Here's another try. Let's imagine you asked, "how can I be a great guitar player?" The answer would be that you not worry about being great just yet, and spend a great deal of time mastering very basic aspects of the guitar. — Jake

I feel as though, all this 'management of thoughts' requires a higher awareness or meta-thought/meta-narrative which acts on the lower base thought process. Is that something you are advocating?

I'm quite intrigued by the idea of governing basic thoughts with an meta-thought or narrative if this is at all possible.

Eventually, if one is able to disidentify with enough thoughts, then a spiritual element remains. The resolution of thought.

Getting there would be quite a challenge. But, I think I laid out the bare bones of how one can get there.

So, I'll posit with my understanding of how to apply or how the process of disidentification takes place.

We have a thought about something, and that thought bothers us for some reason.

There are two ways to deal with this thought.

One is to replace it with another more pleasurable thought, that distracts us from the thought that causes some dysphoria. This can work and people often resort to it; but, the unpleasurable thought remains still.

The other method borrows from the first method but, is more 'complete' in that it resolves the thought into another more powerful thought, hence no distraction or returning nagging or intrusive thoughts.

One has to have a superseding thought of pure awareness or just the observing mind. When one has a negative thought, they picture the thought of pure awareness and imposes that thought on the dysphoric thought. I guess you can call this mindfulness without the behavioral component.

Thoughts? :blush:

But how? How do you disidentification yourself from thought? I don't think it's possible to disidentify with feelings,.but with thought it may be possible.

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. — unenlightened

Well, first comes empathy and then the principle of charity ensues. Don't you think? Is empathy a great deal for depressives?

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. — unenlightened

I'm not getting it too. Sounds otherworldly, perhaps to my mind at least. It does have a thing to it though.

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. — unenlightened

And, what is that you think is an ideal worth striving towards? It's an ideal after all.

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... — unenlightened

So, you're trying to roll a stone without gathering moss on it?

I'm afraid that is impossible.

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? — unenlightened

It's an identity that I have formed of myself. What can I do about it? It's another one of those self-fulfilling wishes/ prophecies, that I don't wish/prophesize upon anyone else.

Question: how does neuroscience show that we don't have any free will? — ssu

I'm not apt enough to answer. Perhaps, it is true or not. But, that's irrelevant and a dangerous belief if you read the op-ed.

It's hard to tell which way it's going. Maybe it'll get worse because of that technology. Or maybe we'll wise up and learn to how to handle this new technology by imposing some limitations on it. — ChatteringMonkey

I tend to agree; but, the inherent nature of the internet is that it wants to be free. China is perhaps an exception; but, in liberal countries like the US or EU, freedom of information is enshrined on the internet itself. For example, look at the lashback the government is facing in regards to Net Neutrality here in the US. California just passed the most comprehensive form of Net Neutrality, in that content cannot be prioritized or slowed down. Hence, this is a problem (the fact that information can be manipulated or tailored to influence opinion) that all countries with liberal laws can and will face.

Thought can only take one so far. Then carefully go that far, and travel the rest of the journey in another way. — 0 thru 9

I agree, with the sentiment insofar as thought can entertain itself. I'm reminded of Schopenhauer's will, in that it cannot will itself; but, can be distracted by art or the aesthetics. Disidentification though can serve as some outlet to the pangs of suffering induced by too much thought.

The Buddhists posited that the source of all suffering is desire. Just throwing that out here.

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.

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?

@Jake, I thought identification with thought was the issue here. I don't see how thought itself is the issue. I can be happy or sad or melodramatic, but the thought remains. Identification with it, however, is the issue.

Substitute disidentification with detachment if you wish.

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. — unenlightened

Well, yes. Much like the placebo effect, that one believes it is helping. But, to amend my post. I do think you can change your way of being or experience life differently, and still be a stoic.

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: — 0 thru 9

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.

As @unenlightened posited, there's an issue of being, at the core of the issue here. How does one separate the feeling of depression from being depressed? I don't think there's a solution here provided by disidentification unless we can dissociate from our feelings. Is that possible?

The term detachment seems like a good plan here. — Jake

Do you think you can become detached from your feelings?

I would propose that a "schism in the mind" is pretty much the definition of the human condition. Everybody experiences a division between the thinker and the thought. It is that perceived division which allows us to argue with ourselves, ie. be unhappy. That perceived division is generated by thought itself, thus it's not possible to overcome it with any collection of thoughts, however clever or insightful etc they may be. — Jake

Interesting. I suppose that the schism in the mind is a source of unhappiness. When we feel happy, we ought to not feel anything else. The source of frustration arises when we don't feel happy when we feel happy, so talking about mixed feelings. How does one counter that? By disidentification from our feelings? I don't think so.

The reason why I don't think disidentification can work on feelings is due to not being able to disassociate from how we feel. It might be that someone is able to dissociate from their feelings; but, what would such a person be instead of their feelings? A strange entity.

So the language of being and having makes a division in what is more a continuum from inner to outer. — unenlightened

One of the points of disidentification, if I'm reading it correctly, is the disillusionment of these boundaries. We want to not identify with what is imposed or self-imposed on us. But, for endogenous complications like depression, I'm not sure if that can be accomplished.

So it is a real question, how essential to your being is depression? — unenlightened

It is non-essential; but, I have learned to cope with it. Hence, what does that imply? A failure of disidentification?

But there must also be people who desperately want to lose something of themselves, tics, depression, anger, gender, weight, ego ... is this dis-identification? — unenlightened

I wonder, maybe disidentification is a defense mechanism that one either subdue or is subdued by if gone awry.

And then, as creativesoul suggests, there is a question of whether one can be content with one's misery - a self-satisfied depressive. — unenlightened

Most certainly. That's my depression of sorts. I've learned to live with it, like a monster in a lake, that we just never visit; but, all know it's there.

It might be a pose. It might be that no one can be content with their own being short of enlightenment. — unenlightened

Well, that's just irrational.

There's a film that addresses this question in relation to manic depression, but I forget the name. — unenlightened

If you recall, let me know. It sounds interesting.

So, you've never had mixed feelings @creativesoul?

What do you mean?

Regarding identification and getting stuck in a particular definition of oneself, I think de-identification is hard to do by itself. The mind tends to identification. However there is an alternative. If you want to get out of an identity, identify with something else that is not consistent with the identity that you want to escape. To do that just pay lots and lots of attention to the new identity. Overwrite your hard drive rather than erase it, at least as a first step. What do you think? — bert1

Hmm, what do I think? I think it's true that disidentification is a hard sell. As you said it, identification is hardwired to some extent. Though, conversely, I think deidentification happens on a defense mechanism level. So, this could all be a defense mechanism at play. This is manifest in terms such as "I have... depression-or what have you". "I have", is defined as something not part of myself. It's troublesome more because we tend to identify with our thoughts on a primal level. I am not my thoughts, is what the depressive ought to remind themselves on a habitual level.

So, I think disidentification can be a useful tool; but, where we have endogenous substrates afflicting us, such as depression or anxiety, it can be too much to ask for to create some schism in the mind of what is or is not us. "I have depression vs I am depressed." Is there really any difference at all?

Furthermore, I feel as though "disidentification" is a Westernized term for "detachment" in the Eastern tradition. So, one might find it of better use to try and apply that term instead of "disidentification"?

I think therefore I am?

Not so much with disidentification...

We don't need guru books. We don't need sophisticated sublime understandings. We just need simple mechanical methods for managing our minds. — Jake

You repeat this like a mantra. But, the issue is that the mind is still overactive, or depressed, or some such issue, then no amount of mechanical activity will suffice to quell the mind. Hence detachment or disidentification...

But thoughts do no come from the I, or removing identification with thought would not remove thought alltogether, I don't understand that jump you (or he) make there.

And yes keep us posted about the book. — ChatteringMonkey

I suppose the difference lay in the sense between "disidentification" and "not identifying with a thought" in the quote, which could also mean or come down to "detachment".

We know what it means to be willing and unwilling, but we also know that to say "I am not unwilling" is nowhere near the same thing as saying "I am willing. — StreetlightX

Why do they mean different things if they denote the same thing, then, if I may ask? Is this a prototypical example of something possessing a sense?

So to finally answer your question :-), I guess purely logically or mathematically, the opposite of the opposite is sameness (or identity). — ChatteringMonkey

Yes; but, if all is one, then there's no identity apart from the whole. Sounds about right?

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. — unenlightened

So, we've been describing things as if they exist in Venn diagram substrates. Is this the point here? That we talk about things as if they were black and white, all the time. It's just such a subconscious process that nobody really takes notice?

He says the cessation of thought is not possible, but the cessation of identification with it is. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes,

To me this indicates that the content of thought is still there, there's no such thing as pure mindlessness if you believe the quote. — ChatteringMonkey

No, I don't think so. The ultimate end of cessation with identification with thought is that it concludes that pure awareness is left. This is because If everyone has an I, then the ultimate end according to Wu Hsin is the cessation of identification with the "I". His books are on the non-duality of the being. (The Lost Writings of Wu Hsin: Pointers to Non-Duality) (For the matter I just bought the book, so I will post in due time if anything about this interpretation changes).

The similarity in our interpretation is simply the opposite of duality, which is the opposite of the opposite, which is sameness.

I think the situation is more complicated than the quote from Hsin you shared above (I'm not aware of his work beyond that quote). — Jake

No, it's actually very simple. One may use the word 'detaches' instead of 'disidentification' is so one chooses. He talks about detachment from the content of thought (pure mindlessness or mindfulness). What's left is pure awareness. The desired state of mind of Buddhists, Zen Masters, Tao).

I find 'disidentification' as too speculative a definition to play around with and I jump back to Buddhism terminology.

I take great comfort from the fact that I am depressed.. if I was not depressed I would probably be stupid. — Marcus de Brun

Nicely put.

So, essentially...

I have depression, and not, I am depressed.

The short and simple answer to this threads musings.

Therefore I do not agree with dis-identity. one must identify thoroughly with ones depression, meet it head on, understand it and eventually overcome it.. by accepting the aspects of self that are the subject of depressive feelings. — Marcus de Brun

Insofar as much as I agree with you, and think depression must be accepted first, I find that many depressives don't treat their depression as such. It's constantly an anti-depressive attitude. Anti this anti that. Perhaps, some people can fake it till they make it; but, depression has to be accepted to be overcome.

Now, I don't know how to overcome depression, that's still a mystery to my mind. At the start of this thread, I was filled with hope and joy that depression can be dis-identified and thus in some sense negated; but, that doesn't seem like something one can realistically do in totality. The symptoms will always be there if the label isn't.

What's left is to simply not identify with the disorder and somehow live with the symptoms, though, I don't know how far that will lead you.

You seem to like Nietzsche a lot, which is understandable. Are you depressed too?

Thank you for the compliment for the matter. I have suffered quite a great deal; but, I don't think my depression is that bad. I don't think about suicide daily, or even on a recurring basis as of late. If I did, then that would be depression manifest. Yay.

Yes, let's start a therapy thread?

Wow! Eastern philosophy, or even being associated with it, is a negative thing? :fear:

P.S. I found this short article, which seems to give a reasonable impression of what disidentification is, and why we should do it. It definitely has a flavour of Eastern philosophy. :up: :smile: — Pattern-chaser

No, not at all. It's not a negative thing. I just find living as a Buddhist or with Eastern thought in mind to be exceedingly difficult in Western society.

Here's what I found in that link helpful and bears uncanny semblance to my discussion on the topic with @unenlightened

We can practice disidentification by changing our sense of self from being to having; that is, to change from “I am” to “I have.” When “I am” something, it is forever and it is the totality of me; when “I have” something, it is temporal and limited. “I have” also has a “not me” quality to it which helps me see that my deepest sense of self transcends the particulars of the moment. For example: “I am depressed” versus “I have a depression,” “I think…” versus “I have a thought…” Thoughts, feelings, reactions, judgments are all transient experiences of our being. Disidentification helps us see them as passing and relative so they don’t acquire the profound importance that they have when we are totally immersed in them. We learn that they are not “Me,” but only a small part of “Me.” We learn that all experiences pass, no matter how painful or how wonderful. We learn that momentary feelings, opinions, thoughts, reactions are for this moment and no more. In this way we learn to see how we think, what we feel, and how we react. With time we discover that everything is transient, that everything passes.

We can practice disidentification by remembering that we are not just the thought or feeling that we are experiencing at the moment. Thus, I can repeat to myself: “I am not my thoughts,” “I am not my feelings,” Ï am not my opinions,” “I am not my memories,” “I am not my reactions,” and so forth, depending on what is gripping my consciousness at the moment. Again, the tactic here is to create some distance in order to acquire more objectivity and to center myself in what transcends the experience of the moment.

In this way, disidentification leads to an expansion of consciousness because, by separating myself from what is transient—thoughts, feelings, reactions—I can be centered in what is not bound by time and space. There is an aspect of my consciousness that does not change—it only “Is.” That “Isness,” that pure consciousness, is my capacity to observe myself. If I can remain centered in the transcendent, I open myself to life with a new awareness. I can then integrate the transcendent and the contingent at each moment, because both dimensions exist always.

Thus, disidentification helps us to know ourselves as we truly are, and to remain connected to the transcendent dimension of consciousness, expanding our sense of self. — Seeds of Unfolding, No. 3, 1985

How are you on Maslow's pyramid of needs? Just to wonder what the cause may be. — All sight

All the basic needs are taken care of.

The topic though... what's better, misery or agony? I'd suggest that you construct an image of what the ideal, or at least, better you would look like, and then feel bad for not doing it, until you do it, and then feel great! — All sight

Well, it's more about identifying with depression in general. I am my symptoms but my symptoms aren't me. That sort of thing. I wouldn't say, I'm suffering. The depression is under control, so no worries there. It's just a basic feeling of unease about being depressed rather. Sometimes up sometimes down.

I doubt such a plan will cure depression. But as we learn how to carve out a temporary space free of depression, we'll probably become less afraid of depression, and thus stop identifying with it so much. You know, weaken the bonds of that feedback loop. — Jake

Yes, depression doesn't go away like that. It takes some dedication to make it want to go away. But, disidentification is a poor means of doing so, I suppose.

Dis-identity can never be accomplished in any real form, other than schizophrenia (which may be an unfortunate consequence of the unfortunate attempt) — Marcus de Brun

Quite interested in what do you mean by schizophrenia here?

Dis-identity is therefore ultimately pathological and is merely a euphemism for denial that is deemed essential by the self for the sake of the self, however all that is being facilitated is self delusion and unhappiness and perhaps ultimately self destructive pathology . — Marcus de Brun

If disidentification could be applied to dysphoric states of being, such as depression, then what's wrong with that?

Self knowing is perhaps the very purpose to human existence... dis-identity is its antithesis. — Marcus de Brun

But, if one wants to know who they truly are, then living by labels, stereotypes, and other means of identification, is quite contrary to that goal? Hence, disidentification?

'labels' come from 'the other' They should not be avoided, they should be smashed into little pieces of dust and blown into the ether. If the self labels the self then the self has become the enemy of the self. Fuck labels. — Marcus de Brun

Oh, so we're in agreement, cool.