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

So, essentially...

I have depression, and not, I am depressed.

The short and simple answer to this threads musings. — Posty McPostface

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Well, that's just irrational.

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

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

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

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.

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? — Posty McPostface

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.

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

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:

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:

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.

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. — His Bobness

My Back Pages

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: — unenlightened

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

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. — unenlightened

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.

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. — Jake

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.

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

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?

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

Do you think you can become detached from your feelings? — Posty McPostface

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.

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: — 0 thru 9

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.

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

BLASPHEMOUS! :scream: Turn in your membership card!





:rofl: :razz: :snicker:

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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?

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. — Posty McPostface

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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? — unenlightened

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.

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. — Jake

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.

This is called 'depression' in the trade. — unenlightened

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.

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.

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? — unenlightened

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

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

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.

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. — Jake

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.

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

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.

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

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.

The problem is that the future is always oppressing us — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

it is clear that thinking is not the source of suffering. — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

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

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.