[Phil10]

I had a breakdown in 2016 but I have had many ideas in my head I want to discuss here is my list:

*Worry my life is a fix or my mind of thoughts are preplanned

*I worry if you figure out your existence you die?

*The toilet block at work for customers went out of service I use to wash my hands lots my fear is they seen me on camera so decided to put them out of service ironically they are now working but there is a pass code to get in and nobody tells me. My fear is it's god reaching me a lesson as I suffer ocd and wash my hands lots but I also fear it's because my life is a fix?

*Somebody put my bin in my front garden and as I have ocd again I worry god is teaching me a lesson.

*I worry life is all one big lesson but why I wonder why do we get a lesson why can't I just trod along and have a quiet life?

I have solispism ideas in my head hence the above thoughts also stuff like bleeping reminds me of a heart monitor and I worry again I will die. When I had a breakdown I seen life in a deep way and heard people saying I wouldn't "get back" my worry is if you have a breakdown you die or get locked up forever

Anybody got any ideas on my views?

 

[Al_pk]

I came to the conclusion that our thoughts are preplanned. The brain is an organ that we have very little control over that is hardcoded with a very specific range of perception. We FEEL as if we are in control, when we are well. But this is an illusion. Try and stop the brain thinking. Just try it. However, I'm a religious man so for me that just means the brain is an organ through which the higher self (spirit) can express itself. In a sense, Your life is a fix yes, only through extreme self control can we force ourselves away from the predetermined behaviours we are designed to enact. But also no. Because choice, cause and effect are very real and within our control. But those outcomes will always be decided by your hardcoding.

Funnily enough, i also had the thought that if you figure out existence, will you die. I think the bottom line to this is, although you may be a very intelligent and gifted man, no one past, present or future is even remotely capable of comprehending the true nature of existence. It is monumental, secretive and terrifying. Also why would you be killed? Divine retribution for being too big for your boots? All in all, you're safe from this one.

I have dwelled a lot on life being a lesson mixed with my spirituality my thoughts on it are it is just one lesson of many on a continual journey for the spirit. We keep coming back for some reason because there is something fun and appealing in human existence. It is not for us to question the 'why' of the great game, but it is absolutely imperative we experience everything we are shown to the maximum. Every moment and sensation is an opportunity to dive headfirst into life. Even in dp. It is not the point of life to shy away and bolt shut your door hoping it will all blow over. You cannot have a quiet life simply because that is not the human way.

 

[PerfectFifth]

Because choice, cause and effect are very real and within our control.

This idea is quite amusing to me, that supposedly the universe operates according to cause and effect with the ONE exception that somehow you as a human being are exempt from this causality. You're uncaused but able to cause. It's some of the most hilarious and arrogant nonsense, placing humans on a pedestal as the center of the universe, as able to bend its laws as they wish.

Cause and effect is apparent everywhere in the functioning of the human body-digestive system, endocrine system, respiratory system, nervous system, etc-but as the only exception the decision-making component of the brain is magically free of this relationship. Good thing we have this free will antenna in our head that connects to the spirit realm-where anything goes, such as something giving birth to itself, causing itself-to pull some indeterminism from the immortal soul mass there.

 

[curiousmind]

The way I see it is that thoughts are just thoughts, never-mind it's substance. Some people choose to identify themselves with their thoughts more than others which in general I don't think is a "problem" at all, though identifying yourself with belief systems is what draws you into ideologies which can drive you into a lot of conflict (politics et cetera). To some extent we all see the world through some paradigm, and it's debatable if at all we can choose not to see the world through any particular lens. We should not to be blamed for this "foul". But in DPD identifying yourself with grandiose, philosophical and often frightening thoughts or self-proposed theories does more harm than good and can really lead you down a spiral of doubt and uncertainty. I view thoughts in other mental health disorders in a similar light.

I'm not a huge fan of Alan Watts because there are many things that he says that I don't agree with, but what he is saying here makes a lot of sense to me about how "overthinking will kill your reality". He's saying that through overthinking we lose touch with reality (healthy people too), and we get absorbed in our own "bubbles". By overthinking he means "chatter in the skull, perpetual and compulsive repetition of words, of reckoning and calculating". I don't think, and he also doesn't propose that thinking is bad, but that it should be used appropriately only and when it is deemed necessary. You should definitely use your brain actively when writing your exams, or when preparing for a presentation that you need to give at work, but otherwise there isn't any need to overanalyse your life.

To tie all this into something more practical for us with DPD, knowing that we are not our thoughts is the first step to quieting that "mental chatter", trying to figure things out constantly. This is why I prefer to let the researchers tell me what is wrong with me, than me self-observing 24/7 what is happening to my consciousness. Its easy for us to get lost in questioning whats happening with us or theorising whats wrong with us, or as the OP mentions, dwelling on these deeper existential questions that are brought on as a response to our uncanny experience, but once you realise that you are just thinking you can start letting go of what ever thought arises, and overtime, when you don't engage with all the "compulsive repetition of words" the thinking will lessen. This website does a better job at explaining this than me though [link].

 

[PerfectFifth]

Deep thinking isn't necessarily pathological, or become pathological over time, though. I'm most of the time deep in thought, yet it causes me no anguish whatsoever. I don't get sucked into some OCD hole where my thoughts become intrusive and compulsive.

Regarding, "you are not your thoughts", I'd say my thoughts betray a lot of who I am. I'm occupied with thoughts that reflect my values and philosophy, so you could more or less say that my thoughts mirror my character. Of course that is not to say I never have a thought that does not describe me, but if you could look through someone's thoughts over a long period, you could probably infer a lot about their character.

 

[curiousmind]

Deep thinking isn't necessarily pathological at all, though.

Not at all. Alan Watts was primarily speaking to a healthy audience.

I'm most of the time deep in thought, yet it causes me no anguish whatsoever. I don't get sucked into some OCD hole where my thoughts become intrusive and compulsive.

Then no problem for you, but read the OP and many other people clearly struggle with compulsive thinking on this forum.

Regarding, "you are not your thoughts", I don't know about that. I'd say my thoughts mirror a lot of who I am. I'm occupied with thoughts that reflect my values and philosophy, so you could more or less say that I am my thoughts. Of course that is not to say I never have a thought that does not describe me, but if you could look through someone's thoughts over a long period, you could probably infer a lot about their character.

This is a choice you made. As you said, it reflects your "values and philosophy". Arguably values and your philosophy are something that you adopted through nurture depending on how you were brought up, your education, your experiences and so froth. You can choose to claim you are a "progressive" or a "reactionary" or a "liberal" or a "conservative", but these are decisions you make. You can wake up the next day and change your mind, yet you will still stay you, so I would argue that you are not your thoughts, because your thoughts are subject to change. So then what or who are you? That is a question that even the most intelligent philosophers can't answer definitively. Spirituality does claim to have some answers though, particularly the Buddhists.

 

[curiousmind]

I'm occupied with thoughts that reflect my values and philosophy,

If you read into some basic philosophy and particularly epistemology (theory of knowledge) then you will come to learn that having a philosophy is by definition a barrier between you and reality. Kuhn was the philosopher who talked about paradigms a lot in this regard.

 

[PerfectFifth]

This is a choice you made. As you said, it reflects your "values and philosophy". Arguably values and your philosophy are something that you adopted through nurture depending on how you were brought up, your education, your experiences and so froth. You can choose to claim you are a "progressive" or a "reactionary" or a "liberal" or a "conservative", but these are decisions you make. You can wake up the next day and change your mind, yet you will still stay you, so I would argue that you are not your thoughts, because your thoughts are subject to change. So then what or who are you? That is a question that even the most intelligent philosophers can't answer definitively. Spirituality does claim to have some answers though, particularly the Buddhists.

The way I see it, there is no single real self. Who we are depends on the situation we're in. Conforming to a social situation, or society in general, largely dictates who we are. There are lots of unconscious psychological factors that mold our self according to the situation, such as the chameleon effect. My Internet self is not my "real life" self. I am also a different self depending on whom I'm talking to. There is no single, unchanging self. What values you espouse I'd argue is also not for you to decide. That is also dictated by a plethora of background influences and the society/culture you grew up and live in, and every individual event figures into the outcome.

I don't buy that spirituality has any answer to that whatsoever that isn't woo woo nonsense. If we want actual answers, we had better follow cause and effect and what we can actually detect and measure. Otherwise, we're basing our conclusions on pure faith.

But generally speaking, I would say we are, or in other words the character of our self is, the sum of our experiences/memories and genetic inheritance. It's not just ONE self, though.

If you read into some basic philosophy and particularly epistemology (theory of knowledge) then you will come to learn that having a philosophy is by definition a barrier between you and reality. Kuhn was the philosopher who talked about paradigms a lot in this regard.

How come? If your philosophy is based on rationality and empirical evidence and not blind faith, then how does it follow that it's any barrier between you and reality? Religion (and spirituality) is a barrier between you and reality because it draws its content from dogma, not rationality and empirical evidence. I'm also not sure whether it's possible not to have a "philosophy" or worldview of some kind. Whether you want it or not, you will adopt one.

EDIT: added a bunch of elaborations.

 

[curiousmind]

I don't buy that spirituality has any answer to that whatsoever that isn't woo woo nonsense.

I also don't identify myself with spirituality, but I said that this domain claims to have answers. Philosophy doesn't. I don't remember the quote exactly, but Bertrand Russel once said (in a much more eloquent manner) that "philosophy does not have answers, it only has questions".

How come? If your philosophy is based on rationality and empirical evidence and not blind faith

It is a dangerous assumption that if you are rational you see into reality. What even is reality?

How come? If your philosophy is based on rationality and not blind faith, then how does it follow that it's any barrier between you and reality? Religion (and spirituality) is a barrier between you and reality because it draws its content from dogma, not rationality and empiricism.

I'm studying philosophy as a minor at university. The first class you have if you want to get a philosophy degree, they will teach you that there is no such thing as a philosophy or a capital "t" Truth. Philosophy is ironically a subjective domain of argumentation, reason, rationality and logic. But what kind of philosophy are we talking about? Because within this domain there are different schools of thought, different ways of interpretation et cetera. That is also to say that the domain of philosophy is in and of-itself a way to see the world, philosophers see the world very differently from say engineers. There is no conclusive Truth. These perspectives are what Kuhn calls paradigms, they are ways you see the world or a particular topic, your "lens" so to speak. I'm no good at arguing, but I am happy to recommend this interview with Slavoj Zizek regarding how language and ideology hinders you from seeing reality (and yes, he is a philosopher/sociologist) [link]. You also clearly didn't listen to the Alan Watts recording, I would recommend that first.

Buddhists don't use words. They surrender their thoughts fully, and enter a realm void of interpretation. Check out Eckhart Tolle if you are interested.

 

[PerfectFifth]

Yes, valid points. There's no clear truth; otherwise, philosophy would go away as it would've served its purpose. Not all philosophy is equal, though. Philosophy can have bad ideas as well as good ideas.

But I don't believe it's possible to stay completely unbiased and neutral, without a worldview that is slanted in some direction. Anyone who says they're not biased one way or another are living in denial. I'm biased toward philosophical naturalism. I give no credit to any supernatural beliefs for which there exists no (non-anecdotal) evidence.

The thing about "seeing reality" is that it's something we can never, ever attain. Everything is filtered through our senses, and what we ultimately sense is a mere model, or simulation, of reality, constructed by the brain.

I'll check out that Žižek video soon.

 

[curiousmind]

But I don't believe it's possible to stay completely unbiased and neutral, without a worldview that is slanted in some direction.

Agreed, which is why I said:

Some people choose to identify themselves with their thoughts more than others which in general I don't think is a "problem" at all, though identifying yourself with belief systems is what draws you into ideologies which can drive you into a lot of conflict (politics et cetera). To some extent we all see the world through some paradigm, and it's debatable if at all we can choose not to see the world through any particular lens. We should not to be blamed for this "foul".

 

[PerfectFifth]

Yeah, it's not really a fault in a person. It's a natural part of growing up to form a worldview. The danger is when you become too attached to an ideology, to the point where you *are* the ideology and no longer able to, or be willing to, consider any opposing views, even when presented with valid evidence.

The way I see it, these pitfalls are all built into all of us, and the only thing that sets apart the people who can resist some of these biases and those who can't is self-awareness. Self-awareness makes it possible to willingly step outside the bubble and expand your horizon at the expense of psychological comfort, to varying degrees.

"Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to one's self-esteem. That is why young children, before they are aware of their own self-importance, learn so easily." -Thomas Szasz

 

[mind.divided]

just know that all of these thoughts are a symptom of dpdr and not the other way around.

 

[PerfectFifth]

just know that all of these thoughts are a symptom of dpdr and not the other way around.

How can you be so sure? I don't see a single symptom of DPDR mentioned, just various obsessive thoughts.

 

[mind.divided]

How can you be so sure? I don't see a single symptom of DPDR mentioned, just various obsessive thoughts.

What i'm trying to say is that when you are dissociated the world looks much stranger and weird than it actually is. If the world looks unreal then of course you'll have all of these deep and scary thoughts. People should stop trying to explain what they are experiencing is beacuse some abstract insight or whatever when it's just this coping mechanism that makes the world look funny.