the annihilation of a thought (complete justification)

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

I don’t know quite how to define this, I think my topic header “the annihilation of a thought” is a pretty good description. Over the past year I’ve learned to annihilate any thoughts which I consider to be negative. Before I would have something creep up into my mind, and I would not be able to transcend it, I wouldn’t be able to let it go. It would bug me all day, or all month. Over the past year or so, I’ve learned various techniques to apply to this. Most formidable is the acceptance of “the now”, and the immediate experience. Yet one cannot live his entire life in such a state, we need thought, we need to plan. Western soceity has brought us to a mind state of reductionism, where others tend to try to live completely holistic lifestyles. I think that one needs both, but when dealing with finite thought, when surfing through the mindscape, attempting to tackle problems, and answer questions, we often encounter lines of thought that bug us, that become demons, that enslave us.

Now what I have been doing as of late, and find it extremly useful is whenever a line of thought becomes static, starts to bug me, a depressing thought, a thought that I cannot bring to a viable answer, something that is like a knife in my mind, making me unhappy, and unable to think clearly, I completely annhilate it.

Now this is not “positive thinking”, trying to use one part of the mind to dominate another. Trying to use willpower to overcome such thoughts, such states of mind. Its complete annhilation. Like particles, and antiparticles which collide.

Any time a problem thought, or line of thought creeps up, I formulate a thought which is the exact opposite, I rationally compose the thought, I support it, and hence the two thoughts collide, and nothing is left.

Maybe that is what is happening, or maybe I completely turn the line of thought away, turning it into the complete opposite direction, bringing it full circle, and it then ends.

What I see is the need of the ego/self to justify. The need of man to justify his own actions. This is where I think the problem arises, and this is where I think the problem can be fixed. Its once you realise you can justify anything, then you can create an opposite thought, justify it, and it releases you from the line of analysis you were on before. Its like “thought flipping”.

Nihilism, and causility are good tools for this. Great tools for justification. Here I think that I have not done anything today, and I justify it by causility. I was not as charming as I could have been with that girl, and I justify it using some form of nihilism, that nothing really matters. I think in the past I was naive and too accepting of society’s veiws, and I tried to fit in the mold, and I justify this by using the arguement such as “I was conditioned by society” I find that it doesn’t matter if you truely believe in the arguements that you are using to justify the thought, but that you can.

These are just examples. Again I don’t know how to exactly label this, but I do think that the fact that you can truely justify anything is helpful, and creating “thought antibodies”, or exact opposites, the negative to the positive, to release you from any type of negative, unconstructive thinking.

The biggest pitfall I see is that a sentance is susceptible to infinite regression. This brings me to thought is susceptible to infinite regression, and it is quite a problem if you allow your thoughts to continue into infinity without any resolution. I think this leads to depression. Set theory really supports the fact that thought is subject to infinite regression.

So all, I unfortunatley had another day stuck inside, due to the weather, and various tasks I had to complete at my pc, and in my home. It was a day wrought with cabin fever, and some troublesome thoughts popped up, and I realised that I had become quite proficiant by now in my little technique. Its a bit of an art, and I don’t know even what you would call it, but I offer it here to you because for one I think it is useful, and 2 I’m stuck inside on a saturday night :stuck_out_tongue:

[EDIT] Once thought realizes its failabiltiy, it ceases.

2

Try looking up the law of polarity and some other great hermetic axioms. Instead of using your own personal logic for the benefit of yourself, you are using real logic. Great stuff here. The realization that we do rationalize or our thinking rather than thinking rationaly is very helpful indeed. But what is also helpful, is realizing that society has conditioned you in a specific way. When this is taken into consideration, it often allows people to want to rise above the thinking of society, and truly then to really think for themselves. Dont let your mind control you, rather control your mind. Once a state of mentalism has been achieved, the physical world can be manipulated on multiple levels. It seems like everything goes your way.

3

Yeah its not suprising what I’ve said has been said before. The law of polarity, is pretty much the same thing. The ying, and the yang. Positive energy, and negative energy. Matter, anti-matter. It does make sense doesn’t it, albeit in a simple fashion, yet as constantly we see through physics, our world does seem to favour simplicity.

4

Rounder, I don’t think it’s possible to voluntarily annihilate a thought. An idea if unused can go out of one’s mind, but thoughts will exist. A thought may not be accessed because a diversion has been found, but voluntarily it is not possible to annihilate a thought because a thought exists in the mind and in order to annihilate it you’d be using the mind to do so, which is not possible.

5

People once thought the world was flat, until it was proven to be round. Now people think the world is round, and the previous line of thought is no longer there.

Ohh I agree that the actual constituents of the thought still remain within your brain somewhere, yet are re-arranged. But the previous “LINE” of thought is dead.

6

Never underestimate the power of denial. I suggest you name this new technique denihilism, as thoughts are of such importance they must be eliminated.

7

message

8

No denial doesn’t work. When you try to deny then your mind is in conflict, one part of the mind trying to overpower the other. Denial sucks, because it never really works. I can try to deny it but its still sitting there seething waiting to re-appear. I want it eliminate it. And this polarity method is really a simple, and easy way to do it.

I’m now leaning toward my second explaination of what this is. You take a line of thought, and you don’t formulate another, you turn the first line of thought completely around, till it comes full circle, and ends.

9

That’s eliminating line of thought, not “thought” itself. Excuse me if i’m going way off track here Rounder, but ‘‘to be is to think’’ (as they say). So to eliminate thought, you must be dead, therefore eliminating thought cannot be experienced. So really, it is only ‘‘thought’’ that can experienced.

Rami.

10

Yes I rephrased it into eliminating a line of thought. I do realize that the material, the constituents, what the thought is composed of still remains.

Eliminating all thought cannot be experienced ? Is perception thought ? Is our senses thought ? Sight, sound ? are these thought? If you would label this thought then I would agree. Yet if thought is merely say something such as 2 plus 2 equals 4(my plus equals button no longer works on this keyboard :stuck_out_tongue: ) then I would say that this type of thought can be arrested. Not for any continued amount of time, but I would say that true perception does exist.

11

Not in themselves. Sense object contact gives birth to sensation (experience).
The brain registers that sensation (memory), the response of which is thought. Thought in review of memory creates a rememberer, an experiencer. The birth of ego. The game begins.

12

Reversing the polarity of thought is indeed a very powerful and effective tool, perhaps the most effective defense mechanism of a troubled mind, but the definition of the actual effect of is somewhat different as I take it. As your insight revealed, Rounder, denial does not work for the simple fact that the thought, or line of thought, is still alive and strong, and as such may resurface at any time. Similarly, as you again said, residuals of the thought, or line of thought, will exist even after the polarity of a thought is reversed. So, in reversing the polarity of thought, I agree with you that we do not actually formulate a counter-thought, but work with the original thought in itself. If you take a 1, and reverse its polarity into a -1, then the previous and current values cancel to a 0, an absence of value. So then, if the troubled thought is taken directly and reversed, then it is canceled. For instance, if the thought is: “I am distressed because my relationship, which had great value to me, has just ended,” you would take that thought and flip it to “I am not distressed, because my relationship, which no longer has any value to me, has just ended.” Through rational thinking, the new, reversed thought is given support and value, and through this reinforcement, is able to cancel the previous form of the thought. It is as if the two thoughts were the “heads” and “tails” of the same coin, and all we do in actuality is to turn the coin over. However, the original thought strain still exits in a residual form; parts of the original thought were necessary to create the new thought. As such, we have not “destroyed” the thought, rather we have only changed it to disenable it to continue on its course of causing us distress.

13

Thalymedes,

What you’re talking about is intellectual dismissal. It always has an end in mind, which of course is a thought process. The error of what is being pointed to in the original post, lies in its fragmentation: getting rid of the painful, while keeping the pleasurable. The reality though, is that one always leads to the other.

14

That’s true, kowtaaia, what I proposed was a way of using inverse polarity of thoughts as a means of intellectual dismissal. I have also come upon a thought now that there are more factors that will contribute to the success of eradicating a thought process. Primarily, the emotion and intensity of the emotion associated with the thought or line of thought. For instance, as in the example I used before with a serious relationship having just ended, the emotion involved with the thought of it being over would undoubtedly be very intense. However, without the thought, there would be no emotion associated with it. So, if we eradicate the thought, we can eradicate the emotion. This has all been stated and understood, however, its reiteration leads to my point: Inversing the polarity of a thought serves only as a defense mechanism and solely an intellectual one at that. Therefore, one must not only support with logic and rationality, the inverse thought intellectually, but also emotionally, meaning, I must not only convince myself in thought and intellectual theory that I am not sad, but also emotionally. What I’m proposing is that a powerful enough emotion may force one to maintain a thought, even in logically one believes in its inverse. So even if I inverse the thought to say that I am not sad because my relationship, which means nothing to me, is over, it is used only as a defense mechanism, because even if it is subconsciously realized, I know that this is not the truth and I am still saddened. As such, I am unable to, in reality, do away with the thought and its effects. This is not to say that it cannot be done, only that it cannot be done immediately. It will take time and conscious effort to convince myself of the new inverse thought, at which time, the inverse thought now being the primary thought, the emotions of the original thought will no longer apply. This, then, is the normal course of emotional recovery, while the time recovered may vary, time will be required. I do believe that reversing the polarity, or creating the contrapositive of a thought will greatly shorten the period required as one is constantly dismissing the original thought to follow its new contrapositive form, time will nonetheless be required. I guess what I’m saying is that in cases where emotions are extreme and intense due to a thought, using a contrapositive for the reason of dismissal of a distressing thought cannot be immediately effective.

15

Thalymedes- I liked the “relationship” analogy- great example.

I have always been disconcertingly an “out of sight out of mind” person… I can purposely, physically remove myself from a person or situation and dismiss my emotions relatively quickly. If I wanted to throw myself into a rant of self examination here- I don’t know briefly, it has to do with things constantly being taken from me- people, dwellings and objects (belongings)- money, then no money. I have adapted to a life with fragile permanence. I don’t believe in security. But at any rate- if I don’t see, touch, hold a thing long enough (by “long enough” I mean not really very long, days even)- I emerge resiliently as I can, for there is always a stressed or broken feather in my wingspan- but perhaps this pervasive loss can never reach beyond a certain state of predictability, or obsessive/intrusive thoughts easily reach a point of saturation. My mind, in moments of mental control or clarity, turns on and off like a faucet.

I have found one emotion though that resists the confines of everything said above, and that is love- but only in its full potency, without any easy recession. When I am truly devoted, I am able to actively miss a thing and it transcends the bounds of the “out of sight, out of mindedness”, but even this confuses me with transience at times.

Is the feeling of “out of sight out of mind” a form of denial though? Sometimes I wonder if all of this is festering somewhere else where I can’t see it.

16

What is really in need of modification here is feeling, not thought, correct? Though this distinction between thought and feeling is arguable I’ll use it to try and make a point. What makes a though negative is the feeling thats associated with it, not the thought itself. I could think anything I like and not be disturbed by these thoughts if there were no emotional reaction to these thoughts, no emotional memory associated with them. I’d describe emotional memory as subconscious. Is it possible to ‘handle’ emotional memory with rational thought? I’m sure it must have an effect, however, a better approach might be to access the emotion directly and desensitize it. This would mean attempting to use rational though as little as possible and simply place your full awareness on the sensation of the feeling. So rather than evading the emotion, your accessing it as directly as possible, and in doing so the particular emotional memory is desensitized.

17

Thalymedes,

Now you’re talking about ‘auto-suggestion’, aka ‘self hypnosis’. The destructive energy of despair (as per your example) simply manifests in another form.

18

praxis,

It is thought that feels and thought is always separating itself from pain and forever trying to keep pleasure. It’s like wanting only one side of a coin, when of course; one side implies the other. You can’t get rid of one and keep the other. There’s nothing wrong with pain. It has to live so that it can die. As already said: if you stifle thought/feeling, it will simply manifest in another form.

19

Hello K

Does a dog “feel” even without what we call “thought?” I’m not sure if I’m understanding correctly. As I’ve grown to understand this, we have emotions we are born with and emotions we create ourselves. We live in our egotism so our acquired automatic habitual thought activates these created emotions and they become dominant never allowing the real within us to grow. This I believe is what must die. It is the artificially created inner world but not thought itself or normal animal emotion. They have their place as long as WE also begin to become present. Without our presence, our balanced inner world just becomes chaotic again.

20

“It is thought that feels”

It’s unclear what you mean by “thought” here.

“You can’t get rid of one and keep the other.”

You can desensitize yourself to a particular pain, just as you can desensitize yourself to a particular pleasure.

“There’s nothing wrong with pain. It has to live so that it can die.”

This is essentially my point, perhaps I was unclear.