I personally, in my depression, have found myself wallowing in it, willing it further, in the past. It's not that I 'liked' it as much as I found meaning in it, aside from anything and everything else that seemed meaningless.

That depends. Some people do not want to get rid of their depression for good reason. Some people, in this case, can only live depressed. They cannot live without their negative emotions, because there are simply too many of them. They hold on to them.
Or, perhaps, after the integration of so many negative emotions into the personality, one finds themselves still at a loss. One simply has too negative of a personality.
But this is not the end.
Creativity is the key. Creating new experiences. Creating new understandings for oneself. Living differently.
The true definition of insanity and furthermore irrationality is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
But, what do you do if someone does not want a different life? What if someone does not want to change?
In that case...
Psychoanalysis could uncover a subjugated will that is, prior to anything else, not able to find meaning in changing.

Accepting an emotion is not suppressing it actively.
— Blue Lux

So, therefore you are talking about the unconscious process' of defence mechanisms or such? — Posty McPostface

Not necessarily. What I am referring to is the fact that, subsequently, down the line after accepting an emotion, the emotion's power over the will becomes suppressed. The accepting is not the will to a suppression but a will to allowing different emotions to come and influence and be accepted and integrated as well... And the more and more this happens... The more integrated emotions constitute the personality, and therefore the less power and influence each singular emotion could have. For the integration of an emotion does not completely strip the emotion of its power, it simply allows other emotions to materialize and show their significance, which is an aim of talk therapy or psychoanalysis.

Unsuppressed or suppressed, not sure I'm understanding you here.
13m — Posty McPostface

Sometimes people think that suppressing an emotion is not bringing awareness toward it, or remaining unconscious of it, allowing it to metastasize. This is the case prior to the acceptance of an emotion, which suppresses it in terms of its determining power and influence OVER the will.

Depression itself is a condition... But I think, contrarily, it is very useful. It shows a person their depth. It also shows a person their power if they overcome. "That which does not kill you makes you stronger." Nietzsche @Posty McPostface

The question is not to be a Stoic, non-emotional person... But to have power over one's emotions and have the Ubermensch as the ideal! To OVERcome.

Realizing and accepting a negative emotion will inevitably deprive that emotion of its power--its power to determine.

Depression is willed because one does not want to free that emotion. One wants it to determine them because of its power and its individual meaning. One feels that this emotion is greater than the self and if one 'loses' it, one will lose themselves in the process. In a sense it is true, for a personality consists of emotions... But a personality is the integration of emotions. If one does not integrate then one will disintegrate as such. Is it a coincidence that depression is often characterized as a falling apart?

The realization of a negative emotion is inconsequential. What is important is not letting it remain in its determining configuration, as it will determine the future and it will chain you to it, because it is outside of you, not integrated, not accepted. Accepting an emotion is not suppressing it actively. But that is what would happen eventually, for the unsuppressed emotion is that which persists and characterizes the Will's inability to escape it.

Nietzsche was interested in a radical acceptance of the human in terms of Ubermensch, the ideal human... The overhuman. Typically people look at sad experiences or depression in terms of something bad, something that needs to be expunged. Nietzsche would have disagreed. "To live is to suffer; to survive is to find meaning in the suffering." Friedrich Nietzsche

The meaning of life is reaching something, but in reaching that something the meaning will have been in the reaching.

Sadness would not exist if it were not juxtaposed with happiness. And thus it is that we base ourselves in how far we have reach down into the abyss but, consequently, we will know how deep we ourselves are.
"When you look into the abyss the abyss looks into you." Nietzsche

If depression is at base pessimistic then an understanding of pessimism in terms of what a depression characterizes is an adequate reference point to understand depression as a whole.
Pessimism im terms of depression seems to be a pessimism of overcoming or changing; that is, living a life that is not chained to that pessimistic depression.
Depression is usually constitutive of an inability to overcome certain aspects about one's existence that have associated with them negative emotions or pain.
The pessimistic depression consists of an inability of not finding a way out but finding a way around, onto a different path atop different premises. These different premises would be what would be constitutive of happiness or positive emotions. Often a depression is because of an overwhelming number or magnititude of negative emotions and experiences, and the future seems to be determined by these experiences.
In order to find a different path and a different future, one must inevitably act and think and plan based on something else, which is extremely hard. Depression is often because one has a reason to be depressed: they will the depression. They will the depression because they do not want to let go and accept the indefinability of these negative emotions and experiences. People do not want to let go of how they feel because that would be departing from oneself... That is where the radical acceptance comes in.
It seems to me that the inability or unwanting to let go and accept completely the unchangeability of the past is because one is uncomfortable with that past. It is easy to accept having been happy, because one allows these happy experiences to lose their determining quality and add to their totality of personality. A negative experience, on the other hand... One does not often want negative experiences to be integrated into the personality. But this must happen. One must accept the darkness in order to not have a light that only exists in relation to such a darkness.
"A tree can only reach the heavens if its roots reach down to Hell." C G Jung

'Our everyday lives' is fundamentally an inauthentic expression.

I have not expressed any meaning actually. I have been vague and have only hinted at what you can never understand.

...

It seems actually to be an insult to myself to reply to you further...

But anyway...

Poetry does not conform to the usual character of language and what is often expressed with poetry is not within the language itself analytically. Walt Whitman for example... Or Robert Frost.

The will has always been an objectivity... But what is an objectivity but another? The Other. What could possibly firmly base an objectivity other than another? But is this too not an illusion? An objectivity? The theoretical amalgamation the concrescence of all minds, separate but equal? The theoretical amalgamation the concrescence of all minds, separate but equal?
— Blue Lux
I take back my prior assessment that your linguistic expression is meaningful. — Hanover

Let me rephrase.

The will has always been one to an objectivity; the will of consciousness-with-others. In terms of being alone, how could one not be alone if communication is the establishing of an objectivity? Objectivity is transpersonal: it is the internal negation of what would be a subjectivity, due to the existence of a separate radical alterity of itself, namely another subjectivity... And to reconcile this is the creation of a transpersonal reference point... Objectivity. Objectivity is thus fundamentally without regard for the authenticity of a subjectivity, and does not give any regard for a subjectivity unless it regards all subjectivities, which are incapable, at base, of being united in an exchange of meaning; that is, what it is to experience something and all that it is that constitutes a personal existence.
My contention is that objectivity is an illusion--with regard to an exchange of meaning. All that is grasped in an objectivity... For instance, in what is happening right now when you are reading these words, is a glimpse into a possibility of what I could mean, which will inevitably be up to you to interpret.
Thus.
I am alone.

Which is extraordinarily vague! Inauthentic everydayness.

There is no creation of existence. Existence preceeds essence.

If we can be aware of realities essentially independent of matter, then awareness need not be contingent on matter. — Dfpolis

Matter is an abstraction. The material is an abstraction. Ergo realities independent of matter is an abstraction.

This need not be so. I try to communicate by getting others to stand beside me and see what I see. If I succeed, they see what I see, but from their own perspective, and as relevant to their own experience. So they may actually see more than i see -- increasing, rather than diminishing, meaning — Dfpolis

Communicating has nothing to do with getting others to see what you see, for that assimilation of theirs is going to label what you see as an abstraction, which will only reconfigure their own experience. No meaning is exchanged. And it can not be proven that there is actually an increasing meaning... Such an increasing would have to be objective... Transpersonal and devoid of meaningful meaning.

Again, I don't know what this could mean. Yes, sometimes, even often, we fail to communicate but when you say "these meaningless structures of 'knowledge' or reference ... constitutes the herd constitution of consciousness," I'm at a loss. There is no awareness, no consciousness, without some object of awareness. If we communicate nothing, there is nothing to be aware of. — Dfpolis

We communicate an objective abstraction of meaning. It isn't that nothing is communicated. Actually... It is precisely that nothing is communicated. Nothing, in this sense, has a being.

I've read Maslow's paper. He does not mention Nietzsche. I've never read Nietzsche, but I had no problem understanding Maslow. So, it hardly seems necessary to know Nietzsche to understand Maslow — Dfpolis

Nietzsche -> Freud -> Adler -> Maslow

It seems to me that to be authentic is to act in conformity with your self-understanding -- not twisting yourself to conform to the expectations of others. If so, then doesn't "having to be intelligible to others" cut across the core of authenticity? — Dfpolis

Consciousness is inevitably consciousness of others, and so it is not a conscious twisting of conformity... The de facto configuration of being intelligible by others is the source of in authenticity, namely of the they.

I have no idea why you would say this. Consciousness is not a thing, not an entity, but a power that intelligent beings have. It is also ultimately personal -- it is what makes me the knowing subject in subject-object relations. If it were transpersonal, I would be directly aware of what others experienced. I am not. — Dfpolis

What is said was. Consciousness is a transpersonal entity-in-terms-of-the-they. Consciousness is very much so an entity in terms of the they... It is something supposedly to have... And you are right... Consciousness is not a thing. It is this understanding that allows for the separation between an authentic consciousness and an inauthentic consciousness. The reconciliation is in empathy perhaps. Maybe... MDMA.
Consciousness attaining the label as transpersonal does not mean that you would be directly aware of others experiences. The transpersonal label is what establishes the point of reference known as objectivity, which is metaphorically the source of all inauthenticity.

I mean if there were a single consciousness, there would be a single mind. We would all know and see things the same way, and so value the same things. — Dfpolis

The single consciousness is the consciousness of objectivity, which does not define consciousness as a whole but is consciousness in a very real degree.

It is impossible to communicate any real amount of meaning anyway... So why is it important that there are 'clear, basic definitions of words'? There simply are none.

Because it seems to me that an objectivity can only be based on Another, "radical alterity" of ourselves, another person, which is a subjectivity... But it is not the single other person that could base an objectivity, is it? If there were only you and I left on Earth, perhaps this would be true; perhaps, ideally it would only take a person and another to establish an objectivity--but not merely! For an objectivity would imply the internal negation of one's own subjectivity in order to establish a new sort of truth, that which is transpersonal, beyond what is individual for everyone. And so objectivity is transpersonal. Subjectivity is personal. The opposite of a subjectivity would be something nonpersonal or impersonal. Due to the fact that an objectivity is established upon personal ground, and the either truthful or untruthful assertion that another can suffice to be a 'radical alterity' of yourself, within the same category of being in terms of everything that it is... It cannot be the opposite of subjectivity... It is rather the result of a subjectivity denying itself absolute authority on the ground of its being-personal in order to establish being-transpersonal, for whatever reason.

It seems to me that the more I have tried to explain myself, the more distance becomes between myself and where I come to be. And it seems language is incapable of expressing anything relating to an actual meaningful experience. The only exception to this is in poetry... But can poetry be adequately defined as language?
When I look out into the world I am surrounded by meanings that have become attached to certain things, and often these meanings are painful or reminding of something painful, due to simple association. And I am to the point where I don't know whether or not to give up on philosophy, which has been my greatest passion.
Philosophy, or perhaps language in general, is a transcription of experience; a game of representation and abstraction for the purpose of an exchange, for perhaps just the smallest possibility that the inner world 'of ours' (whatever is that owns I have no idea, and I cannot prove it) can change to be in accordance with another's world, and that our own 'subjectivity' could be penetrated by something just as or more meaningful than itself.
The will has always been to an objectivity... But what is an objectivity but another? The Other. What could possibly firmly base an objectivity other than another? But is this too not an illusion? An objectivity? The theoretical amalgamation the concrescence of all minds, separate but equal?
Maybe in music this happens? I have felt it maybe. But how can I be sure? Am I delusional with all of these thoughts?

@Benkei

We are reduced to cogs in a contraption that only works for itself and not for people. — Benkei

This is communication itself. This is consciousness. Contrarily... It does work for people... But not for 'a' person, the single profundity.

Then what are people usually talking about?

Based upon what is the necessitation that objectivity is the opposite of subjectivity ?

I will grant to you that language can put in place a new feeling, but only with regard to a new configuration. I have never personally thought of something differently and then not felt that which was previously felt in accordance with that something.

But that is not conducive to an interdependence now is it?

how?

New experiences bring about new emotions. That's what I mean

You cannot change your emotions. You can only add emotions.

But then again is anything really existentially dependent on anything else? One could surely object to causality or aetiology.

The human will is not in chains by this 'influence.' Volition is rather the concrescence of what, after language has intervened and objectified it, constitutes a consciousness of the world. It is not determined to be influenced to be a particular way that is not choosing and experiencing carte blanche.

I absolutely disagree!

Language strives to capture emotion or reconfigure it into a communicably apprehendable way, not to establish it. It cannot establish it. It is pre established!

If the human will is not free from influence then it is not completely free. I choose radical freedom.

So I am happy because of words? I am sad because of words? I experience joy because of words? I experience anxiety because of words? These are nonexistent without language?

The emotions associated with love, for instance, when someone loved dies, is from fear and or contentment? I disagree. I think emotion is absolutely impoverished in its concept.

The strongest emotions I have had are those best represented by poetry, which has no particular logical construction..
But the strongest emotions I have had completely elude any language.

I read it wrong.

Language itself does not do it.

Most emotion is utterly empty if it weren't for all the language that preceded it — creativesoul

Surely you mean 'empty' as in conceptually empty...

As you already know, certain words or phrases can bring about entirely 'new' emotional states of mind — creativesoul

Are you implying that words themselves create emotions?

Language affects/effects thought and belief. — creativesoul

I agree that it affects thought, but that thought and belief are determined by language itself is a very unfree idea.

When something is existentially dependent upon something else, the latter always exists prior to the former — creativesoul

What do you mean?

Something that is existentially dependent on another thing exists prior to that which it is existentially dependent on? How is that the case?

Very Interesting.

Have you heard of DMT? Especially endogenous DMT?

Psilocin in magic mushrooms is 4-HO-DMT

Seems legit.

But does belief not require learning?

Correctly attributing meaning requires drawing the same correlation(s) that has/have already been drawn between things by the other speakers of that language — creativesoul

Hmmmm.

But what about neologisms? If I create a word, I am attributing meaning correctly but not with reference to any correlation previously drawn before by both myself and others. But... Then again... In order to understand that neologism... I would have to correctly attribute the meaning of my understanding to correlations already drawn between things.

But what of a new philosophy? Or of a new understanding? Or of a new meaning? Say... A new meaning of a friendship or a relationship, a meaning that is with reference to nothing anyone else has ever understood before, something incomparably personal and unique.

Ahh... And back to my problem of language. Meaning is never authentically communicated in language is it?
All that is in language is abstraction. A structure of glimpses and metaphor.

Hey hey. Don't resort to that! And the same is for him!

Have a rational discussion! Get to the bottom of the differences!

"The meeting of two personalities is like a chemical reaction: if there is any reaction, both are changed." Carl Jung said something along the lines of this...

Clearly you two have had no real connection in discourse...

Albeit you have understood somehow that Nietzsche was influenced by Schop... You don't need to completely understand the precursors to understand each individually. You will find in Nietzsche that the philosopher is radically himself, if he is a true philosopher

Just go straight into Nietzsche. If you find something you don't understand... Google it. dictionary it.

Evolution is not the question, in my view.

The question is the causa prima, the first cause.

The main idea of God is necessitated from the questions "Why does anything exist?" and "How does anything exist?"
It does not seem that it has to exist... And so how and why?

People then say that there must have been a God to create it... That existence must have been created.
But if existence had to be created, what was it created from or by? Wouldn't something else have to exist? And so the conclusion is that existence could not have been created... Unless there is a God that is its own cause... Which doesn't make any sense at all.
If existence has to be created, what would have created the existence of a God?

It doesn't seem to me that existence has to be created at all.

In any case, it does seem that it has to be. This is the case by virtue of 'it.' It must be. It can be anything and therefore it represents everything, essentially, all of being. It cannot be isolated. It has a being. Everything has a being. It has to be and therefore all of being has to be, and therefore existence has to be.

Or maybe I am wrong? Or maybe this is non-sequitur? Maybe I am stupid?

If you struggle with depression... A great book is 'Modern Man In Search Of A Soul" by Carl Jung. I myself have major depression and PTSD and have struggled with it since I was 12, and am 20 now.

But the rational guidance is based on the understanding of how thought can elucidate upon emotions.

Accept what? — Posty McPostface

In terms of depression... In order to change away from that depression, one must first completely accept the conditions of that depression... For depression subsists often in one's inability to accept what has happened to them or how they feel and the fact that they cannot and will not ever be able to change these things. Only after a person accepts can one become to be something different, perhaps, in contrast to what is accepted.