And that rumination, preocupation and obsession are treated as part of psychotherapy for anxious disorders doesn't dissuade you that they often have pathological forms?

As I said, as symptoms they are pathological forms. And. like my examples of fever, and swelling, it is sometimes beneficial to lessen the symptoms.

I am not arguing that your way of dealing with your anxiety is any worse than my way of dealing with my anxiety. I am arguing against your claims that my way of dealing with my anxiety is worse than your way to deal with my anxiety. And, your claim that I ought to conform to your way as a better way to deal with my anxiety, as if conforming to your way would raise my quality of life.

I don't really see the relevance of all this. — Metaphysician Undercover

The relevance is that you should not say "I only talk about normal anxiety". You need to talk and understand both to understand each one individually - it is only by understanding the extremes that you understand the normal kind.

So you give me a long lecture above, about how any illness is nothing more than a doctor's opinion, and this doesn't mean that there is any real illness there. Then you go and contradict all that here. I really can't understand what you're trying to say. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, fundamentally every particular case of mental health issue that does NOT involve hallucinations or memory issues (Alzheimer's) is pretty much the opinion of the mental health community of doctors.

In my case, the anxiety was pathological because it lowered my quality of life and disrupted my day-to-day activities. I would, for example, have to return home to check if I closed the door multiple times, and you can imagine that generated a lot of tension, anxiety, and wasted time. I wouldn't necessarily call it an illness - it was just a symptom that I wanted to get rid of since it disturbed me. I don't think the illness categorisation is useful.

I disagree, and see no self-evidence. As we agreed, the monkey-mind allows one to increase one's activity. How is that in anyway restrictive? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because being always active is restrictive - it means that you don't have control over when you rest and relax. Here are the benefits of conquering your monkey mind through meditation:

You're no different from Agustino, insisting that these normal thought patterns (rumination preoccupation, and obsession), forms of thinking which are practised by many highly functional human beings, is somehow inferior, unhealthy, leading to a lower quality of life, and therefore ought to be controlled. — Metaphysician Undercover

What highly functional human beings practice rumination, preoccupation and obsession? I see none of them - these traits usually lead to dysfunctionality. Seneca, Alexander the Great, Marcus Aurelius, George Soros, etc. are all highly functioning (or were) and that was largely because they could focus their minds and not be controlled by their monkey mind.

And, your claim that I ought to conform to your way as a better way to deal with my anxiety, as if conforming to your way would raise my quality of life. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I think your way is inherently dysfunctional, and while it may work within a limited set of circumstances, if you go out of that set, you will see it fail.

And this is actually very well-studied scientifically. Resilience building and being successful in very stressful environments does require a certain personality type that mixes elements of Stoicism with mindfulness and meditation. That's why these are all practised in the army, for SEALs, and other special forces - as well as by high powered individuals.

The point though is that in such dire situations, everyone would be anxious and afraid. Even the Buddha would experience anxiety in his mind - he may not react to it fully, and internally may maintain some sort of equilibrium, but the mind will keep on doing its thing, which is being anxious in that situation. So anxiety (and the negative emotions) cannot be eliminated, but one can gain cognitive distance from them. — Agustino

You can speak directly to me, I am right here. I would also appreciate if you actually read what I have wrote previously rather than continuously force me to repeat myself. As I mentioned earlier, stressors caused by an accident or an incident is not the subjective anxiety that we are discussing; the responses by the brain to those stressors as one would experience from PTSD is clear, the hormonal imbalances that cause a lack of sleep and disable or dysfunction the correct cognitive processes of the limbic system. We get that. My place got flooded recently, it was stressful, I had to move into a new place, but equating stress with anxiety is no different to equating nerves to anxiety. Those temporary stressors can be overcome, which is why it is temporary.

We are talking about the subjective anxiety that is not temporary caused by an inability to articulate our identification to the external world. It is actually you that is engaging in self-deception so I am going to ask you one last time before I stop responding to you, read what I am attempting to convey and respond accordingly.

The relevance is that you should not say "I only talk about normal anxiety". You need to talk and understand both to understand each one individually - it is only by understanding the extremes that you understand the normal kind. — Agustino

In response to you saying that I said that, I can only say, you're very strange and you're a liar.

Because being always active is restrictive - it means that you don't have control over when you rest and relax. — Agustino

I didn't say, nor imply that I was talking about "being always active". Portraying this as "always active" is just a lie. Being "always active" would mean not getting any rest or relaxation. Since this is not the case, then by what logic do you conclude that being active produces "no control over when you rest and relax". I don't mean to offend you Agustino, but I feel a duty to tell you that there appears to be no bounds to the ridiculousness of your very strange logic.

Here are the benefits of conquering your monkey mind through meditation: — Agustino

I see what you might call benefits of meditation, but I don't see any comparisons to the benefits of the monkey mind, so I think that your little advertisement is rather pointless. If we went to compare the benefits of the monkey mind, we'd come up with a completely different list of benefits. By what principle would we compare one set of good qualities against another set of good qualities, to say which is better, unless one set beat out the other hands down. But it all depends on the particulars of the person.

What highly functional human beings practice rumination, preoccupation and obsession? I see none of them — Agustino

That's not surprising, because you don't seem to be a highly functional human being. I, for one, practise all of these, preoccupation being very similar to obsession, which means highly focused. And rumination means to be thoughtful. So by experiencing these simple mental practises, I have eliminated the first four of your supposed benefits of meditation as being no different than the benefits provided by the monkey mind. The only thing left is the final one "less stress and anxiety". I remove stress by converting it to anxiety. Now the only benefit you show from meditation is the removal of anxiety. Why would I want to remove anxiety when it's a good which provides me with all these benefits that you have listed, plus a whole lot more, such as all the things which I accomplish with my increased activity, and the joy I get from this. I think your meditation is beaten, hands down.

And this is actually very well-studied scientifically. — Agustino

Yes Doctor. You know what I think of you now don't you? Your a very strange liar.

If an anxious person experiences their anxious coping mechanisms and general anxious behaviours as something bad to be worked on, it's egodystonic and approached differently. This is to say whether anxiety is part of the 'real' or 'ideal' self depends on the person!. — fdrake

It is about ascertaining the seed of the anxiety and not the strategies to cope such as mindfulness or meditation or even medication; if we return back to when you mentioned that there are a number of factors that form our identity and perceptions of the external world including our developmental and social environment, a person could form something like Body Dysmorphic Disorder or Depersonalisation and become obsessed with intrusive and negative thoughts to a point that they are incapable of functioning correctly and even in the process isolate or withdraw themselves that ignites ongoing anxiety. It is about ascertaining causes and not about strategies to deal with it - which is merely a temporary solution - such as telling yourself to be strong or ignore it.

By focusing on the authenticity, the actuality of why it exists in the first place, one would need to acknowledge and articulate that temporal influence because meaning is formed by our interpretation of our experiences and if our interpretations of our perceptions is a result of learned behaviour given to us and if we have not yet learned how to articulate our autonomous understanding of these experience, then coping mechanisms are usually enforced to manage the physical and emotional responses. So, a person could have BDD because of verbal or psychological abuse, they could have been shamed or other social and environmental factors, maltreatment or childhood neglect, and all this while taking into account biological and genetic personality traits (which is why some people can be more affected than others).

It may perhaps be coping mechanism, but if they were aware of why they were miserable, they would consciously recognise and reform their environment that would ultimately refine their behaviour and responses.

so I am going to ask you one last time before I stop responding to you, read what I am attempting to convey and respond accordingly. — TimeLine

Okay, then the conversation can end, I don't have conversations with people who threaten me :D

As I just suggested to fdrake, death, finitude, uniqueness, and individuality, are all properties of the everydayness of the particular. And this is the inauthentic. When we recognize the abstracted principles by which we act, as the authentic, this encourages us to conform. Conformation is a requirement to understand the vast realm of abstracted principles, and since this is recognized as authentic the will to conform flourishes. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was having lunch with my sister yesterday (as part of my process of forgiving the past) and we were discussing this very topic (I had read what you wrote and wanted to give it some more thought) and our personalities are very different, despite being close in age and witnessing similar experiences. She has anxiety and it stems from a continuity of these intrusive thoughts - particularly of dissatisfaction - where she consistently believes that she is not good enough. For her, doing well in her studies is an example of being satisfactory - this inauthentic influence portrayed by our social environment - and so prior to submitting an essay and the weeks following, she would experience anxiety and when she would receive her results for several days she will continue to feel that C or a B was not good enough. She was never satisfied. She identified what was 'good' and 'bad' according to socially constructed expectations and the cognitive and behavioural processes that followed identified 'reality' for her to be nothing else other than what was given to her.

While her voice is essentially trapped in this social network, her anxiety is evidence of this inner voice calling out to her that she still does not know or understand how to use. We both had bad parents, but her response was to obey and that is how we differ. No amount of coercion works on me because I only obey when I respect and admire the person asking - which is why I was compelled to philosophy - but while I never had those intrusive thoughts on an everyday basis, the reason was because I was vastly more deluded then she was. I processed my identification with the external world in a more fatalistic manner, whereby if I am not good enough then I would give up completely; the belief that I was unworthy was so entrenched that I literally believed it. I did not experience that anxiety as I identified with the world around me by normalising my alienation perceptually. It was only when I got harassed and then had the car accident that the anxiety surfaced because my identification started changing; it became the impetus to recognise this 'voice' within me that something is wrong.

I am going to think about this a bit further today as I have purchased a book I want to read on this subject and because I trust in you and my sister that your experiences of this - including those who experience disassociation and depersonalisation - is real, I want to be able to realise the difference before continuing.

Yeah, if that is a threat then you have more problems then you think.

It is about ascertaining the seed of the anxiety and not the strategies to cope such as mindfulness or meditation or even medication; if we return back to when you mentioned that there are a number of factors that form our identity and perceptions of the external world including our developmental and social environment, a person could form something like Body Dysmorphic Disorder or Depersonalisation and become obsessed with intrusive and negative thoughts to a point that they are incapable of functioning correctly and even in the process isolate or withdraw themselves that ignites ongoing anxiety. It is about ascertaining causes and not about strategies to deal with it - which is merely a temporary solution - such as telling yourself to be strong or ignore it.

Ascertaining 'the causes' is a bit misleading, as what started the anxiety and what keeps it going ontically aren't necessarily what structures anxiety and its necessary features ontologically. It may be that an anxious person can address their issues by eschewing the inappropriate application of some norms to their lives, or it may be that they can lessen the harsh distinction between their real and ideal selves based on inauthentic adherence to those norms.

There are people who develop schizophrenia and anxiety through persecution fantasies largely from hereditary predisposition, it would be strange to equate self administered or clinical psychotherapy with biogenetic intervention, no? The 'root causes' are not necessarily the things that keep the disorder going - and all the things that keep the disorder going are not necessarily all the things that keep their sufferer from functionality. There's even a relevant distinction between root causes, mechanisms of sustenance, and manifest symptoms. EG: it's possible to work long term at an office without the symptoms of PTSD based on a boating accident impeding day to day function or drastically reducing overall life satisfaction, despite clinically still suffering from the disorder.

By focusing on the authenticity, the actuality of why it exists in the first place, one would need to acknowledge and articulate that temporal influence because meaning is formed by our interpretation of our experiences and if our interpretations of our perceptions is a result of learned behaviour given to us and if we have not yet learned how to articulate our autonomous understanding of these experience,

On the contrary, the autonomous articulations of symptom causes for anxious subjects can be anything from 'they really are persecuting me' to 'if I don't worry all the time something bad will happen', or 'my house will burn down if I don't go home and check the gas'. Being earnest about pathological behaviour and mental states is probably required to enter into a therapeutic relationship with yourself or another, but its negation - delusion or lack of insight depending on the specifics - are epistemic properties of a sufferer and their capacity for articulating their symptoms, not ontological ones. IE, the ontology of Dasein is silent on them.

Further, the kind of therapy that aides a sufferer in producing any narrative around their symptoms and the disorder's causes is a specific therapeutic style and loses some its relevance when the sufferer either has the complete incapacity to develop such narratives or already has great skill in doing so. Self articulation in the minimal sense of ascertaining your needs and desires and how they are impeded by the disease - and how these impositions are reinforced through your thoughts and behaviour is definitely helpful, and is usually a part of treatment plans for such disorders. But they are a starting point; addressing the lack of a self affirming narrative is not necessarily removing a root cause.

This is also ignoring the relevance of pathologies being ego-syntonic or ego-dystonic, ego-syontic pathologies can be part of a person's ideal self - truly, authentically - and no amount of discussion without concomitant behavioural intervention is likely to produce recovery.

tl;dr: there're a few reasons why clinicians don't throw Being and Time and Basic Problems at patients. Not that it always stops them.

tl;dr2: exercise: derive why a person continues to suffer from a persistent delusion they are a robot using only existential hermeneutics of the general experiential character of humans. No one will freakin' be able to do this.

Examples in my posts are not hypothetical btw, I've had a lot of experience with mentally ill people.

Yeah, if that is a threat then you have more problems then you think. — TimeLine

Yeah, you threatened to stop talking to me, so I stopped first just to annoy you ;) ;) ;) After all, it would be a shame if TimeLine can stop talking to Agustino, but Agustino can't stop talking to TimeLine >:O

There are people who develop schizophrenia and anxiety through persecution fantasies largely from hereditary predisposition, it would be strange to equate self administered or clinical psychotherapy with biogenetic intervention, no? The 'root causes' are not necessarily the things that keep the disorder going - and all the things that keep the disorder going are not necessarily all the things that keep their sufferer from functionality. There's even a relevant distinction between root causes, mechanisms of sustenance, and manifest symptoms. EG: it's possible to work long term at an office without the symptoms of PTSD based on a boating accident impeding day to day function or drastically reducing overall life satisfaction, despite clinically still suffering from the disorder. — fdrake

I fail to see what you're trying to express here in regards to 'developing schizophrenia'. I know of no such cases, based on pure belief, that a person is schizophrenic, perhaps exempting the ingestion of compounds that could elicit such a state of mind.

There's nothing about schizophrenia and the resulting thought disorganization and delusional beliefs that can be ego-syntonic.

What does pure belief mean? I don't think mental disorders are just epistemic states...

What does pure belief mean? I don't think mental disorders are just epistemic states... — fdrake

Yet, mental disorders can be treated by addressing thoughts with facts and reality testing against cognitive distortions. However, I agree that more serious disorders like schizophrenia would be more difficult to treat on a purely intellectual basis of cognitive behavioral therapy.

No disorders are treated with pure intellection, you have to do stuff that makes the disease bugger off as well as think stuff that makes the disease bugger off - and both of those things help the other.

But, CBT, is effective as a standalone therapy for depression, anxiety, etc.

How do you explain that?

CBT isn't just a set of thought exercises. It's literally cognitive-behavioural therapy. You are given mental exercises as well as actual activities that are aimed at making whatever disorder you have bugger off.

EG, someone with social anxiety is questioned on how being in a crowd makes them feel. They say they have extreme anxiety in a crowd and feel very threatened. The therapist asks them if they know what they find threatening about it. If they know or don't, they could be asked to, say - sit outside a coffee shop and listen in to passing conversations. If they have a narrative about what makes them threatened about it, or they have a repeating pattern of thought about it, they will be given exercises to interrupt the mechanisms that make it repeat, as well as being given activities to expose them to and reduce the perceived risk of being present in crowds.

CBT isn't just a set of thought exercises. It's literally cognitive-behavioural therapy. You are given mental exercises as well as actual activities that are aimed at making whatever disorder you have bugger off. — fdrake

I think you're mistaken here. To address a disorder, what comes first is addressing the distorted thoughts and cognitions arising from some set of circumstances. Once the patient has been convinced about the irrationality of said core beliefs about themselves or in relation to the world or other friends and family, then behavioral therapy can begin.

That really depends on whether the subject has insight or not. If they have insight - they'll already know that their beliefs about crowds being threatening are usually unfounded. Regardless, the part where the subject actually goes out and does things which give a middle finger to their disease is a necessary part.

That really depends on whether the subject has insight or not. — fdrake

I don't think it's a matter of insight, as long as the person isn't living on a stranded island in isolation.

In response to you saying that I said that, I can only say, you're very strange and you're a liar. — Metaphysician Undercover

So you tell me, you tell TimeLine, you tell fdrake that we ought not to talk about the pathological anxiety, because that's a complicated phenomenon, we ought to talk about the normal one, and I'm the liar? Yeah right...

I didn't say, nor imply that I was talking about "being always active". Portraying this as "always active" is just a lie. Being "always active" would mean not getting any rest or relaxation. Since this is not the case, then by what logic do you conclude that being active produces "no control over when you rest and relax". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, you're always active, until you have no energy left, and you can relax. That's what I meant. That's not good.

I see what you might call benefits of meditation, but I don't see any comparisons to the benefits of the monkey mind, so I think that your little advertisement is rather pointless. If we went to compare the benefits of the monkey mind, we'd come up with a completely different list of benefits. By what principle would we compare one set of good qualities against another set of good qualities, to say which is better, unless one set beat out the other hands down. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are no benefits to monkey-mind - what makes you think there are? Why do you think people work so hard to get rid of it?

That's not surprising, because you don't seem to be a highly functional human being. I, for one, practise all of these, preoccupation being very similar to obsession, which means highly focused. And rumination means to be thoughtful. So by experiencing these simple mental practises, I have eliminated the first four of your supposed benefits of meditation as being no different than the benefits provided by the monkey mind. The only thing left is the final one "less stress and anxiety". I remove stress by converting it to anxiety. Now the only benefit you show from meditation is the removal of anxiety. Why would I want to remove anxiety when it's a good which provides me with all these benefits that you have listed, plus a whole lot more, such as all the things which I accomplish with my increased activity, and the joy I get from this. I think your meditation is beaten, hands down. — Metaphysician Undercover

Put down the crack pipe. I honestly have no clue what you're smoking now, but it must be potent. So according to your silly logic, highly functioning human beings like Steve Jobs, Admiral Stockdale, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Miyamoto Musashi, and so on aren't really highly functioning because they have taken control over the monkey mind. What nonsense. You should read some more.

Insight has a legal/technical definition, it means the subject recognises their pathologies. Someone who believes they're Jesus sincerely does not have insight, someone who experiences intrusive fantasies of being Jesus but knows they're completely unfounded does. With social anxiety, someone who knows that being in a crowd is generally ok and non-threatening would have insight into their condition, someone who didn't might not.

I see. The only cases I know of where a person does not have insight into their own pathology or disorder are unmedicated schizophrenics and psychopaths. Kind of nitpicking here; but, I don't think there are that many cases in general.

As to CBT, one has to already know that they need help or at least want to feel better to begin therapy.

That also depends on the person's legal status. Someone can be put into psychiatric treatment involuntarily, at least in the countries I'm familiar with (UK,US,Norway). This usually includes psychotherapy.

I see. The only cases I know of where a person does not have insight into their own pathology or disorder are unmedicated schizophrenics and psychopaths. Kind of nitpicking here; but, I don't think there are that many cases in general.

Impaired insight is most common in schizophrenics, yes. But it generalises to most psychotic conditions. In fact, it's possible to have a caveat put onto a diagnosis of a usually psychotic condition that the person has insight - and thus doesn't have to be treated, legally, as a psychotic! (I'm one of these people). In some senses insight is the distinction between suffering psychosis and exhibiting related symptoms.

Regardless, CBT still uses behavioural therapy as a component. So does the related and more abstract metacognitive therapy, which resembles your description of CBT more than CBT does. Someone doesn't need to know why crowds are scary and track their anxious response analytically to do CBT, but they do in metacognitive approaches.

Ascertaining 'the causes' is a bit misleading, as what started the anxiety and what keeps it going ontically aren't necessarily what structures anxiety and its necessary features ontologically. It may be that an anxious person can address their issues by eschewing the inappropriate application of some norms to their lives, or it may be that they can lessen the harsh distinction between their real and ideal selves based on inauthentic adherence to those norms. — fdrake

People can certainly formulate a normalcy of negative thoughts through ideals as our brains are naturally compelled and captivated by stories and story-telling, only in this instance our imagination is not alleviating but rather prolonging the problem. That is because the stories are given to us and our relationships to characters - including real people - become representative of what shapes these values, particularly those of a dogmatic nature. When we listen to great figures of history or biblical stories, it activates our sensory cortex and we are enabled with a contrast that allows us to interpret memories or experiences because our brain organises these memories and articulates it into stories; the puzzle is piecing the bits and pieces of these shattered memories to formulate an actual plot, the person that you are.

There is a biological dimension of why we like the experience and why stories form some semiotic representation that can explain our relationship with the external world; the Ottoman Empire had it's roots in stories about prophetic dreams, wolves, supernatural concepts that compelled mobilisation. Nazism compelled mobilisation through fictional Aryan ideology (for which Heidegger himself was drawn like a moron). Don't get me started on Catholicism. These narratives organise our experiences but they are nevertheless given to us and so we are not articulating our own story, authentically, as it was and is experienced but our experiences are interpreted by these social constructed narratives and thus the conflict begins.

I would not call it persecution fantasies but rather clusters of socially constructed spaces - whether in the home or in the community - that broadly educate this identification to bad behaviour as normal. There are clusters of women in parts of the world that experience hysteria, for instance, and their behaviour is aligned with high levels of gender-based violence and so they are physically and psychologically responding - albeit in a more pathological manner - to the social conditions. Hysteria becomes a responsive way to articulate 'no' or 'bad' and any consideration of the mental health of these women in these environments are non-existent. Some of these women from these cultures have arrived as migrants or refugees into Australia and the idea of even communicating about domestic problems to psychologists is very uncomfortable for them as though the therapist is an enemy trying to wreak havoc to the family, the capacity to educate them about human rights is confusing and the suggestion that we have mechanisms here that will protect them from harm such as the police is distrusted to say the least. These responses and behaviours become learned and they see anxiety as normal and are told or taught culturally that they have to be strong and deal with what they get rather than actually say that violence is bad and that they deserve better. They have no independent voice.

Not everyone has the intellectual capacity to rationalise their circumstances utilising phenomenological or philosophical themes since our understanding of the world is largely dependent on language, but ideals or stories enables this comparative that we begin a process of communicating our history and experiences through the memories that we have. Those women that I have encountered would never understand me if I were to just straight-up say that violence from men is bad and so in order to get them to understand, I could write a song or create a television soap opera or use some historical figure that would explain human rights and gender-empowerment using fiction.

Essentially, there is only one root cause and that is the 'self' or the 'I' or 'me' that is autonomously or independently attempting to communicate a thought or opinion, but that the social and environmental conditions have never enabled them with the capacity to understand how to do this. It is a part of the human mind to have the capacity to become self-aware, but with the continuous bombardment of how one should think and behave - inauthenticity - is consistently given to us, for us to give back or communicate back as an autonomous agent - authenticity - becomes very difficult.

Being earnest about pathological behaviour and mental states is probably required to enter into a therapeutic relationship with yourself or another, but its negation - delusion or lack of insight depending on the specifics - are epistemic properties of a sufferer and their capacity for articulating their symptoms, not ontological ones. — fdrake

Introspection is difficult to say the least, it is a process and a lengthy one at best where one consistently encounters perceptual inadequacies but this very process is articulating ones own narrative, to start building a language in what is a very empty mental space. Thus epistemically knowledge and language is social and that much of what we understand is given to us in a shared space and this forms our identity and how we perceive the external world, but the process of being able to take that knowledge or language and reverse it and thus to start using it autonomously from the 'self' directed outwardly to the external is the very interaction that is absent from our experience and what we need to learn to do. Our pathological positions or ego or self-defence mechanisms that stand as blockages to prevent one from ever reaching this capacity is entirely unique and dependent on the individual.