Not truth for truth's sake, but truth for the person being cheated on's sake. — Hanover

Yes, and that is morally suspect, because it relies on a judgement of the morality of the parties. Who knows, perhaps the cheater is trying to escape an abusive and controlling relationship? One cannot assume the equality of other things.

But I do not care about their relationship one way or the other. Their relationship being mended or discarded is entirely up to them. I'm only interested in informing the victim of what the facts on the ground are. It is up to them what to do next. — ProbablyTrue

Truth for truth's sake? But no, because you want to be anonymous, and hide your own part. In my book, I call that hypocrisy.

You imagine this, why? — ProbablyTrue

No, I'm in the inform camp. But I'm only there to the extent that you care about their relationship, and in that case your duty is to both parties, and it is a duty of care rather than a duty to do justice to the wronged party as you see it. You never have a duty to be the moral police of another's relationship.

It may be that falling out is what is required, or it may be that infidelity is keeping the relationship going. Inform, therefore, but take the responsibility for your virtue, and pay the price for it, which may be high.

I would imagine, that if you have an obligation to inform the cheated, you have at least the same obligation to inform the cheater of your intentions, and give them a chance to own up on their own part, or else bump you off to keep you quiet, or possibly to let you know that they have that sort of open relationship, but prefer to be discrete with each other about the details, so butt out.

I need an alien's view — hugh

That's called 'Sociology'. Marx, Durkheim, Weber for a start; perhaps Gregory Bateson, David Smail, Levi-Strauss, It depends what exactly you're looking for.

So, when is one's complaint justified? — Posty McPostface

A complaint is justified morally, on grounds of justice, or duty, or some such. But perhaps one should consider too its felicity. A justified complaint directed towards someone who can do nothing to remedy it is infelicitous. We call it moaning, as distinct from whinging, which is unjustified complaint that amounts to a demand for special treatment. Moaning and whinging may get you a biscuit though, or just make you feel better and other folks worse.

It's not straightforward at all! It's a deep challenge, and I'm not expecting a quick answer here, or in general.
How could someone tell me about a feeling they refuse to have?

I lay in bed most of the day, so I know how intense the depression is. It isn't intolerable... — Posty McPostface

That's not apathetic, that's making yourself comfortable in your misery, and that's why it's tolerable. At the risk of provoking some feeling in you, I will point out that it is self-indulgent.

Is it not a possible world, that one where we do not talk about possible worlds?

The question I tend to ask someone who is depressed is, 'what are you depressing?'

As if it is an activity, something one does to press down some other even more intolerable feeling. Anger, greed, frustration, hatred, perhaps. Which is to say that it has a function, such that one cannot manage without it, and this makes it 'incurable', because the cure is worse than the disease.

I have learned, probably at a very early stage, that my strong feelings are dangerous - mother will abandon me, my love is of the forbidden kind, my anger will cause the family and the world to fall apart - so whatever in my life excites my passion, I learn to avoid. i become afraid of myself, and thus afraid of all meaningful, intense relationships.

How do I come to learn, how can a therapist help me to discover, that my feelings do not destroy me or the world? It is difficult, precisely because I avoid intense relationships, and de-press intense feelings. So the closer the therapist comes, the harder I push him away and my own feelings down - thus the more depressed I become. "you see? Nothing helps." I need to go to the place I most want to avoid.

So here is a safe exercise, that requires no therapist or equipment, and which does the opposite of what everyone else is telling you. Find a quiet place, lie on the floor, and pretend to be dead. Feel the intensity of depression; nobody cares, least of all you, that you are lying dead in some corner. Life goes on elsewhere, and nothing is happening to you. My own experience is that it takes about 20 minutes of being dead to arrive at a definitive 'bugger this, I've got better things to do'. It might take you longer or shorter. Then go and find someone to talk to and care about.

To be honest, I doubt my depression can be solved by this means. I don't really know the source of my depression. It seems as if it runs in the family, and no psychotherapy will help. — Posty McPostface

No, it's not offered as a cure for you. It's a cure for a shitty world - a shovel and a lot of work.

And often does, I hear.

What clinical experience teaches in fact is not that psychological distress and emotional suffering are the result of individual faults, flaws or medical disorders, but arise from the social organizations in which all of us are located. Furthermore, damage to people, once done, is not easily cured, but may more easily (and that not easily at all!) be prevented by attending to and caring for the structures of the world in which we live. These are questions neither of medicine nor of 'therapy'. If anything, they may be seen more as questions of morality and, by extension, politics.

David Smail Power, Responsibility and Freedom

he has, i quote, '100 pictures of comey and mueller hugging and kissing' is amazing. — csalisbury

So now he's a porn addict as well? Come back back Bonking Bill, all is forgiven!

Results

Presence of depression was related to less frequent worship attendance, more frequent private religious practice, and moderate subjective religiosity. Among the depressed group, less severe depression was related to more frequent worship attendance, less religiousness, and having had a born-again experience. These results were only partially explained by effects of social support and stress buffering.

Conclusions

Religion is related to depression diagnosis and severity via multiple pathways.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3266521/

I need to make clear that I am not down on religion, and I am not down on CBT etc. Whatever gets you through the night.

What I am down on is the mask of scientism; and in particular the claim that the efficacy of practice demonstrates the truth of theory. The world is such a state that it is perfectly understandable that folks should prefer to live in Lala Land and be happier there. But personally, I do not advocate for it; I advocate for facing the horror that pervades one's being and the world, and doing one's negligible bit to ameliorate it.

Suppose I said to you that if you believe in Jesus as your saviour, and showed you with statistics that people who believe in Jesus as their saviour are much happier, than those who don't, would you believe in Jesus as your saviour?

their efficacy has been determined. Therefore, they aren't just another set of metacognitive beliefs devoid of meaning. Their use is determined by the ability to get one out of depression. And, they seemingly work for that purpose. — Posty McPostface

This is why it is so depressing; It makes people happier, therefore it is true.

the theory seems, so far, to be eminently commonsensical to me, and to have nothing at all to do with any kind of "religious" belief. — Janus

A metacognitive belief is "a belief about the effects, positive or negative, your strategies of thought will have on you."

A strategy of thought is "a repeated pattern of thinking that is believed to be helpful, protective or whatever."

CBT is a practice based on a psychological theory. Psychological theory is a repeated pattern of thinking that is believed to be helpful and protective.

Belief in CBT is a metacognitive belief.

Now as a philosopher, or a scientist, one is committed to believing and advocating belief in whatever is true, rather than whatever makes one feel good. This is in stark contrast to the CBT therapist who has in common with the religionist a commitment not to truth in the first place, but to - what shall I say? - "benefit". It doesn't matter whether CBT is true or not, or possibly, at least in public, the guarantee of its truth is that it makes folks feel better.

And so what it comes down to, without the cloaking of complicated scientific terminology is "think happy thoughts and don't worry whether they are true."

It's all rather depressing, and therefore it must be wrong.

What is a metacognitive belief?
— unenlightened

A belief about the effects, positive or negative, your strategies of thought will have on you. — Janus

Sorry , but what's a strategy of thought?

It seems your concern here is primarily aesthetic. — Jake

Not really.

Hmm, good question... — Jake

Good analogies provoke good questions.

It seems to me that depression is not so much pain as it is a general lowering of affect, almost a withdrawal from the world. Perhaps a better vegetative picture would be a tree shedding its leaves in autumn. And the candidate for an environmental trigger that comes to mind is a hostile social situation - there might even be an epigenetic effect whereby a parent's experience of aggressive dominance, for example, that cannot be avoided or resisted leads to a proclivity for depression in their offspring.

Edit: Wiki definitely thinks that's a thing.

Would it offend you to call the digestive system a machine? Is "machine" not new agey enough?

Anyway, I think you get the point, however imperfectly I've made it. The mind is another organ of the body which can be managed with simple, direct, mechanical methods, — Jake

I'm not offended, though there you go again with your mechanical analogy. But let me try you with spinach. Given a moist soil, spinach will grow plenty of leaves, which is what tiggers like. But if the soil starts to dry out, it gets anxious and rushes to make flowers and set seed. From my point of view, this is a malfunction on its part, because leaves are what I want. But from the plant's point of view, it's a sensible reaction to the danger of drought. So, by analogy, one might wonder what depression is a sensible response to. Because why would it be part of the repertoire of normal behaviour if it were never of any value to the organism?

The one ring must be cast into the fire of Mt Doom.

I agree with most of what you say, but I wish you would drop the machine analogy, it isn't very helpful or illuminating. how about a flower analogy instead?

As I understand from the little reading I've done of Adrian Well's Metacognitive Therapy for Anxiety and Depression the central idea is that the prolonged suffering of anxiety and depression is caused by the patient's metacognitive beliefs which, as guiding (really misguiding) thoughts about the the nature and significance of thoughts, beliefs and symptoms, lead to recurrent or continuous fixations on the three processes, the very fixations that prolong the suffering. — Janus

What is a metacognitive belief? On the face of it, it looks as though it is a belief about the nature of cognition, which is a psychological theory. Such as the one being described. Which makes this about as close to a religion as you can get without mentioning God. 'Believe, and you will be saved.'

Other things being equal, more intelligence seems better than less. Unfortunately it is not unusual for folks to be clever dicks; mere intelligence is not enough.

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.

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.

A great deal of the news consists of facts about what has been said. Don't expect this thread to be widely reported, but do expect He-who-must-not-be named's tweets about bias to feature.

And the news itself is something being said, so whatever appears in the news tends to become newsworthy. The latest news is that the news is biased - discuss. This is the echo-chamber of the media - tv reports on the papers that report on what's trending on the web, that provokes a reaction of speeches by the great and good and protests by the great unwashed, that are reported in the papers.

We are discussing the news as if we and our discussion are separate from it. As Mephistopheles allegedly said, "This is the news, nor am I out of it."

"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.

I think it partakes of and extends the principle of charity - the intention to understand. The extension is that to understand deeply what is being said requires one to hear it from a place of quiet, with no preconceptions.

An old friend played me this, a long time ago, and afterwards, I said I wasn't sure if liked it. His reply: - "that's the wrong question, the question should be 'can you hear it?'. That's about as close as I can get at the moment.

I'm afraid that is impossible. — Posty McPostface

I don't think it is, but even if it would be impossible as an absolute, one can hold it as an ideal towards which to strive, even without a clear understanding of it.

I wonder if it is possible to do philosophy like that? Thinking it through to the logical conclusion but unconcerned with the conclusion?
— unenlightened

Can you expand on that? Genuinely interested. — Posty McPostface

Well it's somewhat of an intuition, but suppose you face every question afresh, rather than rehearsing a theory that one has adopted. Rather like playing music, there is a learned facility and a familiar theme and structure, but one is playing it now, and each time it is particular, each time one is learning something new, and then letting it go again. Like this...

Depression - you say you have depression; I wonder what that is? A score on a questionnaire, an experience, an identity, a disease? Where does it come from and what does it do?

Can you not quite know, and explore?

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not a surfer, but a musician, and I assume that riding the wave is similar. And my experience is that when it is going well, one is focused on what one is doing and not the future; the music plays itself and one rides it, content to be in the groove and singularly un-oppressed. It is, to be specific, a state of mind that is devoid of narrative thought, and thus psychologically timeless as to past and future.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Opposition requires a context of agreement - up and down are similarly directions under gravity, and this sameness is what allows their opposition. Further,the opposed pair up/down is itself opposed to sideways. The opposite of a fish is not a bicycle, though man can be opposed to woman. And in another context, man can be opposed to nature, or to animal, or to mouse, or God.

To declare an opposite devoid of context of sameness is to fall in to a Venn diagram world in which any not-X is the opposite of X. And in this context, a fish is indeed the opposite of a bicycle, but so is common sense or a ripe camembert.

Perhaps we could reserve a corner of the lounge and put up a sign "therapy 5 cents. The doctor is in."