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

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

Whatever it takes to break out of near-solipsism, which I think almost trapped me, and has become more common recently. — 0 thru 9

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

Here's the thread I started on the issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But how? How do you disidentification yourself from thought? — Posty McPostface

Maybe this will help?

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

1) Understand detachment theory.
2) Experience detachment.

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

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

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

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

1) Understanding detachment theory.
2) Experiencing detachment.

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

1) Understanding detachment theory.
2) Experiencing detachment. — Jake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Understand detachment theory.
2) Experience detachment. — Jake

Both. :blush:

Or perhaps, to continue the food and diet analogy, we should feed it carefully. — 0 thru 9

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

’ve never heard “thought” referred to as a “bodily function” before. But I appreciate creative writing. — 0 thru 9

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

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

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

Both. — Posty McPostface

Both = Neither.

Both.
— Posty McPostface

Both = Neither. — Jake

Bummer. :confused:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Understand detachment theory. — Jake

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

Ok.. what about being hit by a bolt of lightning? That’s a problem not made of thought. — 0 thru 9

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

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

Ok then, so here's a little story.

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

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

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

Thus, my question to you.

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

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

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

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

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

So, here's my theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never read him. Could be interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, and yes.

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

Yes. This is the whole goal

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

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

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

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

Both.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:up:

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

:smile: :up:

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

Both. — Posty McPostface

Ha! Yep, same here...

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



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