Hey. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to post that speel and run. I wanted to say that because I thought it might help posters here to see where I am coming from (the posters who are still with us). That was my sole intention in posting that.

But as for your comments...

1) Yes. I take your point about the mechanic. And I agree that that is right in most instances. I guess I posted what I did because... Of my experience in therapy where I found clinician's getting frustrated with me because they though I couldn't have been doing the cognitive restructuring correctly because I was experiencing an intense emotional state. Or my experience in therapy where I found clinician's getting frustrated with me because they attributed all these 'cognitive distortions' or 'irrational beliefs' to me that I don't think I held... Or that I held... Only when I was upset. And not... Before... As their theory required of me.

2) I guess what I am meaning to dispute here is the utility (or truth if it comes to that) of calling the beliefs 'irrational' in the first place. They may be unhelpful, yes. But I don't see the sense in calling them 'irrational'. I don't think intensely distressing emotional states... Are a matter of faulty logic. And I think that to say that intense emotional distress is caused by irrational beliefs is to make intense emotional distress out to be a matter of faulty logic.

(It was due to this that I went on to study logic... I thought that if 'irrational beliefs' was the problem then logic would be the cure... I think learning logic has helped me... But after learning some logic... I want to maintain that intense emotional distress is not a matter of logic / illogic.

3) I guess I was thinking of the 'shuffling back one step' as being akin to...
what does the earth rest on?
the back of a turtle
what does the turtle rest on?
the back of an elephant
what does the elephant rest on?... etc etc ad infinitum...

i think this kind of explanation is a pseudo-explanation...
in the sense that you invent (or posit) one entity that is prior in order to explain something. but then the entity that is posited requires an explanation in turn... and then one posits another entity...

and so really one is no further ahead.

but yeah...

i am in a thinking -> feeling -> behaving mood today ;-)
i do see the sense in it at times...
maybe the issue is that...
even once you have a grip on the 'cognitive distortions'
even once you have a grip on that...
oftentimes people can still be left with a problem...
very nearly the same problem they started with...
and...
additional problems with beating themselves up for their 'irrational' thoughts...

4) your fear is irrational because there is little chance you will be involved in a plane crash...

so fear is only a rational response to likely danger?

i guess it depends on what you mean by 'rational'
if a response is understandable then i consider it 'rational'
i think it is understandable that you are afraid of flying (given your past experiences etc etc)
i therefore think it is rational that you are afraid of flying...

but...

i think it is more helpful to say that it may well be unhelpful to you to have a fear of flying. and that... if that is something that you find... that it is unhelpful to you... that it is problematic in your life... then it may well be productive / worthwhile to attempt to change it.

perhaps that is the 'same thing in different words'
perhaps...
i like to think it is a similar thing
but the advantage...
is that it is not judgemental

5) ah practice... i am a theorist i guess... so in practice... there aren't any strict cognitive therapists?