed? Snap out of it?

Identity must precede the narrative; if the narrative is to have any meaning outside the 'endless loop' scenario.

So the short answer is No, don't 'snap out of it'.

Snap into it.

M

Quoting Marcus de Brun

Identity must precede the narrative; if the narrative is to have any meaning outside the 'endless loop' scenario.

Yes, but I am depressed.

Quoting Marcus de Brun

Snap into it.

How??

Quoting Posty McPostface

How??

By dealing with the initial central equivocation first, and by then constructing an honest self narrative on that basis.

M

Quoting Marcus de Brun

By dealing with the initial central equivocation first, and by then constructing an honest self narrative on that basis.

What equivocation is that?

Sorry that you have to spell it out, here...

Reply to Posty McPostface

Sorry but its not going to come from me.

I am neither your jailer nor your judge. :)

You have posted it in a conversation with me on this topic. You can find it there if you have no luck with introspection.

M

Quoting Marcus de Brun

Sorry but its not going to come from me.

I am neither your jailer nor your judge. :)

You have posted it in a conversation with me on this topic. You can find it there if you have no luck with introspection.

M

:ok:

:ok:

I hope that is an indication that the offending digit is soon to be removed from the place of little sunshine.

M

Quoting Marcus de Brun

I hope that is an indication that the offending digit is soon to be removed from the place of little sunshine.

Here's me hoping. Maybe the black dog will find some bone to chew on.

But, in all seriousness, I don't feel depressed; but, I know I am. What a strange predicament.

Reply to Posty McPostface

your back on the loop again.

debrun out :yawn:

Interesting article on Aeon about loneliness.

Makes me think about the difference between just being alone, and being lonely. Sometimes I’ve felt very lonely in a middle of a party, and sometimes felt very connected while in complete solitude. One could probably make an XY graph of the feeling of loneliness vs simply being alone.

“To study the Buddha Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of enlightenment remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.” ? Dogen

I wonder if this reflects what was the general point of the thread... But how to forget the self, and still be functional. Maybe one would possibly be even more functional in some ways.

Just an update on the whole disidentification thing.

I stopped trying to disidentify with depression due to the nature of disidentification being that one is cognizant of X in order to disidentify with it. So, basically, I became obsessed with my depression and was trying to disidentify with it. Kind of got stuck in a loop.

Quoting Posty McPostface

I stopped trying to disidentify with depression...

Wait a sec... maybe you have something there!

Quoting 0 thru 9

Wait a sec... maybe you have something there!

Haha, I can see your point. But, I think I just moved on from thinking incessantly about depression and trying to disidentify with it. Instead, something else became the interest of my mind. Maybe this is the point of disidentification, and I got it all wrong?

I still feel depressed about some things; but, I don't ruminate over it as much though. So, win-win?

Reply to Posty McPostface
:up: Definitely. Whatever seems to be working, and going in a “good direction” (however you’d define such). Whatever gets you through the night, and whatever makes you want to get out of bed in the morning...

Reply to 0 thru 9

Or as I like to say, whatever floats your boat.

Reply to Posty McPostface
Whatever gets your monkey funky? :monkey:

Reply to 0 thru 9

It is what it is.

Disidentify that!

Quoting Posty McPostface

It is what it is.

... until it isn’t anymore. Change is the only constant. Well... besides death and taxes. :sweat:

Reply to 0 thru 9

Yes. Disidentification is a mystery of appreciating the non temporal if I'm reading correctly.

Just an update on this.

I find disidentification an extremely powerful tool in addressing issues that arise related to self-identity. By this, I mean to assert that when you think about something related to your identity, then dissociating from that idea is so much easier.

Just to give an example. I live a quiet and humble life and try not to bother anyone. My family thinks I'm not really a 'man', that is assertive or domineering. I don't pay much attention to this issue because I don't identify with the qualities or traits ('prejudices' seems like the appropriate term to use here) that being a man entail. It simply doesn't bother me because I don't identify with the problem. In some ways, I feel as if I'm almost cheating here because the trick to not identify with the source of cognitive dissonance or such is non-existent.

I will be utilizing and refining this handy trick as I go along.

All in all, if you don't identify with a stressor, then it doesn't bother you, and I can attest to that instead of falling into the mental trap of trying to identify with something else or forcing yourself into a certain prejudice of how you ought to be or such.

Reply to Posty McPostface
Dang, that’s it! To me, that seems like a clear description of the practical benefits of being aware of how we identify ourselves. And how other people sometimes can overly influence us because they know what buttons to push. That’s in addition to the way we confuse and stress ourselves. It reminds me of the old Seinfeld episode where George’s hands receive a complement for being attractive. He becomes a hand model, and his whole identity is changed. Hilarity ensues.

Reading the many recent threads about a/theism makes me wonder if there is a correlation between our self identities and our “god” conceptions. It gets very personal quickly. Which is not a problem until the personal feelings, wishes, and needs are (mostly) unconsciously projected upon the rest of life and the world.

I don’t think the goal is to become a non-feeling robot, of course. Pain and sadness are still possible. Reducing self-sabotage can help accept feelings because they are in the tolerable level, instead of being unbearable.