Disassociative cognitive states

[Friar Puck]

Y'all seem to be the best people to share this with; it's been a pet project of mine years in the making. Pragmatism is the name of the game here. I would appreciate your thoughts.
FP

Disassociated cognitive states allow one to not only find what is perceived to be the true self, but also allow one special access to a state of purer state of will that, while not entirely free from the previous mental construct, here after referred to as worldview or paradigm, but do allow one to metaprogram one's mental life in such a way that allows one to effectively inhabit the minds of others. Roughly speaking there are as many ways to create categories of paradigms as there are paradigms themselves, but let us find common ground. Let us use for example a three tiered system that roughly corresponds to common ideas on the properties of humans themselves.

Let us rather arbitrarily divide the human whole into three parts: body, psyche and essence. These are meta-terms, and do not in and of themselves represent any paradigms, as we will see we can define them as we will. The body is common to all humans; it is our transport, porthole to the block universe, our physical self. Paradigms that place the body at the center are very simple to understand, and generally speaking nearly all traditional paradigms centered on mind and soul encompass these ideas. Examples of pure body worldviews are pure materialism, hedonism, and athleticism to name a few. What each has in common is that they see the physical world as all encompassing essence, usually in such a way as to include telos as well. Psychic self is the mind and emotional aspect of human existence. I will refer to these as middle or second state paradigms as they often include either body or essence ideas, although pure mind state paradigms, albeit rare, do exist [see Berkeley]. Common examples would include matrix realities, many scientific and religious worldviews, aestheticism, and psychic hedonism [self-help, many new age formats]. Needless to say these are only a few. Essence paradigms place an intangible, often called higher, selves as the base of mental construct operations. This includes many sublime religious views [often the word spiritual is preferred to religious] and the Will of philosophers. Now that we have created a common framework, let us examine traditional methods of entering the disassociative state.

There are as many ways to access this state as there are states of mind, each one having a certain weakness that when pressed destroys the state-as-self. Luckily for the uninitiated, each weakness is often ascertainable simply by reflection. All one needs to do is reduce their beliefs in such a way that there remain one or a few core features of the self that, if lost, destroy the self. Usually these are highly guarded features; often they are things that we feel extraordinarily uncomfortable facing. Great fears are commonly depicted in many different ways: from the demons of mythology, to watching one's loved ones die and the realization of the inevitable end of self, to madness or callousness on the psychic plane depicted in entertainment. Very likely each person has at one time or another faced what they feared most and retreated to psychological safe zones. One note of advice here, one should take into account the long term ramifications of pressing through their paradigmatic comfort zones. A pure materialist would certainly gain a rush of perspective through disemboweling one's self, but there are safer methods of attaining the disassociative state in that paradigm that would not drastically end one's life, remember: we can change whatever we want on the paradigmatic level, and these changes can be so drastic as to seem to remove the earth from its foundation, but there is a pressing block reality whose nature cannot be changed by perspective alone. Traditional methods include intense prayer, meditation, fasting, exhaustion, lucid dreaming, and the ever popular entheogens. These can be broken up into roughly two categories: high energy and low energy. High energy modes exhaust the resource on which the paradigm is based: one who views life as spiritual will find easier route to disassociative states using perceived spiritual methods [prayer, etc.] than using mental exhaustive techniques [intense concentration, mind loading, etc.]. Low energy methods attempt to quiet the perceived core resource to the point of singularity, one with a pure material paradigm would find fasting an excellent method, meditation can be used in either mental or spiritual paradigms. The point of both methods is to either overwhelm the psychological state of the human or reduce the core of the paradigm until it stops existing; both are equally effective in producing the disassociative state where meta-perception can occur. Practice makes perfect, although results can be had in the first run for some people who are already less cemented in their paradigm. The method should be chosen in respect to the surroundings and preferences of the person. Unless using the situation for further deepening of the disassociative state, it doesn't make sense to fast for a week to go surfing the day after the fast, people should care for their block reality bodies as they are our only promised method of perception, this happens to include eating every so often, creating or acquiring shelter, and sleeping a handful, if not many more, hours per week. However, it is not the point of this work to set guidelines for your actions.

When one has successfully entered the diassociative state every perception begins to shift, and the nature of the beast is revealed. What is known is that there is a difference between the way things are now and the way they have been perceived, the old way of thinking becomes apparent as simply a layer laid across block reality, one will disassociate the thing of perception from its name, viewing it for the first time all over again. Cars, buildings, toothbrushes, spoken words, every perceptible quality will no longer invoke meaning in the person. When first dealt with, this state produces very strong reactions in the subject, often resorting to our very first paradigm: emotion. Commonly people will exhibit "mad" laughter at things not considered funny, people will feel a deep love and connectivity with all things, people will be terrified and confused to the point where they can simply not function in day to day matters, and less commonly, people will evoke a searing hatred for what they allowed themselves to be, often sharing this hatred with the people perceived responsible for encouraging the previous paradigm. It is hard to say just how one will react to meta-viewing.

However, it should be clear that the common emotional response to disassociative paradigmatic states is a carry over from a previous state of being. There exists deeper and deeper states until one reaches a point where one can simply go no further, often for many people reaching this state provokes mental insanity. The definition of sane is not objective. I suspect this is due to the fact that the comfort level for the average person has a limited range. Fearing the unknown protects the mental, psychic and essential qualities of humanity, anything that causes discomfort in a human's surroundings is dealt with in order of perceived severity. Therefore some cultures are willing to accept some level of disassociation in a person while at the same time institutionalizing, imprisoning or even outright killing of other types. There is a saying in the occult that there are four keys that open the sphinx, and they follow a certain order: knowledge, willingness, audacity and silence. Know these.

The disassociative state allows one to see the disparity between the object of perception and its name. The object of perception can be anything on the three layers or on the block reality itself. The meaning associated with the previous paradigm now is viewed correctly, as a permanent value possibility. Note two points, permanence and possibility. Once one has successfully disassociated with the object and name one can always go back and reestablish a link between the two, like magnets on a metal board. There will, however, be some level of discomfort in returning to old patterns, but given time they will be just as strong as if one had always know this association to be the one correct view. I like to think of the process as getting out of bed to answer a call, only to come back to cold sheets: it will take time to fall back asleep, and initially it will not be as comfortable as it was when it was left, but given time the same level of comfort will be achieved. Secondly, these become permanent possibilities. Once one has removed the magnet from the metal board one is now free to replace the position with another magnet of one's own choosing. At first this is the hardest and most uncomfortable thing one can ever possibly do, but with practice it becomes second nature. The disassociative state allows one to catalogue and experience radically variant modes of being, and after time a veritable "bag of tricks" becomes available through practice. Yet the first association can never be lost entirely unless one forgets who one once was or suffers physical damage to the brain. Again here it is good to note one's surroundings, radical changes in behavior and belief will raise questions in other people. It is not unwise to start simple and innocuously. Curiously the average person undergoes this transformation naturally along the course of their lifetime, and often they achieve some sort of disassociative state, a common example being the ubiquitous midlife crisis; however, most people do not understand the nature of the transformation, let alone the reason. One can use this to their advantage in many ways, whether disguise or avoidance of personality crisis altogether [although crisis can be self inflicted at any time using this process].

How can these "tricks" be found? A simple method is to spend time with people you completely disagree with. Here charisma will rule the day, it is the case for many people that if they knew that you were interested in them because you were interested in their psychological properties and not them in themselves [it is a fact that all people love having their egos stroked] they would take offence for a variety of reasons. Presenting a confident and interesting nature will be your best bet any day of the week. Additionally, a good rule of thumb would be to find people that exhibit three qualities: rationality, strong opinion, and success. Rational people are the simplest to understand because often they can tell you the reasons why they believe and do the things they do. Use this to your advantage. Knowing now that justification depends on predisposition, attempt to utilize their line of reasoning as your own until it becomes clear why that person feels justified in holding that mental state. People with childhood issues are notoriously difficult to understand, as they are either unwilling or unable to express their internal justifications for their mental constructs. People with strong opinions are generally open to debating their paradigm, this speeds up the process of paradigm assimilation. Last, and this is the perhaps the least objective but most important suggestion, try to avoid people who cannot seem to cope with reality. Just as you would avoid putting rotten food in your body, one would be justified in avoiding putting useless, broken, or fantastic mental constructs into one's self. There are exceptions to this rule however; perhaps one wants to help a "nut-case" improve their lot in life, perhaps one is simply curious about faulty constructs maybe wanting to know if there is some common ground or causation, perhaps one wants to eventually plead criminally insane, and perhaps some novel or combination reasoning is the justification. However, if one follows these three suggestions one will certainly live to disassociate another day.
There is a limit to disassociation if one wants to remain in control of one's self. One will inherently subconsciously import aspects of one's previous paradigm the disassociative state in order to navigate the realm. The two most common aspects imported are logic and time. We humans will always utilize these tools of organization and it seems we can not persist in states where these are not present. The most crude and irreplaceable type of logic imported is inductive reasoning. Examples include the law of causation: that every effect has a previous cause related to the effect. Even in states of pure delirium where voices are heard we will attribute these to some sort of speaker: demons, angels, machine elves, higher self, God, background radiation, AUM, the list goes on. Second, things will always progress in a connected manner. Sometimes a state is experienced where time seems to slow down, speed up, stand still, or play "out of order" but the fact remains that they are experienced in a linear matter of now, then, and yet to come. Things that occur "all at once" or "backwards" still have the concept of now embedded into them. Despite the various illusions we may hold or experience as to the nature of time, we will never be rid of the seed of "now". These two aspects merit further study.

Summation: it is not impossible to change one's beliefs no matter how cemented they may be in one's psyche. The trick is to leave the beliefs behind long enough to get a new, critical perspective. These tools can be used in nearly any application concerning human thought behavior.

[LMNO]

I promise I'll actually read this at some point.

[East Coast Hustle]

I hate to do this since just by vaguely skimming it sounds reasonably intelligent, but...

tl;dr.

[Richter]

I'm going to go through this a few more times, but there are several points I appreciate, and a few I'm not quite following.
The emphasis, right form the get go, on pragmatism is worthwhile.  (As opposed to this, which raises a valid point also: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=14484.0)
Further, expansion on the ususal (mind/body) debate into a (body/psyche/essence) perspective of sorts acknowledges several points normaly ignored or glossed over by philosophy and psychology.

The disassociative state allows one to see the disparity between the object of perception and its name

I'm taking this as a similar concept to Platonic "Forms", was this intended?

Overall, this comes across a bit scattered, but gives a good alternate, and in cases, connective view on common concepts from numerous areas of thought.  Thanks for posting it!

[Friar Puck]

Richter:

I had in mind a more Wittgensteinian idea in mind than forms [albeit in that case the forms would be closer to Aristotle's formulation than Plato's]. What I mean is that there is a difference between the meaning one holds when using a word and the object picked out by the meaning, non-introspective people do not generally recognize this dichotomy.

I apologize for the presentation. Since I am generally a busy man I'd like to polish up the presentation of ideas that are worth their weight.

If by chaos magicians you mean people who jack off to squiggles, then Giggles and I are in agreement. I have a sock I can fill with quarters for some proper gnosis.

[Friar Puck]

East Coast Hustle:
I can double space it for ya.

[LMNO]

Richter:

I had in mind a more Wittgensteinian idea in mind than forms [albeit in that case the forms would be closer to Aristotle's formulation than Plato's]. What I mean is that there is a difference between the meaning one holds when using a word and the object picked out by the meaning, non-introspective people do not generally recognize this dichotomy.

So, it's another version of the "menu/meal" idea?

If by chaos magicians you mean people who jack off to squiggles, then Giggles and I are in agreement. I have a sock I can fill with quarters for some proper gnosis.

[Richter]

If by chaos magicians you mean people who jack off to squiggles, then Giggles and I are in agreement. I have a sock I can fill with quarters for some proper gnosis.

I second LMNO's endorsement here 
Chaos magic, as the odd idea (or book, etc) will, has some decent ideas, but the methods and missinternpreters give it a certain patina.  I'm still reviewing what I can find on the subject.

I'm ignorant of Wittgenstein, but if the "Menu/Meal" analogy L brought up works, I follow. 

[LMNO]

I threw your metaphor into another metaphor, and set it on low heat to reduce:




DCS helps you see your BIP objectively.  Let's look at three common cells:
A BIP that centers on the body we will call the first state
A BIP that centers on the mind we will call the second state
A BIP that centers on the soul we will call the third state.

[note: you need to work on the third state some more.  It appears to be a delusion of the second state.]

DCS can be achieved through stressing the state to a point of eradication, through physical or mental exertion.  Note that meditation, though its intent is to quiet the mind and body, can be extremely stressful.

When the stressors break down the state, the BIP can be restructured.  Mental connections between emotions and perceptions will be rearranged.

Extended DCS carries with it the possibility that your restructuring will not correspond with consensus reality.

DSC lets you see the bars in your cell.

One Method:
Associate with contradictory viewpoints.
[note: you previously said that you can disassociate until people may think you're crazy, then you say to avoid crazy people.  Why are you suddenly able to judge between people who "can't deal with reality" and "people who DCS'd to a new reality"?]

Even in DCS, the brain will continue to experience linear time, and will attempt to make connections.

[Richter]

Well incoporated, there, I like how you add a very Cartesian level of critical analysis to the body/mind/spirit layering of the original statement. 
(-We think, therefore, we must have a mind
-We interact with things, so we have a body of some composition, that interacts with what we percieve. (This also avoids falling into Solipsism.)
-We have responses we may attribute to spirit / essense / soul.  Your results may varry.)

Beyond personal ramifications, techniques Puck refer to as "allows one to effectively inhabit the minds of others", I'm viewing as being able to use a dissociated approach to enhance how we understand others.  (From anyone's experience with people, we could further bring this back to BIP as how we can in cases see each other's bars (so to speak).  Granted, my own degree / work has predisposed me to see such connections, so this IS a slanted view. )
While meaningful at some levels, this is one point where the phrasing predisposes it to a "magical thinking" interpretation.  A more direct wording, depending on your intent, could help here, IMHO.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

It all sounds very familiar, Puck. I've probably read you elsewhere. It appears as though you're describing a deconditioning process that utilizes dissociative ideas with the goals of increased choice and insight.

The only thing I don't get is why you feel it is first necessary to enter a dissociative state if one wants to meta-percieve, metaprogram, or othewise meta-anything. All that is required for a meta-state is considering something in your imagination from a point of view other than through your own eyes. Boom, dissociative state achieved.

Perhaps you could be more clear on what you mean by dissociative state. In my mind, that means anything from self-reflection to a full blown out of body experience. What is being dissociated from what? Or are you using the term in a psychiatric sense? Is there another term that describes what you are referring to with more specificity? Could you give examples that illustrate what is and what is not a dissociative state?

[LMNO]

Net, I think it's trying to be more than "meta thought". it's actually becoming something new, not just thinking about it.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Net, I think it's trying to be more than "meta thought". it's actually becoming something new, not just thinking about it.

Still, I question the necessity of ordeals to get to the next level. New critical perspectives can be found merely by thinking about things. For example, reading a few key chapters in a communication or psychology textbook are all it takes for some people to experience dramatic shifts in their paradigm.

There's also the issue of changes within a person being ecologically sound in terms of their social network (which was hinted at but not developed as much as it could have been). It stands to reason that changes made bit by bit over a period of time without the expectation built up by an ordeal could be better integrated and mitigate the social costs of being profoundly weird. Frogs in water that is gradually brought to boiling won't jump out and whatnot.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Net, I think it's trying to be more than "meta thought". it's actually becoming something new, not just thinking about it.

Still, I question the necessity of ordeals to get to the next level. New critical perspectives can be found merely by thinking about things. For example, reading a few key chapters in a communication or psychology textbook are all it takes for some people to experience dramatic shifts in their paradigm.

There's also the issue of changes within a person being ecologically sound in terms of their social network (which was hinted at but not developed as much as it could have been). It stands to reason that changes made bit by bit over a period of time without the expectation built up by an ordeal could be better integrated and mitigate the social costs of being profoundly weird. Frogs in water that is gradually brought to boiling won't jump out and whatnot.

In my experience... some sort of ordeal does seem to correlate with major shifts in perception (next level etc). It may not be necessary, but I think that it may be both more common and more likely to induce lasting changes as opposed to simply reading. Now, don't get me wrong, reading something well written has shifted my paradigm in the past... however, some sort of psychological jolt (which in most cases seems to come from an experience rather than reading) seems more common.

I'm not sure how much of the OP I agree with, it will take more digestion... LOL.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Net, I think it's trying to be more than "meta thought". it's actually becoming something new, not just thinking about it.

Still, I question the necessity of ordeals to get to the next level. New critical perspectives can be found merely by thinking about things. For example, reading a few key chapters in a communication or psychology textbook are all it takes for some people to experience dramatic shifts in their paradigm.

There's also the issue of changes within a person being ecologically sound in terms of their social network (which was hinted at but not developed as much as it could have been). It stands to reason that changes made bit by bit over a period of time without the expectation built up by an ordeal could be better integrated and mitigate the social costs of being profoundly weird. Frogs in water that is gradually brought to boiling won't jump out and whatnot.

In my experience... some sort of ordeal does seem to correlate with major shifts in perception (next level etc). It may not be necessary, but I think that it may be both more common and more likely to induce lasting changes as opposed to simply reading. Now, don't get me wrong, reading something well written has shifted my paradigm in the past... however, some sort of psychological jolt (which in most cases seems to come from an experience rather than reading) seems more common.

I'm not sure how much of the OP I agree with, it will take more digestion... LOL.

Maybe it's my disposition and/or history of being put through a fuckload of ordeals (living on the street, foster homes, treatment centers, etc.) that makes me extremely resistant to them. It was only after I calmed the hell down of my own accord that I started reevaluating my worldview. When I made changes they were carefully thought out and designed to build upon each other. There's only so much one can absorb from shocks to their system.