Disassociative cognitive states

[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.

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.

Well, if you applied Leary's model to this particular example... he would probably agree with you. If your programming/imprinting was founded on shocks, then you'll build up a paradigm that insulates against such stuff. Whereas if your programming/imprinting is founded on a"normal" set of experiences, then the "shock" appears quite useful.

[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.

Well, if you applied Leary's model to this particular example... he would probably agree with you. If your programming/imprinting was founded on shocks, then you'll build up a paradigm that insulates against such stuff. Whereas if your programming/imprinting is founded on a"normal" set of experiences, then the "shock" appears quite useful.

Good point.

[Friar Puck]

Thanks for all the comments. I will deal with each of them individually, but sadly that won't happen tonight, as I have been dancing with my girl at a local show, and tomorrow will be packing up my belongings and heading home from university. I will respond properly to all y'alls comments soon. TTYL

[That One Guy]

It really depends on the person. For some people they can consciously re-evaluate their situations and act to change them regardless of the circumstances. For others (probably the majority of people from what I've seen) it does tend to take a jolt or shock to their normal environment in order to allow for change in perception/worldview.

Most of us on here are probably of the first (even if we are able to change due to a shock) since we tend to be self-aware and self-evaluating. Most of the cabbages need a damn good shock to the system in order to realize that things might not be the way they thougth they were.

If you have mental/situational inertia, it will take a shock to make you change. If you're constantly changing regardless (intentionally or not) it will most likely be far easier to change without any other stimulus/

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

It really depends on the person. For some people they can consciously re-evaluate their situations and act to change them regardless of the circumstances. For others (probably the majority of people from what I've seen) it does tend to take a jolt or shock to their normal environment in order to allow for change in perception/worldview.

Most of us on here are probably of the first (even if we are able to change due to a shock) since we tend to be self-aware and self-evaluating. Most of the cabbages need a damn good shock to the system in order to realize that things might not be the way they thougth they were.

If you have mental/situational inertia, it will take a shock to make you change. If you're constantly changing regardless (intentionally or not) it will most likely be far easier to change without any other stimulus/

I agree entirely. For myself, there were a series of shocks that were a chain reaction of sorts, culminating in my rejection of the only view of reality that I had ever had. I might have become a nihilist or even worse, an atheist... if it hadn't been for Discordianism

At this point though, I think that I'm actively manipulating in a more self-aware/evaluating manner and the shocks aren't necessary for me to continue to explore at this level... perhaps a shock will be necessary to further break into new levels though I don't know.

[Richter]

I've always considered dissociation as possible from many sources.  In my own thinkings on Discordian ideas, a lot of what I use is being open to (as opposed to constantly looking for) stimuli, ideas or experience outside my usual perception (such as dissociation), and bringing such dissociation to others as appropriate.  Where this relates to myself and my own views / life, the BIP metaphor makes a good deal of sense, but I also try to use this as a method to refine my perception of what's around me (The view out the bars, as it were).
Functionally, this means cultivating a "naive mind" as Frank Herbert put it, or something like Tao. 
Just my own view.  Have your grains of salt handy

[Friar Puck]

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

That seems a fair enough interpretation, as I have no reason to disagree with you per se. Two thoughts: the audience for this piece is intended to be people who are generally non-introspective, at least into the nitty-gritty of mental organization. They may feel the human condition is composed of three parts, including this would deny the denier, encouraging a total read from the religious types. Second, it is not impossible to think that there may be something about one's self that is removed from inspection, such as the source of the "I" thought, which might be better explained in other terms than logic. That being said, I have hope that our deductive skills will shed light on this topic shortly, namely in neuroscience or philosophy of mind.

[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"?]

I may not have that skill, but there are certain features of other people that do not seem conducive to my studies or interaction with block reality. It would have to be a case by case judgment, but blame shifting, laziness, acceptance of appeals to authority, and others I feel hinder. Using this idea of disassociation one could conceivably use it to either dissolve or reinforce consensus reality in others, the latter presumably being the job of psychiatrists, the former presumably being the goals of this group. As for myself I do not have a telos that would aid me in choosing either side, but given my observation of the state of things around me I am quite sympathetic to your goals. I would align myself with you if you have a mission statement and a first step. "Enlightenment" for all would be fascinating. In any case I am going to plow on in my direction.

It also occurred to me that I left a term undefined: block reality. I take this to refer to those aspects of the perceived reality that do not change regardless of mental state shifting, such as weight, motion and location. Clearly this only works when one uses aspects of the first state [body] as part of the core mental state.

[Friar Puck]

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?

Thanks for the comment.

It seems what you are describing is awareness of another paradigm in another, and while this is essentially what this piece is trying to accomplish in one's mind, I personally did not think to apply the "relativity" of the situation to myself. As such, it is the goal of this method to apply the "freedom of thought" specifically to one's self. I posit that many people enter this state frequently enough, but are not aware of the possibilities this state offers.

As per your second query, both self reflection and OOB are both sufficient but not necessary types of acquiring this state. When the core assumptions on which one's mental state are founded are truly doubted by the believer one has successfully provided arguments against one's prior beliefs, there will be no complete return to the previous states of thought [unless the subject is particularly forgetful]. I am not sure what definition a psychiatrist may use to define this state, so I'm afraid I cannot answer that question.
As for other terms, perhaps "clarity of madness", the christian/chaos magician's "gnosis", or some sort of "vision of one's own black iron prison" would give analogies to my term.
What is a disassociative state?
- Awareness of self in relation to reality
- Awareness of the nature of one's mental state
- Knowing that the previous mental state rests on certain assumptions that are not indubitable
- Enough sobriety to recognize the current observation as real and now

It is harder to say what it is not, as people will experience it differently. I can comment on things that they are not in my experience.
- They are not like confused drug induced states, although those could conceivable be used
- They are not religious enlightenment [not supernatural]


Let me know if I have further confused the matter.

[Friar Puck]

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.

True enough. If you will permit an analogy? Assuming one's initial mental state before the shock to the system is represented by one, building on one's thought patterns can be seen as a movement from 1 to 1.1, what I am positing is that changes can be made in this matter:
Core mental patterns [y]: 1
Current mental patterns [z]: 1

One can change in such a way that [z] changes from 1 to 2, while the core mental self progresses from 1 to 1.1. Theoretically, one could change [y] 1 to 2, religious conversion being such an example, but I have always been stubborn to those types of changes. Preferring an analytic approach to reality, I make my changes to [z] while holding [y] relatively stable and incorporating the information of the relationship changes slowly and methodically. I am quite young and haven't had much time to fully explore this idea, but perhaps in the future I will either see the need or become daring [reckless?] enough to fully change my relation. This leads me to a question I've had: Where does genius lie? Should we pursue the skill sets of a DaVinci over an Einstein? Would the individual [thus society] as a whole operate better with more specialized or more flexible skill sets? Clearly our brains are capable of either. As it seems the answer will be relative to the individual's preference, do we need to more clearly define genius?