OK, I'll see what I can do. Consider the existence of an object. It has a temporal extension past and future. From this perspective the present is irrelevant, the object has a period of time when it exists, and so be it. But if you consider changes to the object, they only occur at the present, as time is passing. We might say that changes occurred in the past, and will occur in the future, but they only actually occur at the present.as time is passing. So the present presents us with a certain discontinuity of existence of the object if we allow that change occurs at the present.

That's one way of looking at the present, as the discontinuity of existence. Another way is to look at it as the time in which we (subjects) exist. This separates us from objects which extend into past and future, allowing the concept of immortality as something which doesn't partake in past or future, but is always at the present. This makes the present a continuity of existence.

So we have two distinct ways of thinking of the present, one is as the time when change to physical objects occurs, and the other is as something distinct from past and future. Since we associate the self, with being at the present, these two ways give two distinct approaches to self-identification. One is as a source of change in the physical world, and the other is as something distinct from the physical world. The problem is that there seems to be reality to both perspectives, so it would appear necessary to establish compatibility between them. To establish compatibility requires recognizing, in a sense, that they are both wrong. So we need to dismiss them both in order to come up with a real representation of the self. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: Very well put. Thanks!

:up: Definitely. Makes me want to move to Alaska, or would if the ice weren’t melting.

:up: Thanks for the reply! Though I’m curious about your observation that diet doesn’t seem to affect your mental functioning. Did you have coffee this morning? Notice anything? :nerd:

Ok, ok... coffee (aka flavored caffeine) might be an exception here because of its “stimulant nature”. But you must have a remarkably consistent diet or constitution if you haven’t experienced some emotional or mental effects from either “junk food” or “healthy food”. Not doubting you, just somewhat surprised... and jealous. :lol:

Since this is far from a scientific survey, I don’t quite know where to classify a feeling of low or high physical energy or tiredness that is attributable to diet. Is that brain functioning, body metabolism, or both? I would lean towards saying that it is both to some degree. But your mileage may literally vary... especially if you are running a marathon.

Yeah, what they said! (@Bitter Crank and @Wayfarer Thanks guys.) Double goes for me. :up:

Oh, BC... please mark me down for a Therapeutic Ejection Chair, if they go into production. On further thought, better make it two chairs. :mask: :sweat:

I really do wonder how would a Buddhist tell a student or follower, how to disidentify or detach from depression. I doubt they would think it was sound advice to try and do so. It seems to me that to want to disidentify from a feeling, one is incapable or not feeling it. — Posty McPostface

I was wondering what @Wayfarer might think about this topic. (*lights Bat-signal*)

I want to analyze why disidentification didn't work for my depression.

It seems to me that internal problems of the mind are harder to treat with disidentification than external afflictions. This is due to having the mind be constantly aware of its own internal workings. One can disidentify from being called a nerd, geek, or what label people can invent; but, for depression or anxiety or OCD, it's not possible to dissociate from the condition. It's too endemic to treat with disidentification.

Thoughts? — Posty McPostface

Do you feel you have given it enough time? Didn’t see how long you said you have been trying it. It might take months or even years of trial and error. That seems to have been my general experience. Still going at it a step at a time. What else is there to do? But I’m sure it feels like you’ve been on the same road for a long time.

It’s hard to give up something, to “not do” something. It’s easier if there’s something to replace it with, something to do. Perhaps don’t think of it as stopping to identify. Identify bigger maybe. By identifying with anything or everything that is beyond one’s self, a hole in is punctured in the walls that insulate us from the rest of creation. We should only do things if we feel safe to do so. By mentally (and even spiritually) opening, we can do it in the safety of our minds. Possibly then we could realize not only the connections with all, but the oneness. That most likely will have a positive effect on one’s life, given the time and effort.

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 — unenlightened

Yep. Sad but true. Personal responsibility and morality still being important... However, it might be easier for all involved if the problem was like a car needing new brakes or spark plugs. What if this is a manufacturer defect? Is our civilizational factory putting out the human equivalent of the famous lemon-car Edsel? How could one even follow all the our culture tells us? It is too contradictory. And even when following the dictums of “more is better” and “you are great! / terrible!” (whichever works to sell the product of the moment), it seems to dead-end much faster than the average lifespan. With a few notable exceptions who, following the POTUS Peter Principle, rise to the level of their incompetence.

Edit: somewhat reminds me of the thread you started called Psychology, advertising, and propaganda.

I think that the notion of immortality is derived from the idea of being at the present. If one could truly exist at the present then that person would not take part in the past or the future, and have an existence which is non-temporal, eternal. But on the other hand, when we look at a thing's continued existence in time, we consider that it has existed in the past, and will continue existence into the future, neglecting the importance of the present. The present is the only time when change occurs, and to understand change we must allow for a discontinuity at the present. The immortal self is a continuous existence at the present. The mortal self is an object with continuous existence through the past and into the future. The discontinuity of the present annihilates both these selves. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks very much for your reply. This paragraph was particularly interesting, dealing with the present and its possible relation to the person. Could you expand on the idea, if you don’t mind? I think i was following up until the last three lines of the quote, especially the last sentence. (Or maybe I wasn’t following as well as I thought! :wink: )

Also, this reminds of a quote or an idea, but can’t remember who said it and Google failed me. It was something along the lines of “in our dimension, time is limited but space is infinite. In higher dimensions (or approaching light speed) time expands and space contracts.” Thoughts?

Alright... thanks for the explanation. Fair enough, I guess. I am convinced by your feelings and reasoning. But I still think that (in general) responses are weakened, rather than strengthened by Ef you’s and the like. It comes across as desperate, hysterical, or childish, imo. But, whatever.... Do what you think best. I’ve read the hot mess of an OP that started this three times, and I’m still not exactly sure what the hell it is about. :chin: There have been some eloquent posts by “M”, but this isn’t one of them. As @Bitter Crank pointed out, the misuse of the word “depravity” instead of “deprivation” only made it worse.

Carry onward... :victory:

(Edited. Response to @StreetlightX below)

I heard a story on NPR about a lady who had an accident that put her in a coma. When she emerged from the coma she couldn't form even short term memories. Thus, she was forced in to "be here now" on a 24/7 basis. This of course created many practical problems for her. Eventually they were resolved as her memory ability gradually returned.

She was glad to have her regular life back, but also deeply missed the "be here now" immersion, calling it the most profound and beautiful experience of her life.

I found it a very interesting story, and regret I can not link you to it. — Jake

I am that lady! That story was about me. At least as far as I can remember... it’s still a little fuzzy. :chin:

Sorry, bad joke. Seriously though, interesting story. Thanks for sharing it.

I think that to dissolve identification, to "disidentificate", it is necessary to acknowledge the dual nature of identity, one way or another. When you see that it is impossible to deny the duality of identity, then the idea that you have "an identity" seems very doubtful.

I find the division to be quite readily drawn along the division between past and future. There is a "myself" of the past, and a "myself" of the future. These two cannot be the same because the one is defined by what I have done, and the other by what I will do, and these are distinct. Consider what unenlightended says:

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

Notice that unenlightened makes the same point. The "me" of the past is distinct from the "me" of the future, and having this attitude, knowing this, allows us to change as human individuals, and improve ourselves. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: Thanks for your response and further elaboration. Most appreciated, for it is clearer now. (But correct me if I happen to misinterpret your position.)

Yes, I would definitely agree that identity has a dual nature. Thanks for your relating it in terms of time. That makes supreme sense, as does @unenlightened’s post. The relation of time to itself (past, present, future) and to us (past me, future me) is one of the main philosophical topics for sure. It touches on physics and metaphysics, mortality and morality. I’ve wondered about the nature of time, as everyone probably has. Like for instance, the direction of time. Does time move from past -> present-> future ? This is the time-line view. Or does it move from future -> present -> past ? This is like being in a car and seeing up ahead a mile or so. Then that space ahead is soon where one is at, becoming the present. Then it is in the rear view mirror, representing the past. I tend towards the latter view, though I don’t dismiss the former. It seems to be relative to the point of view. Also... do we move through time like a boat on a river, or does time flow through us like water through a hose? I would agree that the “future me” is distinct from “past me”. So it seems the “future me” causes “past me” (like the car-time analogy) and not the other way around. I would agree, if I’m understanding your ideas accurately.

1. As far as the individual is concerned, there are two sides (or poles) of reality: Self and Other.
— 0 thru 9

Let me ask you to try on something new 0 thru 9. Forget this Self/Other distinction which the mode of thinking that you have been trained in, has conditioned you into believing are the two sides, or poles, of reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. That is what I was getting at: moving beyond the duality; which is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there! :smile:

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.
— 0 thru 9

That is the problem with the self/other distinction, it is far too vague. The past/future distinction offers a much more clear-cut division. Further, there is nothing inherent within the self/other distinction which makes it an essential aspect of human nature, it has just been chosen as an analytical principle, and many have addressed its flaws. It is based in the spatial assumption that objects are separate from each other. But we know that objects really overlap by gravity and other fields, and that's why the self/other division doesn't make a good boundary, there is no such boundary in reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh yes. The self/other distinction (which at first appears so clear, certain, and definite) upon further inspection at any point DOES become fuzzy and vague. That actually was my point, though awkwardly crammed into a list for the sake of brevity. I was not contradicting the first point about self/other being polar opposites. It was furthering the idea by introducing the more metaphysical concept of radical oneness. I usually try not to jump too quickly into claiming “all is one” lest I be dismissed for magical thinking, or for putting the cart before the horse (or heart before the course?) The goal in my view is to completely accept and contemplate the mundane (separateness) AND the almost unimaginable (unity and oneness). To accept (what could be called) “both sides of reality”. Or duality and non-duality. Separateness and unity. Even matter and energy/mind.

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.
— 0 thru 9

See, this very passage demonstrates that you really believe that the self/other distinction is not the fundamental division of the individual's reality. The child doesn't recognize this division, but is taught it, and learns it through social training, so much so that the adult often forgets that it is an artificial, manufactured division. But this social convention doesn't approach the real fundamental boundary, which is the division between past and future, a division which is recognized by children, naturally, without requiring social conditioning. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I think you may be anticipating my idea’s conclusion rather than contradicting it. Which is fine. One can’t say everything at once! I think “the undivided” happens to be the source of the “divided world” which we see around us. (Maybe that is a belief about what might indeed be a fact, but as a belief falls into the general category of religion.) I would agree that the child doesn’t at first recognize the artificial, manufactured boundaries that prevail. And that a child’s perception of time is much different than an adult’s. They seem much more “sensitive” to time. Waiting for Christmas to arrive is an eternity.

It reminds me of being a child, and playing in the backyard. When all the neighborhood kids wanted to play a game, it would invariably expand out onto many different properties. We didn’t necessarily care if we played on other people’s backyards. We just wanted a big open space. Now, sometimes the owners of the property understandably had something to say about it, especially if we were trampling their garden while trying to retrieve the baseball! :lol: Now days, of course I’m painfully aware of property lines, boundary lines, and road lines. Because I may wish to merge with the flow of traffic while entering a freeway, but I don’t wish to merge into another vehicle!

You ought to consider the possibility that these boundaries aren't real. Our bodies are made up of water, minerals, gases, etc., but there aren't boundaries separating these things. We are made up of atoms, and molecules, but they are not separated by boundaries. Neither is there a boundary between self and not self. If you want to analyze a real boundary which is fundamental to human identity, you ought to check into the boundary between past and future. When this becomes your fundamental boundary in analysis, then there is no need to create the artificial (and divisive) distinction between self and other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good points for sure, which I have considered and thanks to your ideas, am considering even further. But I would repeat that on some level, separateness has a certain reality. A relative and impermanent and maybe ultimately illusionary nature, but still having a certain superficial factual nature. Like the difference and physical boundary between the United States and Canada. Sure, it is totally artificial, except for lakes and such. But one disregards that boundary at their own risk. But anyone who completely and absolutely denies the distinction between self and other... please contact me! I am accepting monetary donations, and will give you my Paypal address! :yum:

Doubling down, eh? :cool: Interesting move. We’ll see where this goes. I may not have much more to add, but I’ll be watching... and thinking. :victory:

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.

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)

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...

: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...

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.

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...

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:

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:

:smile: Thanks for asking. Well, I think there is a tremendous amount of literature about the subject in a general sense. Like you mentioned with the metacognitive therapy, or some Jungian stuff if one wants to have a Western slant to it. Joseph Cambell, Ken Wilber, and the whole transpersonal thing (as you mentioned) if a mixture of Eastern and Western is sought. And of course the Eastern and non-dual Advaita Vedanta traditions. Whatever it takes to break out of near-solipsism, which I think almost trapped me, and has become more common recently. But, as I think @Jake was implying, thinking is thinking and practice is practice. Both have their place. I like chanting and drumming to fly me above the clouds of thought. Above the clouds, the sun is always shining.

being in the 'zone' — Posty McPostface

I was once in the zone for 4 months straight. Unfortunately, it was of the twilight variety... :confused:

Thanks for your reply. Like we’ve established, I think we have a common zone. The smaller differences and distinctions are interesting and important though. Plus, of course keep doing what works for you. :up:

I agree with this intellectually. Regrettably, that doesn't help much because intellectualism is a weak stew indeed. — Jake

Well, there other foods besides weak stew...

What is more helpful is to experience what you're referring to. — Jake

...like experience for one. Feelings, awareness, perception, dreams, sensation, knowing, and spiritual events are others perhaps.

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. — Jake

From the Tao Te Ching, ch 1: (trans. Stephen Mitchell)

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
—————-
Of course, it’s all been said before much better than you or I could, about the “deeper realities” or whatever. The mystics, singers, painters, and poets seem to pull the spiritual realm down as easily as pulling an apple off a tree. But most suffered for their art and visions; it rarely came without sacrifice. And there is “no one true religion”, nor one greatest poem. It seems impossible, in my estimation anyway.

So yes, thought can only go so far in general. And when dealing with that which is not clearly in the visable realm, thoughts and words don’t do much literal justice to the actualities, whatever they may be. Any more than a doodle of a mountain on a napkin equals either the mountain itself or the experience of being there.

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. Maybe dreamless sleep is like that, or deep meditation. However, no answer anyone gives will be completely free of thought, including yours. Is that such an illusionary or unbalanced thing? To claim that something is the source of all suffering is quite a large assertion, and the burden of proof is on them. How is one supposed to prove (or even communicate) anything without committing the wrong act of thinking itself? Thought can only take one so far. Then carefully go that far, and travel the rest of the journey in another way.

Very understandable, not very logical. — Jake

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.

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.

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.

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

BLASPHEMOUS! :scream: Turn in your membership card!





:rofl: :razz: :snicker:

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.

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.

My argument is that human suffering arises from the nature of thought, from the way in which it operates. The evidence for this is that everybody suffers, and the differences between us are just a matter of degree. If suffering arose from bad thought content then surely by now we would have discovered which thought content prevents suffering and everyone would adopt those ideas to escape the suffering. So this theory is an analysis, agreed.

To put it bluntly, what most of us suffer from is spending too much time thinking about ourselves. Philosophers like us are perhaps particularly susceptible given our passion for thinking in general. Psychology would have us analyze all these ideas we have about ourselves. That sounds logical, and we tend to like the idea, because it involves spending even more time thinking about ourselves. Psychology might be compared to trying to cure oneself of alcoholism with a case of scotch.

I'm not proposing any of the above as "one true way" which everyone should follow. I'm for whatever works for an individual, even if what works for them violates all my wonderful theories. :smile:

What I'm trying to do is offer an alternative way of looking at suffering for those for whom psychological analysis isn't working. I'm attempting to strip away all the endless sophisticated complications of analysis (see this thread!) and reduce the issue to a simple mechanical problem which can be immediately acted on with simple mechanical techniques.

REALITY CHECK: One benefit of this approach is that it helps us pretty quickly discover how serious we are about reducing our suffering. — Jake

Thanks for your message and detailed response. Much appreciated. Because who likes to be ignored? :smile:
I think that there is probably much overlap in what we are both saying, with maybe varying degrees of emphasis. I agree that there are limits to the power of thinking, and limits to how much is needed or even beneficial at any given time. It can be like spinning one’s wheels trying to get out of a mud pile, sinking deeper. Good points about the difference between observation and data-processing types of mental activity. Merely observing, and really paying attention, can be a life-changing practice. Mindfulness definitely helps. :up:

For what it is worth... Still alienated here, lotsa feelings and ideas, but still alienated. It’s probably a fool’s game looking for heroes anywhere. But looking for them in politics is like a high-stakes fool’s game. In my humble opinion...

Only 19 votes in at this point, so it’s really a small sample size. But about 85% saying that they are completely or mostly politically alienated gives some pause. And we are the intellectual elite! :rofl:

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

Good, then we agree!

As regards disidentification, my guess is that nothing beyond considered thought will achieve anything useful. Disidentification seems to be a vague and (dare I mention the word? :chin: :wink:) subjective thing. Formal reasoning seems too, well, formal. IMO, of course. :up: — Pattern-chaser

Well, just about anything I talk about is a vague and subjective thing... :grin: But seriously, this may be an instance of old wine in new bottles. By which I mean that the term (disidentification) may be relatively new, but in some ways the concept is at least as old as the Indian Vedic culture that eventually gave rise to the Buddha, who sagely suggested not taking the matter to the point of physical collapse. But escaping the “small self” (or attempting to, whether by one method or another) is a perennial quest for seekers the world over.

You think science is an appropriate tool to investigate disidentification? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Looking at the context of the statement will probably clarify what I was getting at. But to be more specific... not “Science” itself in lab coats and oscilloscopes. But rather a scientific and analytical approach of noting causes and effects and looking for patterns. We do this all the time anyway, maybe somewhat unconsciously. In a crucial situation, critical thinking is... well... critical. :nerd:

1) ... let's have an exercise plan that we are loyal to.

2) If our diet can be improved, let's improve it.

3) Yoga is a secret weapon that has served many people very well. Definitely worth investing in that.

4) Massage is a miracle method! Don't miss out! — Jake

All good suggestions. Anything that keeps the blood flowing and the chi energy moving is good, especially when one might be in a state of reduced physical activity due to feelings of depression.

Personally, I have found that a low carbohydrate diet steadies the body, preventing ups and downs in blood sugar and insulin, which might be causing a roller coaster effect in other neuro-chemicals. There is a dietary paradox which I’m still trying to wrap my head around, but I believe it to be true. Eating a high fat diet (more specifically a low-carb/high fat-fiber-protein diet) forces the body to go into fat-burning mode to produce energy. It has been theorized by proponents of the so-called Paleo diet that this is really the body’s preferred way of generating energy. With the evolutionarily-recent invention of mass agricultural of grains, humans potentially had more carbohydrates than our bodies had evolved to process.

Fat For Fuel by Joseph Mercola is an excellent indepth study of the issue.

Again, like with situps, no amount of analysis is going to solve the problem. Analysis tends to make it worse as it just feeds the thinking machine, poring more fuel on the fire. — Jake

You have made the point that analysis is doing more harm than good. However, I must in general disagree with that assessment. If one was not analyzing the situation, one would not be almost scientifically sizing up the situation, and looking for answers. It’s like trying to untangle a knotted clump of power cords and wires by simply pulling strongly on them. Occasionally, if there are only a few wires and they aren’t too tangled this might work. But for a big ball of cables (that seems to be mating and reproducing :lol:) a slow process of careful and nimble unwinding works better.

I agree with changing the thinking process. That is what the idea of dis-identification, and also this thread is about. But that requires thought and analysis. As the quote above from the Chan/Zen master Wu Hsin hints, trying to stop thought is going against the very nature of mind. Again, disidentification is the goal. However, I completely agree that activities where one can “lose oneself” and “get into the zone/flow” are helpful to all, especially one dealings with depression.

Another thing that might help is the more general realisation that thoughts and identification are allways only mere abstractions. And abstractions are necessarily crude simplifications of what's really going on, and never the whole story... sort of a deflationary approach to though in general, so you don't take it so seriously anymore, either way. That's why they sometimes call it the chattering monkey in eastern philosophy, to reduce the importance it is typically given. — ChatteringMonkey

Well said and I would agree. If you left out one little thing, it might be this: :monkey: (darn... no “speak no evil” emoji!)

I'm not sure you can turn down the volume on 'depression', it's a lingering feeling that doesn't just go away. It's a persistent and deep mood so to speak. — Posty McPostface

Sorry, i was mixing metaphors and quotes. Always a tricky thing. What I was trying to say was something like turning the volume down on self-identity. Not completely off, because that might be like some strange drug trip where one doesn’t know where they end and the floors and rest of the world begins. Difficult to even make a cup of coffee like that. :yum:

True, one would want to be prudent and logical while attempting to disindentify. Like someone said above, turning down the volume can help. I do my best not to believe every thought that occurs to me simply because it’s “MINE”. The thought may or may not be true, helpful, intelligent, etc. This feels freeing and a relief rather than limiting. It feels like being on the long road back from being wrapped up in myself. Another step every day. It is nice to not be the center of the universe. That is too much pressure. As the Buddhists say, you are not your body-mind. Or (if I may add) not exclusively.

Also, any phrase that begins “I am...” is extremely powerful, as you probably know. And as you have read in psychology books, wording things without saying “I am..” can help. If I am forced to identify with anything, I’d say that I am someone, I am no-thing, I am part of everything. All other identities are founded on that.

Also, this post by @Jake from another thread seems to be relevant to the concept of disidentification here.

Interesting responses from all on a very worthwhile (imho) topic.

As Posty above referred to Roberto Assagioli, a psychologist who helped pioneer transpersonal psychology, I think a general nutshell description of the topic might shed some light on a possible meaning of “disidentification”. From Wikipedia:

Transpersonal psychology is a sub-field or "school" of psychology that integrates the spiritual and transcendent aspects of the human experience with the framework of modern psychology. It is also possible to define it as a "spiritual psychology". The transpersonal is defined as "experiences in which the sense of identity or self extends beyond (trans) the individual or personal to encompass wider aspects of humankind, life, psyche or cosmos".[1] It has also been defined as "development beyond conventional, personal or individual levels".

Issues considered in transpersonal psychology include spiritual self-development, self beyond the ego, peak experiences, mystical experiences, systemic trance, spiritual crises, spiritual evolution, religious conversion, altered states of consciousness, spiritual practices, and other sublime and/or unusually expanded experiences of living. The discipline attempts to describe and integrate spiritual experience within modern psychological theory and to formulate new theory to encompass such experience.

Transpersonal psychology has made several contributions to the academic field, and the studies of human development, consciousness and spirituality. Transpersonal psychology has also made contributions to the fields of psychotherapy[5] and psychiatry.

Lajoie and Shapiro[8] reviewed forty definitions of transpersonal psychology that had appeared in academic literature over the period from 1968 to 1991. They found that five key themes in particular featured prominently in these definitions: states of consciousness; higher or ultimate potential; beyond the ego or personal self; transcendence; and the spiritual. Based upon this study the authors proposed the following definition of transpersonal psychology: Transpersonal Psychology is concerned with the study of humanity's highest potential, and with the recognition, understanding, and realization of unitive, spiritual, and transcendent states of consciousness.

In a review of previous definitions Walsh and Vaughan[1] suggested that transpersonal psychology is an area of psychology that focuses on the study of transpersonal experiences and related phenomena. These phenomena include the causes, effects and correlates of transpersonal experiences and development, as well as the disciplines and practices inspired by them. They have also criticised many definitions of transpersonal psychology for carrying implicit assumptions, or presuppositions, that may not necessarily define the field as a whole...


Of course there are different schools of thought, some with major differences, but most participants would probably agree on these basics. I think of the general urge not to completely identify with oneself and one’s thoughts as a very healthy skepticism, and an equally helpful movement away from solipsism.

Ah, now I see. So, your point was to talk about issues (existential crisis, malaise, loss of loved one) in isolation or excluding pigeonholing label (depression, OCD, etc.), correct? — Posty McPostface

Good question. I would say yes and maybe not exactly. “Yes” meaning giving the existential aspects some thought and significance (which all of us philosophy-lovers already here do, I think). And “not exactly” meaning that maybe there is a fuzzy area that is both existential and clinical or medical. Or psychological, ethical/intential, and physical all rolled together in one big ball.

In case anyone is wondering where the term "disidentification" was founded or propounded, then there's a Wiki on a movement started by Roberto Assagioli, called Psychosynthesis where disidentification is promoted to create a more holistic human being instead of identity... stuff. — Posty McPostface

This (in a very general way ) is the type of stuff I was getting at with the Self/Other awareness and identification ideas. Having some kind of way of approaching the tidal wave of life. Which can make a person feel like they are drowning, and might actually be fatal in many cases.

In general, it seems to be roughly three things:

It’s life... the triumphs and struggles of being human.

It is individual and particular... the unique situations one finds themself in, and the strategies used to cope with them.

It’s our civilization... as I noted above, there is much toxicity a person has to deal with in twenty-first century culture.

[...] 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.
— 0 thru 9

Care to elaborate on this process? How does it come about that from connectedness people's sphere of interest shrinks to a smaller size to only (often) only encompass one's small dominion of sorts — Posty McPostface

I think this is where the mythic realm of art really can shine when at its best. The hero’s journey which we all are on, whether we accept it or not. Movies, novels, songs, paintings, poetry, etc. I have listed a few that have given some form to feelings that moved me in this thread.

Another work that inspires is Pink Floyd’s The Wall (movie and album). A dramatized survey of a life from childhood to adulthood, struggling not to be consumed by insanity. Many other examples. Please feel free to add some that you find enlightening or moving! Thanks again for your replies. :smile:

I think that on one hand terms like “depression” or “OCD” are relevant and specific, and possibly even helpful. But as an existential feeling... in some ways at least... depression, anxiety, OCD, and other feelings and behaviors are kind of part of the same spectrum of symptoms.
— 0 thru 9

I don't quite see what your getting at here, sorry if I'm being a dunce; but, care to elaborate? — Posty McPostface

No problem. Thanks for your reply. I was being a little imprecise. And to be clear, I wasn’t referring to your situation specifically. I’m no expert, but was treated for depression long ago. I think it’s better now, but others may perhaps disagree. In any event, I’m not currently seeing a professional therapist. But I have some general thoughts on it...

I just meant to differentiate between a specific medical situation/condition and a general existential crisis or malaise which many people seem to go through at some point in their life at least. In some, maybe the more acutely aware, this crisis could seem to last almost their entire adult life. And perhaps some successfully learn to deal with it, using it as an opportunity to understand life, reality, humanity, etc.