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? — Posty McPostface

Still trying to figure that one out.

Like I mentioned above, there seem to be many kinds of identifying and its opposite. I think we are trying at any given moment to be our best selves and our true selves, and simultaneously trying to escape ourself. “The world is too much with us” said William Wordsworth. True. Also perhaps we are too much with ourselves, and tired of the echo chamber. The internet can provide some sense of being connected, being joined to the rest of the world. I remember before I got internet and a cell phone, the library was my connection with the world outside of home and job. I’d feel claustrophobic if I didn’t visit the library often. If i was forced to live without internet for a week, it would be very, VERY difficult. Maybe it’s a illusion of connection, a placebo. Nonetheless...

Still trying to figure that one out. — 0 thru 9

Yeah, that's a tough question. Just look at the wiki entry on "Identity formation."

So, you've never had mixed feelings creativesoul? — Posty McPostface

Mixed, as in more than one kind? Sure. Mixed, as in having completely contradictory ones all at the same time? No. Mixed, as in having completely contradictory ones at different times? Sure. That can lead to confusion and uncertainty.

I just do not see how one can be depressed and happy all at the same time.

I would think that many folk have had some depression of some sort for so long that they get used to it...

Is that what you're describing here? That you've become so used to being depressed that it's basically your normal state of being, and that during the rare times of happiness that when you allow your mind to wander into the realm of the future, that you 'see' yourself being depressed again, and that that negatively affects/effects the happiness at the time?

Don't forget that one's self-identity is largely a social construct, and as such is not at all immune to people doing things to fit in or simply to get a certain kind of attention from others. Hence...

Trans-trenders...

:wink:

Is that what you're describing here? That you've become so used to being depressed that it's basically your normal state of being, and that during the rare times of happiness that when you allow your mind to wander into the realm of the future, that you 'see' yourself being depressed again, and that that negatively affects/effects the happiness at the time? — creativesoul

Yes. Have I identified too closely with depression then? What use can disidentification serve?

Yes. Have I identified too closely with depression then? What use can disidentification serve? — Posty McPostface

I cannot help you with that.

Simply put, be very careful when you decide what's important and what's not.

I cannot help you with that. — creativesoul

Understood. I keep on using my depression as a template. But, what would you say in the abstract about people who identify with some affliction too closely? What kind of advice would you offer them?

See above...

See above... — creativesoul

So, a matter of choice or significance about what we value? Is that the issue?

Well, I think coming to understand what one values and why is imperative to understanding oneself. Understanding oneself is necessary for overcoming depression.

Above all... as stupidly simple as it may sound...

Accept the way things are. Change what can be changed for the better. Accept what cannot. Learn the difference between the two.

Habits of thought play a crucial role... Habits of thought.

Accept the way things are. Change what can be changed for the better. Accept what cannot. Learn the difference between the two.

Habits of thought play a crucial role... Habits of thought. — creativesoul

But, I've already accepted my depression. So, now what?

Well, if you're ok with it, then who am I to dissuade you?

What did you get out of Krishnamurti? At times I found his writings too wordy and imprecise. — Posty McPostface

At the time he served my need to analyze things to the 99th degree. I wasn't ready for simpleness yet. I'm still not and never will be in a complete way, such is my nature. I still do the theory analyzing for entertainment, but now I know it doesn't matter much.

Yes, Krishnamurti circles endlessly round and round, never quite delivering "the answer". This is frustrating for many people, agreed. His teaching style is much like the philosophy professor who answers every question with another question, forcing the student to do his own work. It's perhaps helpful to realize that JK was from another time and place, India early 20th century, and he's kind of out of date in the sense that he doesn't really match up very well with today's American style fast paced instant gratification culture.

Imho, Eckhardt Tolle has done a good job of updating the message for today's audience, though the new age hoopla surrounding him might make some people puke.

I see so theory can be a distraction from inner peace and enlightenment. — Posty McPostface

If we feel that inner conflict is a result of bad thought content then we would attempt to fix that thought content through philosophy and analysis, such as dominates this thread (and about a billion others).

If we feel that inner conflict arises from the medium of thought itself, then it should become clear that adding even more thought to the pile is essentially a process of poring gasoline on the fire.

Imho, enlightenment is a bunch of baloney. If it exists at all, it is so rare to be essentially irrelevant to the human experience.

If we feel that inner conflict is a result of bad thought content then we would attempt to fix that thought content through philosophy and analysis, such as dominates this thread (and about a billion others). — Jake

No, this is about disidentification and not philosophy and analysis. More psychology if you ask me.

Disidentification is contrary to the identification process, and we haven't established yet how identity formation occurs?

So, we're kind of slow in this thread due to the nature of the self. Keep in mind that if you disidentify with everything, that doesn't mean you don't exist.

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. — Posty McPostface

But it seams to me, that what is being described is self-identity. How could it be possible to detach oneself from self-identity in general, by giving oneself a new self-identity? Isn't your true identity the one which others have given you?

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. — 0 thru 9

This distinction is common in philosophy, expressed in different ways. It's sometime expressed as semantics (intrinsic meaning), and context (external relations). It may be expressed as content and form, and there are other ways to express the same sort of distinction. Notice how this distinction exists in theory, but the division cannot be made in practise. You might think, for instance, that any given word has a meaning proper to it, regardless of its context, but in reality context plays a big part in determining the meaning. So the two are not readily separable. Likewise, the identity of "I", "self", though it is separable from the "others" in theory, when it comes to applying that theory, it's fundamentally impossible because the meaning of "what I am", which is my self-identity, is given by context.

This is why I prefer the temporal analogy, because it allows us to remove the spatial representation which is implied by terms like "internal/external", and context, etc.. The spatial representation, because of this implication, tends to extend to the self/other distinction, and this produces the difficulty. If we make a temporal representation instead, we can produce a much cleaner division. The past is "other", it is the context, the external. The future is "self", it is what is within me, what I want, what I can do.

Notice that in the nature of time itself, the division between past and future is very sharp and clear. There cannot be any mixing of past and future, because this is completely contradictory and impossible. it is a very clean divide. However, the things which exist in time appear to extend across that divide. So. when I identify myself as a thing, existing in time, (and this might be how others identify me), it appears like my existence straddles the division between past and future. From this perspective, that I am a thing extended in time, the clear sharp division between past and future is lost. My identity is a straddling of that very clean divide. But this clear sharp division is of the utmost importance to maintain, in order to avoid the contradiction of the past mixing with the future. If you allow your identity to straddle this division, all your descriptions of yourself will be lost into the confusion of this contradiction. That identity, as a thing straddling this sharp divide, which nothing can straddle without self-contradiction, is the identity which must be released.

Three aspects of identification:

1. Separation. Identity always has a negative, that is other. I am human, not animal, English not French, philosopher not politician, depressed not elevated, self, not world.

2. Narrative. Identity is the tale told by an idiot, or a hero, or the depressed person, that makes a thread from past to future. Persistence through time, and projection into the future of the past is what allows for concern about what will happen, complaint about what is happening, remorse about what has happened.

3. Performance. Identity is always enacting itself according to its own image. I am a person who does not go to parties, therefore I do not go to parties. I am depressed, therefore I do not enjoy anything very much.

Cat has memories of Bird, flighty things and tasty, and has learned to creep up slowly, always anticipating the catch or the escape.

Here are all the elements of identity, memory anticipation, performance separation and narrative. But my claim is that Cat has no identity. We narrate, we identify Cat and Bird, we see that Cat is not Bird, that Cat performs according to its memory and anticipates. Cat is in the flow with Bird, and the flow encompasses past as memory, future as anticipation, Bird, and Cat performing, all without separation, without identification of a self.

Cat pounces, Bird flies off, and Cat sits down and starts washing itself as if nothing has happened.

Something about distances and reaction times has been learned and remembered for the future, but there is no connection of identity between Cat-hunting and Cat-washing. There is no story but the one I, the human, tell.

Now suppose I were to tell the story of Posty-depressed becoming Posty-elevated, by means of enlightenment philosophy. Alas, that story would make the connection, identify them as the same, and thus drag depression back into the world of Posty-elevated. The two identities are mutually dependent on their independence, the way my identity as not going to parties is dependent on the parties I don't go to, and my continuing no to go to them.

Isn't your true identity the one which others have given you? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not at all. I don't think so at least.

memory anticipation, performance separation — unenlightened

What are these two terms you use so, I can understand you better? I understand that they can work in tandem or one on the other; but, I don't know the psychodynamics of the beast.

Thanks!

Now suppose I were to tell the story of Posty-depressed becoming Posty-elevated, by means of enlightenment philosophy. Alas, that story would make the connection, identify them as the same, and thus drag depression back into the world of Posty-elevated. The two identities are mutually dependent on their independence, the way my identity as not going to parties is dependent on the parties I don't go to, and my continuing no to go to them. — unenlightened

*Posty wonders*, what is the narrator making of all this mockery? Where does disidentification factor in?

No, this is about disidentification.... — Posty McPostface

It's about disidentification THEORY.

Yes, what about it? I keep on asking.

Three aspects of identification: Separation — unenlightened

To be more precise, an illusion of separation.

Thought operates through a process of division, thus creating "me" experienced as being divided from "everything else".

Thought operates through a process of division, thus creating the thinker experienced as being divided from the thought.

Our identity is as "me", experienced as a separate thing which is divided both from the external world and internal world.

The separation is only conceptual, not real. It's an illusion.

As example, the word "tree" proposes a separate object. Conceptually this is useful. But the reality is that the tree is intimately connected with everything else. The boundary between "tree" and "not tree" is a convenient human invention, as is the boundary between "me" and "not me".

If you study the above theory very very carefully over many many years you will accomplish something truly remarkable...

Nothing. :smile:

No mockery intended. I'll stick to myself for a minute. I have been posting as 'unenlightened' for ten years or so, and perhaps in that time I have changed somewhat. But to say that I have changed is already to link myself as I am now to the person who started to post. My changing presupposes my self-sameness - my identity.

Perhaps tomorrow, I will attain enlightenment, and this person will no longer post, because he will no longer exist. This is unenlightened's fantasy, that 'unenlightened' will dis-identify with himself.

I call it a fantasy because although it is conceivable that it happens, it is inconceivable that I, unenlightened, should do it. It is similarly inconceivable that a depressed person be not depressed. Dis identification is incoherent, because it requires the continuation of that which it ends.

Dis identification is incoherent, because it requires the continuation of that which it ends. — unenlightened

I'm just going to point out that this may be as close as we can get to specifying what is disidentification. An unobtainable ideal.

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.
— Posty McPostface

But it seams to me, that what is being described is self-identity. How could it be possible to detach oneself from self-identity in general, by giving oneself a new self-identity? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, in that post which was being referenced I was describing self-identities. One of which (let’s call it the non-dual identity) is still technically a self-identity. But since in this example one is reaching beyond oneself on a radical level (what am I? who am I?) it could conceivably satisfy the conditions of being “disidentification” , which is our made-up term.

Isn't your true identity the one which others have given you? — Metaphysician Undercover

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that one’s “true identity” IS one given by others?
Or just asking if Posty thinks it is?

This distinction is common in philosophy, expressed in different ways. It's sometime expressed as semantics (intrinsic meaning), and context (external relations). It may be expressed as content and form, and there are other ways to express the same sort of distinction. Notice how this distinction exists in theory, but the division cannot be made in practise. You might think, for instance, that any given word has a meaning proper to it, regardless of its context, but in reality context plays a big part in determining the meaning. So the two are not readily separable. Likewise, the identity of "I", "self", though it is separable from the "others" in theory, when it comes to applying that theory, it's fundamentally impossible because the meaning of "what I am", which is my self-identity, is given by context. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks for your reply. (Let me just say about the rest of this post that it is highly likely that I’m not fully understanding your concepts or wording. This is no one’s fault. I don’t feel sure enough to specifically respond to (let alone disagree with) something I am not entirely sure I understand. (These are perhaps some complex theories and ideas here, imho). I’ll ask as many specific questions as I can think of, but in general I would ask for further clarification and elaboration. Thanks!)

But to restate something (hopefully relevant in order to show what I’m getting at) from a post on page one of this thread:
[
1. As far as the individual is concerned, there are two sides (or poles) of reality: Self and Other.
2. The Other is comprised of other people, and also other things, objects, energies, etc.
3. The distinction between Self and Other is often relatively distinct, but it is not completely black-and-white. It is not an absolute yes or no question.
4. The distinction between Self and Other is a fluid, moving boundary. Like the heap of sand Sorites paradox.
5. The Self/Other question is affected by several things, two of which have a noticeable effect: awareness and identification. Awareness reflecting one’s current apprehension of the situation. Identification reflecting one’s current choice of defining one’s nature.
6. It is possible to identify with that which is outside of one’s strict notion of oneself. For example, identifying with a city, nation, or tribe.
7. To further elaborate on the moving boundary between Self and other... awareness and identifications with Self and Other can be simultaneous. (I find it helpful to visualize it like the Bass/Treble equalizer settings on a stereo. It is an “X-Y” map. Both co-ordinates can be any number from zero to maximum, from low to high.)

When a person is a child, one is probably very fuzzy about the difference between themself and their surroundings or mother, for instance. But put in a positive way, children seem in general to be very aware of the “connectedness” of things. They are in the moment, in the flow of life. Thus they often seem to have wisdom beyond their years. Adults gain the critical knowledge of individuality, but often lose the sense of immersion or connection with anything beyond oneself. The goal (as some have said) is to have the ability to recognize both, in whatever proportion is necessary at the moment. To be deficient as a part, or as a whole is to be an incomplete human. For an individual is a whole, which is a part of a another whole. Not unlike viewing energy as both a wave and as a particule.
]
.............
I would agree that one’s self identity is in relation and in context to others and the surroundings. That actually what I was getting at, obviously it is not really a radical idea. But why I think it is a crucial point is because it is possible to believe that one is almost completely separated from the rest of the world. At least as separate as possible while still interacting with the world. Here I’m speaking from personal
mental or psychological experience. There have been times when I viewed people and objects like a bunch of marbles bouncing off each other, but having absolutely no commonality, no intersection. Now, I view things and people as deeply intertwined and interrelating in some shape or form. Even strangers who will never meet, or even exist at the same time. Even if I can’t imagine or dare to speculate HOW and WHY they interrelate. But let me add that the marble metaphor above was not totally inaccurate. It reflects a certain reality, the reality of separation which is real. Relatively real, only partially real, but nonetheless real.

I think what I am most interested in and focusing on (for therapeutic value, personally at least) is the BOUNDARIES of what one considers “self” and “not self”. Like I mentioned before, our bodies are made of water, minerals, gases, plant, and animal materials that were somewhere else, were something else before they were part of us. So there is a connection physically, and I would imagine in other ways as well.

So to clarify, I’d say that I agree with the doctrine of the “two truths”, the relative and the absolute / ultimate. Half of our reality seems to be the separate nature and reality of each individual. The hidden or invisible or perhaps unknown half might be the indivisibility of nature and reality.

(I hope to address the rest of your post later, if possible)

So to clarify, I’d say that I agree with the doctrine of the “two truths”, the relative and the absolute / ultimate. Half of our reality seems to be the separate nature and reality of each individual. The hidden or invisible or perhaps unknown half might be the indivisibility of nature and reality. — 0 thru 9

The indivisible single unified reality is the fact. The appearance of separation is an illusion created by the divisive nature of thought.

Imagine that we were born wearing tinted sunglasses. Everywhere we went reality would look tinted. The tint would not be a property of reality, but rather of the tool being used to observe reality. If everybody was wearing the tinted sunglasses all the time it would easy to get confused about this.

To the degree we attempt to analyze the illusion of division with thought we are adding fuel to that which is creating the illusion.

As example, consider Christianity, a well intentioned attempt to overcome division and conflict via an ideology, ie. a collection of thoughts. And what was the result? More division and conflict.

We could reason that the resulting division and conflict was a result of flaws in Christian ideology, in the content of those particular thoughts. But this theory wouldn't explain why EVERY ideology ever invented has inevitably resulted in that ideology subdividing in to competing internal factions, ie. more division and conflict.

The indivisible single unified reality is the fact. The appearance of separation is an illusion created by the divisive nature of thought. — Jake

Yes, I am trying to argue for at least the possibility of the reality of an ultimate unity, an underlying connection and identity of all things. I am glad that you concur. And you have a very interesting point (and one that I happen to agree with, ie that the knowledge/experiences one potentially can get from spiritual practice, meditation, yoga, etc. cannot be completely explained by words). But, I must admit that if you respond to my posts with flat out assertions in bold like this:

To the degree we attempt to analyze the illusion of division with thought we are adding fuel to that which is creating the illusion. — Jake

... then (with much due respect) I’m inclined to believe that you are not arguing your case very well, and are possibly and inadvertently using some fallacies. We seem to have hit a wall here. I understand that “the map is not the territory”. And that words can be meaningless or empty. But when you repeat how limited thought is compared to the metaphysical or non-thought, I am reminded of the Liar’s Paradox. (I’m not calling you a liar, btw.) If someone says “everyone is a liar, so don’t believe a word anyone says”, then one naturally wonders if that statement includes the speaker, or somehow the speaker is exceptional. So basically... why and how are your thoughts and theories exempt from this “illusion”?

It seems that you are committing some fallacy here. Maybe it is a “shifting the burden of proof”, “faulty generalization”, or “begging the question” fallacy. This is not entirely certain for I’m neither a philosophy major nor an expert in logic. So feel free to dismiss this post as simply inaccurate or as being just more illusionary thoughts. That is your right of course. But if I am to continue to respond to your posts, then I feel that this issue should be dealt with or disproven. In any case, I do appreciate your ideas and hope this will not discourage. And I only respond to people and posts that I think have merit, for whatever it’s worth. Thanks for your consideration.

Hi 0-9,

I don't object to the challenge at all, entirely appropriate on a philosophy forum. However, instead of a vague wandering concern about possible fallacies, perhaps you could simply address the bolded assertion itself?

So basically... why and how are your thoughts and theories exempt from this “illusion”? — 0 thru 9

They aren't exempt. Which is why I keep arguing for a shift from theory to experience. Above I suggested that the three words "be here now" are more useful than a library full of Krishnamurti books, and that applies to the 4 billion Jake posts as well. :smile:

As I see it the key issue is, what is the source of suffering?

If one feels the source of suffering is bad thought content, then a philosophical investigation such as is being conducted here is an appropriate response.

1) As part of such a philosophical investigation I'm asking, where is the evidence that ANY philosophy or ideology ever invented has ended human suffering?

2 As part of such a philosophical investigation I'm observing that human suffering has been universal in all times and places. Doesn't that suggest a source which is also universal?

As I see it, I am participating in the philosophical investigation members are insisting on, and the problem we're having is that members don't like where such an investigation inevitably leads. I can't help where the investigation leads, I'm just following the logic.

As I see it, members are interested in exploring many different approaches, on the condition that any approach must somehow involve philosophy, ie. more thinking. Members are willing to conduct a philosophical investigation only up to the point that such an investigation becomes inconvenient to the investigation itself. And to my mind, that's not actually philosophy at all.

As I see it, the problem we're sharing here is that philosophy nerd people like us (definitely including me) tend to be over thinkers. And so we want to solve the problems we've caused ourselves by overthinking, with more thinking. :smile: This is very much like the alcoholic who wants to cure themselves using a case of scotch.

1) As part of such a philosophical investigation I'm asking, where is the evidence that ANY philosophy or ideology ever invented has ended human suffering?

2 As part of such a philosophical investigation I'm observing that human suffering has been universal in all times and places. Doesn't that suggest a source which is also universal? — Jake

If I may interject. I think Buddhism provided the answer. The source of suffering is desire. Also, the permanence of treating the self as an entity that is non-temporal, which it isn't.