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. — Jake

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.

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

All the basic needs are taken care of.

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! — All sight

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.

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: — Pattern-chaser

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

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. — Seeds of Unfolding, No. 3, 1985

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

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. — Marcus de Brun

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.

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

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

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

Nicely put.

Oh, I'm all for looking for patterns! — Pattern-chaser

Good, then we agree!

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: — Pattern-chaser

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.

You have made the point that analysis is doing more harm than good. However, I must in general disagree with that assessment. — 0 thru 9

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.

As the quote above from the Chan/Zen master Wu Hsin hints, trying to stop thought is going against the very nature of mind. — 0 thru 9

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.

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). — Jake

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.

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). — Posty McPostface

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...

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

Yes,

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. — ChatteringMonkey

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.

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.

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. — ChatteringMonkey

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".

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". — Posty McPostface

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.

He says the cessation of thought is not possible — ChatteringMonkey

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:

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

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...

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. — Posty McPostface

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.

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. — Jake

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:

I think that there is probably much overlap in what we are both saying, with maybe varying degrees of emphasis. — 0 thru 9

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...

When does it stop? — Posty McPostface

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?

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? — bert1

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"?

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... — Posty McPostface

I don't believe you.

What do you mean?

Being sad is not being at ease.

Being happy is not being depressed.