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.

Hello Posty,

"How does one resolve this process of identifying with something negative or detrimental that it becomes a secondary disability, almost in some manner or form a dialectical fictitious entity of the mind or rather a neuroticism?"

Is to work out the very object that you are identified with. It may be a particular person, it maybe a series of events that were blanketed with loss resulting in an extreme case of vulnerability to any form of loss. They serve as constant reminders. It would be good to isolate this object that ruminates in your mind where you have no control over. It is the nature of the body to associate all from the past to the current object of identification. Everyday there is something that triggers this process in your mind, in your body. The slightest movement of your body, your face expression can also trigger this process.

Find a time in your day and a location in your home where you don't usually occupy e.g your favorite chair or room as they potentially serve as trigger points particularly if you have spent time here in these deep vulnerable states.

Once you find this new location in your home, gently sit down, allow your eyes to see what is around you while observing the state of mind, the state of emotion, the state of posture that you find yourself in. This practice opens neutral perspective point for you to observe. After a time, close your eyes and maintain presence to your surroundings using your sense of hearing, while observing where you are right now inside. When you begin to feel an impulse to stop this practice, allow and open yourself to this being mindful on where it is you are about to go.

As you continue with your daily life, aim to become aware of the impulse of identification, note the surroundings you are in, the interactions when this impulse emerges. At that moment allow the impulse of identification to be there, observing it while being attentive to your daily task at hand. Continue the practice of daily or evening sitting.

Bonnie

What I am down on is the mask of scientism; and in particular the claim that the efficacy of practice demonstrates the truth of theory. — unenlightened

So, psychology isn't a science? I don't understand the negative outlook here.

But personally, I do not advocate for it; I advocate for facing the horror that pervades one's being and the world, and doing one's negligible bit to ameliorate it. — unenlightened

To be honest, I doubt my depression can be solved by this means. I don't really know the source of my depression. It seems as if it runs in the family, and no psychotherapy will help.

Thanks, Bonnie, I'll think over it.

To be honest, I doubt my depression can be solved by this means. I don't really know the source of my depression. It seems as if it runs in the family, and no psychotherapy will help. — Posty McPostface

No, it's not offered as a cure for you. It's a cure for a shitty world - a shovel and a lot of work.

No, it's not offered as a cure for you. It's a cure for a shitty world - a shovel and a lot of work. — unenlightened

It doesn't seem like anyone cares. Not your or my problem. And the depression continues.

Well, I gave it a try at disidentification, and it didn't seem to help with my depression, as thought.

Guess not disidentification, then.

What now?

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?

It all sounds to me like wishful thinking to want to "wish away" the depression.

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.

You mean that in your experience, in your particular case, it has proven to be too entrenched to treat with disidentification? But what of the possibility that you haven't tried hard and/or consistently enough? (I'm not saying you haven't, but I'm just asking the question).

I think a Buddhist would say that suffering (including depression) is on account of attachment (identification). As I understand it the aim of insight meditation and mindfulness is not to try to force the mind to detach from (dis-identify with) anything, but to gain insight into the actuality of attachments as evidenced by compulsive thought patterns. The growth of insight is believed to result in the loosening and final relinquishment of attachments, as I understand it.

You mean that in your experience, in your particular case, it has proven to be too entrenched to treat with disidentification? But what of the possibility that you haven't tried hard and/or consistently enough? (I'm not saying you haven't, but I'm just asking the question). — Janus

Yes, that thought occurred to me, that I wasn't trying hard enough or my method of doing so was faulty. But, I did give it a good try. I didn't seem to feel any better thinking of myself as a set of symptoms instead of depression.

I don't know. What could have gone wrong?

I didn't seem to feel any better thinking of myself as a set of symptoms instead of depression. — Posty McPostface

I'm not sure how you are thinking about it, but I would have thought the depression just is the "set of symptoms" and that you are neither that nor those, nor the compulsive patterns of thought which may be giving rise to them. You are the one suffering, or put another way, you are more than merely the set of symptoms, depression and suffering.

I'm not sure how you are thinking about it, but I would have thought the depression just is the "set of symptoms" and that you are neither that nor those, nor the compulsive patterns of thought which may be giving rise to them. You are the one suffering, or put another way, you are more than merely the set of symptoms, depression and suffering. — Janus

I was thinking about it in terms of distancing myself away from the diagnosis, and the symptoms as just self-labelling. I was trying to not identify with the diagnosis and my symptoms. I guess you can say I was trying to consciously dissociate myself from the disorder; but, to little avail.

The issue crept up once I started feeling the symptoms again (laying in bed, rushing to get home to lay in bed, lack of interest in getting better). Once the symptoms surfaced, the automatic thought that "I have depression", resurfaced. I didn't make it more than 2-3 days before I returned to the negative talk and realized that it's depression and not anything else.

I can add that, the process of dissociating yourself from a diagnosis, such as depression, might be a topic worth pursuing; but, isn't something that would come to fruition in terms of remission from depression, anxiety, or OCD. I think...

I guess there's a difference between dis-identification in the sense of not identifying with some definition of ourselves; as a depressive, a set of symptoms, a process of suffering or whatever, and dis-identification in the sense of gaining an insight into compulsive negative thought patterns that we may have been too identified with to be able to see what they have been doing to us.

I guess there's a difference between dis-identification in the sense of not identifying with some definition of ourselves; as a depressive, a set of symptoms, a process of suffering or whatever, and dis-identification in the sense of gaining an insight into compulsive negative thought patterns that we have been to identified with to be able to see what they have been doing to us. — Janus

I agree; but, that distinction is blurry when it comes to problems like depression. It's a mood that pervades your entire being. So, the latter reinforces the former.

Yes, that's probably true. Dealing with depression is certainly not easy!

Yes, that's probably true. — Janus

In CBT, there's a term called "mental filter". It basically, is stating the reality of what you experience regardless of whether it corresponds to reality or not.

It's an interesting term because it is in a figurative sense the lowest common denominator. All other cognitive distortions are dependent on affecting how your mental filter is processing information. It's my personal opinion, that you can't really have any effect on your baseline "mental filter", well, maybe more than a little. But, anyway, what I'm getting at is that disidentification can have the positive effect of altering your mental filter through changing what you conceptualize thoughts to be.

In my experience, there were brief periods of stillness and tranquillity, very Zen-like, when I was trying to apply disidentification.

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 makes depression worse?

Isolation. Loneliness. Boredom. Anger. Wallowing. Etc.

What makes depression better?

Engagement. Companionship. Interests. Resolution. Exercise (mental, physical). Etc.

If depression can't be banished (no pill, no self help book. no talk therapy scheme, no surgery, no magic...) then one is well advised to do what one can to enjoy life as much as possible. This is where problems arise, of course, because enjoying life as much as possible does require energetic effort to get off the couch, get to the party, get to the movie, get to the library, get to the bar, go for the bike ride--whatever one likes to do.

The depressive ends up sitting in the chair poised to move, but can not quite get out of it. So, that's where the Therapeutic Ejection Chair comes in. When sensors detect when the depressive has experienced a desire to do something but lacks resolve, it ejects the person out the door. (Mechanical door openers are under the control of the chair.) The doors will not let the depressive back in for a pre-determined period of time -- like, however long it takes to go to the movies. There are also Artbots that will clamp on to the depressive and not let go until they have actually entered the museum. The Barbot will go out on the town with the depressive, help him or her find interesting people in the bar, and will do what can be done to help the depressive score (the bots have ways of being persuasive...)

I was wondering what Wayfarer might think about this topic — 0 thru 9

One way of understanding the basis of Buddhist meditation is that it's a process of 'dis-identification'. All things are shown to be anicca/anatta/dukkha - impermanent, not-self, unsatisfactory. 'This is not me, this is not myself'. But seeing that doesn't necessarily trigger a dramatic epiphany (although it might). The point of mindfulness meditation is to learn to actually see what is happening moment to moment without commenting on it, trying to shut it down or judge it. The instruction is, to 'follow the breath' i.e. when you become aware that you're chasing thoughts, come back to awareness of the breath as an anchor point. But this practice is also hopefully situated in a supportive milieu as part of an integrated understanding and philosophy. If practiced conscientiously, it definitely 'works', in my experience.

Actually I do know a therapist who did a PhD in treatment of depression with mindfulness meditation (although he's now an academic and not in private practice). But there's quite a lot of interest and literature available about it. Jon Kabat-Zinn is a well-known writer in this area, along with Mark Epstein ('Thoughts without a Thinker'). But there are quite a few others as well. It's a recognised method for dealing with such issues but depending on the individual might also require counselling and guidance.

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 read something the other week which stuck with me. It was an interview with a woman who fell into the role of counselling people online. The point she made was that a big part of the role is deleting comments from people trying to help. You know - ‘come on, cheer up. Life’s not that bad’. She made the point that to really help she had to be in the space of those people that needed help, and that these well-meaning bystanders actually make it a lot worse for them. Paradoxical as that might seem.

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

analyze = thought
disidentification = thought
depression = thought

You're trying to cure alcoholism with a bottle of scotch, so to speak.

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: ) — 0 thru 9

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.

Interesting read:

https://donaldrobertson.name/2013/01/18/cognitive-distancing-in-stoicism/

Anyone try microdosing LSD?

Anyone try microdosing LSD? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm on medication that nullifies the effects of microdosing. I tried microdosing while on that medication, but, didn't notice too many effects.

I think that the idea with the microdosing of acid is that you are not really supposed to notice effects. If depression is the problem, then there is an issue with "noticeable" effects, and one issue is the likelihood of mania. Whenever there are "noticeable" effects of medication, there is a question of the criteria whereby the effects are judged as negative or positive.