Sunday, 28 February 2016


In psychology, the meaning of the word dissociation is usually a bit specific, as described for example here. There it deals mostly, I think, with how a person perceives and relates to him or herself and to his or her environment. Dissociation, in the latter meaning of the word, is viewed as pathological to the extent, I think, that it is unrestrained, basically.

But, in cognitive neuropsychology and even in cognitive psychology in general the word refers, usually, to something different, namely brain damage that causes specific dysfunction. That is, some brain functions stay intact, while one or more others are harmed. This is very often used for testing which brain functions affect which tasks.

I have a forth sense of the word: I feel it is about interpretations of reality and/or some certain context, in two or more exclusive ways (two or more categories of dissociation). Generally I feel that many of those ways can be very subtle, though. If it is into only two ways, including more or less subtle ones, then it generally can mean into one pro- and one anti- way.

I actually feel that the context of a dissociation can be defined in many ways. It might, I think, for example be one of the dissociations described by psychology. It can even be one of the brain functions being turned on or off, in the sense that the person with that handicap cannot relate to reality as if there when it's about whatever that functionality is about. Dissociation from one's past or one's present in general or in certain contexts can fairly easily be defined like that, I think, since it is about exclusively being anti- present or past and pro- the other one of them.

So it seems that dissociation can in psychology in general be interpreted as a division into extremes of pro- and anti-functional or so. In my interpretation, there's something to it that says that the functional parts could  -  to at least some extent  -  influence the others into functioning too, unless they have them defined as dysfunctional, which I hereby define as that they tend to dissociate from them. Further, if at least one sides of one's interpretation of reality define another one as dysfunctional, and also sets that to be a self-fulfilling prophesy, then the dissociation is for real, I feel.

But to the extent there' a third side to that dissociation, then it should consequently define the other two as dysfunctional, it seems, and also even set that to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. This I believe goes to unlimited extremes, theoretically, when there are only two parts to such a dissociation. This means, though, that a third-part dissociation means also dissociating from dissociating without limits, I think. So, thereby, with a simple third part to it, a dissociation tendency can limit itself. ...

Perhaps this can be interpreted as a main reason for there being security against too much dissociation in any context. I mean that perhaps in nature there exist very much of such three-part dissociation. ...

No comments:

Post a Comment