The future is not oppressing us. The future doesn't even exist. Our RELATIONSHIP with the future is the issue, and we do have some level of control over that. — Jake

Do you have control over the passing of time? If not, the future is oppressing you. Some level of control over what you do does not exclude the possibility that you are being oppressed.

Put more precisely, it's not clear to you. And to be fair, not clear to very many people, including some very bright folks. — Jake

The "bright folks" see the logic which you are missing, thinking is not the source of suffering. I suppose it's clear to you that the sun orbits the earth? Sometimes what appears to be very clear, is not really the case, and that might be why "some very bright folks" are saying otherwise.

The surfers, musicians, entertainers, sports players, are all engaged in activities which require a keen awareness of the future. Being focused on what one is doing, is really a matter of being focused on what one is about to do. — Metaphysician Undercover

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

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.

@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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Can you not quite know, and explore?

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.

I'm afraid that is impossible. — Posty McPostface

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

I 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.

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

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

I 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 thought identification with thought was the issue here. — Posty McPostface

Ok, if that's working for you, go for it.

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.

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?

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:

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.

But how? How do you disidentification yourself from thought? — Posty McPostface

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.

In that spirit, I would suggest you might stop trying to leap frog in to "enlightenment" in a single step and instead focus on very basic things. Diet and exercise are great places to start. Yoga and massage are highly recommended. Make your body as happy as you reasonably can, and that will create good foundation for the things you wish to do in your mind.

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.

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?

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

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

I am a musician as well, but I do many other things, and I know that being focused on what one is doing means being focused on the future, even if that future is just a split second ahead. That's why making a mistake is not a problem for a good musician, it's in the past as soon as it's made, and the musician's focus is on the future. If the mistake distracts you, your focus sips from the future to the past, and a worse mistake will follow.

I don't know what instrument you play, but can you play it without looking at your fingering? If you can, then the fingering is done correctly by being focused on where your fingers will be, and making sure that they move to get there on time. If you rely on your sight to make sure that your fingering is correct, you see where you want your fingers to go and you move them there. So either way, you are actually always focused on the future when playing music. You must always be prepared to play each note when the appropriate time comes to play it. If you ever take the time to think about what you are doing when you play music you will see that timing is incredibly important, and timing is impossible without being focused on the future. Each beat must be anticipated by every member of the band or orchestra, or else the band is out of synch. I've never before heard a musician say "the music plays itself". Playing music is not a cinch.

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.

being in the 'zone' — Posty McPostface

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

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:

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.

: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.