I don't understand your solution. Is it just replacing thought with activity?

All this running. I can't help but feel as though this is all done out of some sense of urgency or impending doom. So much anxiety and struggles. It shouldn't be this hard or is that life for you?

Fear, distractions, entertainment, even goals all identify with something we are either pursuing or aversive from.

When does it stop?

More power to you. Minds are changing on the issue, slowly but surely.

It seems to me that to disidentify, there must first be identification. And it would seem that identification must be different from being. — tim wood

Yes, it is different from being. Identification in some sense supersedes being. In that instant of identification is an idea(l) formed and conceptualized. I am not happy because I am depressed. I am such and such because I am depressed, yet again. Just to berate the depressed template.

Then, as looking at the waves is different from being in the waves, the interest has to be defined. Do you want to do it or do you want to watch/observe/study it? — tim wood

I guess you can extend that analogy and say that one is perpetually missing out the whole of something or the parts of that thing in mind. The mind is limited after all. But, this is where disidentification comes into play, I think. Instead of identifying a part or whole, everything is appreciated in a grasp of pure awareness.

In any case, progress is usually measured from a starting point, in this case, who you are now. For serious inquiry into this topic, it's hard to beat a program of meditation. It's not quick but nothing along these lines is - no magic pill. — tim wood

I agree. I think, that meditation detaches our thoughts from content and form is made apparent. It is the form of thought that gives rise to awareness. Pure and simple, it is awareness of the fact that we are trying to impose content upon the thought that gives rise to identification.

Meditation for the groundwork for the interior change. For the exterior, to change that you have to know, again, what you're changing (knowing why helps too). So you keep a journal, and those behaviours - all of them - that you want to change as being part of your program of disidentification, you change them. — tim wood

And, yet try not to think about the white polar bear. It isn't so easy, as you've noted identification comes first and then disidentification can ensue.

How long does it take? In as much as it's a process of incremental change over time, no one should suppose it a quick process to complete. And there's a somewhat subtle language trap: the process is thought as a discrete single event. The trick is to understand that the change is continuous. — tim wood

What do you mean? I'm wondering about the idea of this process. Care to expand?

Suppose you want to be an ice skater. You imagine the finished product, you with Olympic gold, or you with the Stanley Cup. In terms of that final image, you may feel you've got nowhere. But the fact is you practice; in a short time you will be doing things you never imagined or understood you could be doing. And that will continue. After six months you will think you know how to skate. After seven months you will realize that you didn't actually know at six months, but now at seven months you do. And so it goes. After a while you will recognize a progress of steps, at each step of which your understanding and knowledge will be different than it was before, although built on what came before.

This is hard to get if you haven't been through it. Something as simple as running: everyone thinks they know what running is. But I, after 50 years of it, can assure you that no one knows who doesn't do it, and the more you do it, the more you know about it.

in short, I suppose that if you want to get away from something, then start to get away from it, and try to get further every day. Similarly if you want to get closer to something. Even shorter: it's a matter of applied and deliberate doing. I think zen provides the briefest locution, though it's a brevity that calls for explication; Practice! — tim wood

Surely depression is not overcome through this same process or method? Otherwise, we might as well agree with the jerk that tells the depressed individual to just cheer up.

For many,
The first step on
A spiritual journey is to
Become lost.
The final step is
Losing one’s self. — Wu Hisn

I am vaguely aware that what you're referencing is no joke at all. Vaguely because I've had just a slight taste, and that was an education. Platitudes aren't useful - and there are so many varieties of suicide, even those that keep you alive for years. — tim wood

Hmm, I didn't mean to imply any of the sentiments you picked up. I wouldn't classify myself as a clinical depressive.

Anyway, this isn't a cry out for help. I just was interested in the concept of disidentification and used my depression as a template, if you care to elaborate on that?

Somewhat relevant picture:

Does anyone know any good Western books on 'disidentification'? I know it smells of Eastern philosophy; and meditation... But, whatever works, I guess.

Very leading edge studies prove your assertion to be true. Nicely stated. :up: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yeah, it's certainly a healthier habit than alcoholism, say.

Since it's legal where I reside, I might as well ask, how are laws coming along for legalization in AZ?

Personally, if I could I would grow it indoors and reap the benefits of 1:1 THC to CBD. I've heard the CBD potentiates the positive effects on cancer prevention by something like 10-fold.

Well, just going off on a rant. I feel like anyone with depression identifies with their symptoms to some degree, which is reinforced by the psychiatrist that you visit. The idea being that people are pigeonholed into diagnosis by a psychiatrist and then identify with them based on symptomology.

I've struggled with anhedonia and feelings of worthlessness and hence take my medication. But, when does stopping the medication seems like a good idea? Once on it, it seems like a package deal. Here I am medication X serving as something that negates the depression. As long as you take me, the depression is fine. The patient wonders when has the depression remitted, but that's as long as the medication is administered.

Keep in mind that we're talking about clinical depression and not plain run on the mill depression you get from a life event or setback.

Haha, good luck. Hope it works out for the best if you come around to it.

Put it on your bucket list of things to do before you die. I don't know, but I think of it as a healthy habit (cancer prevention). Don't smoke it for that goal though. Wish it was as popular as beer or alcohol, many lives would be saved if it we're a substitute good in that regards.

Can't smoke that stuff. Makes me (more) paranoid than I already am. Heh.

I think you may be right about CBT and antidepressants, that it's more of a 'jumpstart' to get you going then an actual cure.

About the identification thing, I need to think some more. And I need some sleep, it's way past midnight here. — ChatteringMonkey

Have a good night. Thanks for posting.

Much like how Whitehead said that the European philosophical tradition is simply footnotes to Plato, so too does the endless neuroticism and rationalizations come forth from depression.

If you separate depression from the thoughts that arise from it, would it be so bad? I wish there was an answer, or is there? But, the process of separating something from another thing is too tantamount to 'identification'. How do you surmount this dilemma?

To me these approaches seem to indicate that you disentangle from these identifications and thoughts by habituating yourself into new ways of thinking that gradually replace the old. Thoughts are seen as habits, so sustained repetition seems to be key. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, in CBT they're called automatic thoughts or such. So, I think you're right about that. My only gist is that much like how we have the terminology of "anti"-depressants so too have psychology followed and adopted an anti-depressant attitude towards depression.

I posted a while ago about embracing one's depression and the thoughts were mostly in agreement that depression is a natural state of the body and needs to be accepted first to delve into its root cause. So, I think, in my honest opinion, CBT as a band-aid that can be applied or rather an antiseptic for a wound that can be applied to a wound. Forgive the bland analogy, just to try and externalize the issue into some simpler terms.

But, that doesn't quite cut it. Something more is needed, and the realization of the need for disidentifying with depression is where this comes in handy.

You know how someone who burns their hand once knows then not to bring it near the fire, so maybe the process of disidentifying from depression is an ideal. What do you think?

To borrow terms from CBT, the above would be black and white thinking, overgeneralizing, magnifying the negative, dismissing the positive, and 'Svengali' or erroneous predictive thinking, and hence, I feel broken to my core.

I think this may be more a mentall illness issue than a strictly philosophical one. I just know that I dont get any enjoyment from philosophy anymore. It feels more like a very tense and nervous imperative to organize thought into some arrangement of leakproof compartments. — csalisbury

I don't see any mental illness here. It just seems to me that philosophy has lost its magic on you. I had it backward for a long time, and thought philosophy was the product of mental illness, but, I am cured now.

You could invert it and say Sapientia would have done the right thing had it been a Robin Hood type scenario.

My brain plays tricks on me and always goes to dilemmas presented in films like The Butterfly Effect in scenarios like these.

Anyone getting this drift or am I just tripping?

I suggest putting on the ring and going on a quest.

So, ethics are applied, in religion, through commands, etc? Versus philosophy in which no definite ethical command is necessarily made? I.E. the perpetual discussion of any possible ethical imperative, etc? — Noble Dust

Yes, I think so.

I'm not that much into idealism that I'd say there really must be a contradiction-free set of laws of nature as otherwise things could not happen as they do. Of course omniscience and potential omnipotence are absolutely positive so this is the only assumption one can seriously work with. — Heiko

What do you mean by omniscience and potential omnipotence? I take it from a Platonic POV and assume that math is the apparent reality, therefore what does that imply according to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems?

Do you agree with @MindForged previous post for the matter?

So you would call the world a formal system? — Heiko

Yes, why not?

This is part of what Gödel pointed out: There is a difference between formal deduction and existence of an entity. — Heiko

Could you expand on that? What do you mean by the difference here?

Godel's theorems only apply to formal systems, as per Godel. — MindForged

Well, if the world is a formal system of sorts, then what's wrong with trying to find a link between the two?

I dunno if you've demonstrated how you see religion as superior to philosophy in the OP? I'm trying to find it. — Noble Dust

I meant to imply it through the active stance religion takes on issues regarding applied ethics, just as an example.

But, eitherway, what the OP describes is not what seems to be going on. — Πετροκότσυφας

What do you mean? What about the countless charities and other entities that have sprung out of the sake of religion? They seem to satisfy that goal.

Religion works by not taking truth seriously. — Banno

Debateable. I tend to think religion takes truth or self-acclaimed truth too seriously. Perhaps philosophers don't take it seriously enough to motivate to action.

Having been a teacher I can tell you the way we tend to look at it is that if you have made a full effort and in order to get further you need help then that help is legitimate (as long as someone is not actually doing the work for you). — Baden

I really think it's a matter of self-moderation on the part of participants and the poster, in regards to posting help with homework. I don't think a blanket ban on those topics is useful here. I don't recall any significant issues arising due to this in the old forum. I could be wrong here.

I'm feeling some good vibes emanating from Mr. Mueller. The force is strong with him.

Yeah, most of the classes I'm taking involve a lot of discussions in an open format. That's pretty cool to me. Although, I don't like talking that much, I sometimes add in one or two things I have to say.

Didn't realize writing about nuclear weapons is a prerequisite for good philosophers to abide by. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent against war, so no harm done if the deterrent is strong enough to prevent warfare. Furthermore, given that it's pretty hard to convince the general public about anything beneficial about war, then we're living in one of the most peaceful periods of human history, in large part due to nuclear weapons.

Hope I clarified that issue somewhat.

Yes, but without bias and other luggage, please.

Then forget the very idea of a 'real solution' - a chimaera that leads one to think 'quietism' has any content other than it's own guilty conscience. The only question is what the real problems are. — StreetlightX

Quietism is simply a veil that one ought to 'profess' to be able to unbiasedly address different contexts (and their content too) in philosophy. That's how I reason through the issue at least.

It's not a sorry predicament at all. Particular 'philosophies' are nothing but problems taken to the very end: problems explored for all their implications, for all they say about the world. And the field of problems is open-ended and constantly evolving, calling each time for a creative endeavour equal to it. To study philosophy is to learn how to occupy these problems, and implicate ever vaster swathes of the world into them. — StreetlightX

I want to believe that this is the true purpose of philosophy; but, then I am taken aback by how many more problems appear if there are no real solutions. It places philosophy behind more pragmatic endeavors such as science or religion (depending on how you define pragmatic here, or rather applicable). But, if one goes down this route, then one can posit, why aren't all philosophers utilitarians then? Don't know if you got the gist.

A problem is not something to be solved as if once and for all: it it something to work-through, to occupy, to inhabit. — StreetlightX

Well, this just gives philosophers a bad rap if you will. There are new paradigms and vistas that get opened up through new lines of thought, in my opinion. So, yes, philosophy is an art, although it would not seem so in academia, I would surmise.

As an aside, I don't think quietism qualifies as philosophy. It's intellectual failure hardened into pseudo-philosophical position. The the failure of thought masquerading as the thought of failure. Wittgenstein which much more than his 'quietism', which was nothing more than a weakness of nerve. — StreetlightX

This is something I would disagree on. Language games have their context, where they derive meaning from; but, no philosophy is so all-encompassing as to endow meaning on any and all sentences. So, we are restricted to always delineating where and when meaning, truth, or validity (applicability?) starts and ends. The premise being, that one be unbiased towards every language game by professing quietism.

Sorry, I meant to say placed away from the home page, as was done recently.

Don't feel like your work has gone to waste. I too am saddened by removing many enjoyable threads to the lounge. But, as you neatly said, it is what it is, and I can still carry on.

Best regards, Tiff.

Disregard bad advice like that contained in the quote above. — Sapientia

That's how all the guys we can list on a whim did it, I think, so not that bad of advice.

Well now that you put it that way, I guess all the CBT or metacognitive therapy along with the stoicism has come to some fruition. It's just that there's some nagging uncertainty about the issue of whether I'm actually flourishing...

Confused about me saying that I'm not a stoic or what?

I'm not confused. Just in wonder.