But cartography isn't constrained to any particular number of dimensional degrees at all — StreetlightX

No, to a three dimensional observation, the map can only present itself as an image in two dimensions. Much like how actors in real life look different than on screen.

I'm reminded of saying vs showing distinctions.

The context please.

decisions of salience — Baden

What are those?

This would all wonderfully be true if philosophy only existed in 3 dimensions. Cartography doesn't account for the fourth dimension that philosophy exists in.

But he showed, by reason, in a self justifying manner that bias can be checked in place by reason. Meaning empirically that bias can be uneducated from a rational mind.

Thoughts?

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?

See above... — creativesoul

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

Certainly animals mourn. I do not see the relevance to death being a taboo subject to some people. — creativesoul

Well, animals mourn and are not fearful of death. It's just a natural thing for them that they witness every day. Animals can become depressed or sad or anxious; but, never fearful of death. Is it our self-awareness that comes into play that makes us fear death?

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?

It's only taboo to those who've not come to acceptable terms with it. Many are taught to fear it. That teaching can run deep. Others are taught that it can be an honorable thing, in specific instances, including suicide in ancient Japanese cultures. This is honorable as a result of not allowing oneself to be captured or killed by the enemy. Hence, the kamikaze pilots and the samurai falling onto his own sword. — creativesoul

I don't feel as though we are taught to fear it. Think about elephants or chimpanzees that mourn the dead. They don't show fear towards the dead, just a sense of loss.

When you think about it, there's not much to talk about, is there? — Ciceronianus the White

Indeed, yet we are here talking about 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? — creativesoul

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

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."

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



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

:up:

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

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

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.

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

Yes, and yes.

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

Yes. This is the whole goal

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

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

Have you heard of "Death Cafe"? — Bitter Crank

I haven't. Thanks for bringing that up. I doubt I'll attend any meetings; but, it's cool that they have those.

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

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

So, whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent?

But, this just reinforces the social stigma of talking about death.

I started a thread about identifying too closely with depression. I find it helpful to dissociate myself from that identity from time to time when things go my way. You can give it a try too if that helps set the stage for reorganizing your self esteem/perception.

But it isn't only depression is it?

Sounds a fair deal of anxiety and social anxiety lumped in there too.

Is depression also apart of your identity about yourself? Speaking as a fellow depressive, although not clinically. It sounds like you have to restablish a new identity...

Edit: The issue is that depression often keeps on nagging even if you move on with a new identity of sorts about yourself

Because we fear death, and because there's nothing you can do about it. — Moliere

Would that make us irrational then, to fear death? If nothing can be done about it's inevitability then isn't the proper attitude to calmy accept it?

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

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

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

Never read him. Could be interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Understand detachment theory. — Jake

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both. :blush:

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

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

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

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

Here's the thread I started on the issue.

I don't think you can come to a resolution about oneself, but rather can remain in a state of flux constantly reevaluating. — Andrew4Handel

So, there is no hope of remission for the depressive or anxious type?

Is Russell suggesting reason will diminish feelings of anxiety and hate? It seems to me that anxiety could be an appropriate response to an evaluation likewise other negative emotions such as resentment and anger. — Andrew4Handel

I'm not sure myself. I am pondering on the quote as we go by. I think, that he means to say that reason and emotions are not two separate entities of the mind. It sounds by this quote that he is advocating a Humean approach to solving an inner conflict, whatever that is.

And it seems that emotions rather than reason will resolve prejudice where you may have prejudicial views but then the emotions guide you away, such as a feeling of compassion. — Andrew4Handel

Well, emotions can only go so far without the use of reason. I suppose that Russell is advocating the judicial use of reason where emotions arise in a reflexive sense.

So, what are your general thoughts about all this? I can't get my mind off of it. I feel trapped in my obsession in a somewhat good way. I want to figure out or tame this disidentification beast.

I was once in the zone for 4 months straight. Unfortunately, it was of the twilight variety... :confused: — 0 thru 9

Sorry to hear. Must have been quite a trip. :razz:

I've never before heard a musician say "the music plays itself". — Metaphysician Undercover

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

What would Wittgenstein say about this method?

I think exploring the unconscious might be a route to understanding emotional responses including prejudices and biases. I am not sure what reason would tell us about our values other than leading us to value nihilism. — Andrew4Handel

You could invert this, and assert that the above thinking is trying to address such an issue as arriving at nihilism and staying steadfast. I see nothing wrong with the methodology, just interested in any attempts at implementing it. This isn't only about psychologizing; but, analysis of the method by which to interpret 'findings' about one's self.

What do other posters think about all this talk? Interested in any input.

So, I'm reading about metacognitive therapy, which sounds somewhat similar to what we are talking about.

http://mct-institute.co.uk/metacognitive-therapy

The following is interesting from that link:

One of the features of psychological disorders such as anxiety or depression is that thinking becomes difficult to control and biased in particular ways that lead to a worsening and maintenance of emotional suffering. Many patients report that they feel that they have lost control over their thoughts and behaviours. Another important feature is that the persons thinking and attention becomes fixed in patterns of brooding and dwelling on the self and threatening information. Metacognitive therapy recognises this change in thinking patterns and believes it is very important. It gives it a name: the Cognitive-Attentional Syndrome (CAS).

This pattern consists of worry, rumination, fixation of attention on threat, and coping behaviours that the person believes are helpful but many of which backfire and keep emotional problems going. The CAS is controlled by metacognitions and it is necessary to remove the CAS by helping patients develop new ways of controlling their attention, new ways of relating to negative thoughts and beliefs, and by modifying metacognitive beliefs that give rise to unhelpful thinking patterns. This approach has been developed into specific ways of understanding and treating disorders such as generalised anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress, obsessive-compulsive disorder, social anxiety, depression, and health-anxiety.

So, again the issue seems to be about control. From the above, control is facilitated by directing or managing thoughts by isolating attention. By isolating attention, I wonder though, what is then the focus of the subject directed at? What thoughts are being entertained instead of the negative ones through attentive control? From what I read, detached mindfulness is one of the tools used to direct attention to another more useful outlet. But, isn't that just disidentification, also in some form?