[mdp2021]

The point of PG is that to properly reason about X you have to look at it "from outside".

A mental conditioning fogs judgement. "Identifications" are mental conditionings that make you lose intellectual freedom.

An example from other authors:

> For instance, modern education often does much damage when young students are taught dubious political notions and then enthusiastically push these notions on the rest of us. The pushing seldom convinces others. But as students pound into their mental habits what they are pushing out, the students are often permanently damaged. Educational institutions that create a climate where much of this goes on are, I think, irresponsible. It is important not to thus put one’s brain in chains before one has come anywhere near his full potentiality as a rational person

~~~ Charlie Munger

Edit:

just like the mental process described by PG has a strong taste of Popper's judgement on "Marx Hegel and Freud" - a consolidated cultural idea -, the warning against "identifications" has had quite strong proponents. One of them (indirectly but encompassing) is over 2500 years old and "quite preponderant".

[mindslight]

> A mental conditioning fogs judgement. "Identifications" are mental conditionings that make you lose intellectual freedom.

Freedom and structure are always in contention as yin-yang, and you're completely ignoring the benefits structure can bring. I'd guess OP finds a lot of value in labeling themselves "queer", in that a lot of things that were ambiguous or confusing become clearer.

[mdp2021]

> ignoring

Yes I was - I was focusing on a different side.

Logic. "X brings fog" and "X brings clarity" are not contradictory, in a normal paraconsistent logic.

But note: if A uses X as a mental experiment for intellectual development, detachment is there: that is the opposite of "identification".

[mindslight]

Most people aren't using paraconsistent logic, especially on Internet forums (unfortunately).

Furthermore, the sentence '"Identifications" are mental conditionings that make you lose intellectual freedom" is not really in line with paraconsisent logic. The loss of intellectual freedom comes about from being stuck on a recognized facet of your identity and unable to think of your identity as having a conflicting facet. If people could reason by freely jumping between towers of inferences regardless of the apparent conflict between them, then labeling yourself with identities wouldn't have the downside.

[altdataseller]

Reminds me of Eckhart Tolle’s themes too such as “you are not your story”