I'd like to hear what you think about Wilber's idea that meditation can disable us to be in touch with our feelings. He's expressed this only recently, e.g.in his book Integral Spirituality. He says that if we practice detachment, for instance, whenever we feel anger we observe it as an object, distance ourselves from it ("anger arises in my mind, I'm not my anger"), this practice can lead to deepening dissociation from our emotions, strenghten repression and projection, make us more enlightened but less in touch with our emotions.
My friend who is a therapist, wonders if meditation can be potentially harmful in the sense that some people can cut off from their feelings doing that.
I think it's an interesting question. Do you have any thoughts, experiences about that?

Mt:

In my experience from doing Focusing, the witness might even be a part wanting to feel safe, and therefore needing the kind of relational awareness emphasized in the Focusing process. IOW, to be heard, listened to, allowed to express what it wants and what it doesn't want, which is central to Ann Weiser Cornell's style of Focusing, called Inner Relationship Focusing.

And so if the witness isn't this ever-stable state of awareness, but possibly a part afraid of something else, then, in Focusing terms, merging with it would involve exiling other parts. And, along with the other parts being exiled (whatever the witness part doesn't want to feel), the witness also cannot be known well. And so there ensues a endless digression of witnessing which might not be as clear and lucid as we think it is. Interestingly, Cornell speaks of five human powers utilized in the Inner Relationship process, and a fifth step beyond our reach, "grace."

quote:

. . . endless digression of witnessing. . .

Yes, I think the kind of dissociating often taught in New Age/Eastern circles (I am not by body, my anger, etc.) can be damaging. I've never seen the point of this, anyway. I mean, does anyone out there think they ARE their anger? In relation to the other discussion we're having on reflecting and non-reflecting consciousness, it seems an attempt to awaken one to the non-reflecting aspect, only that's impossible to do if one is simultaneously closing oneself off to one's experiences. Non-reflecting consciousness observes and experiences without judgment, evaluation, etc., but to deny it even of its experiential awareness by insisting that it only observe without experiencing seems an abusive practice.

I can sort of understand what Ken Wilbur is saying: it seems that the false self will manufacture "peace" or clearmindedness, or whatever it senses is needed to make me acceptable, and the end result will make me more dissociated from the reality of who I am and what I feel. But, with the intention of wanting to know reality, by a form of emptiness or mindfulness meditation, meditation can help heal dissociation.Anyway, that's what Martha Stout in her book on dissociation called The Myth of Sanity, says. She doesn't mention Focussing (I don't think), but she does write about hypnosis.Although I never suffered memory loss as her clients do in the book, I know about divided consciousness, especially as a child, when the reality of me so completely did not measure up to what was expected of me by parents and grandparents, and the only way to soothe myself was just to invent another "perfect" me. I haven't done this in years, not in the way I used to, and I think that is an act of grace. The desire to be someone else was so strong that it took grace to make me want reality,"loving what is", truth, much more than any contrived reality.I think that wanting to know God as God is, following that longing, is an excellent way to heal dissociation.Sorry this is so longwinded!

Sorry, I missed your post, Phil, before I wrote.It is important to me to observe without reflection,when I do contemplative prayer, because I have such an urge to make over what I observe into something more spiritual, or happy,or meaningful ... centering prayer is rather liberating as all I have to do is return ever so gently to the Holy Face, or the sacred word,or space, or whatever it is that returns me to being with God in silence.But, I don't shut down what I experience...I just let it be what it is,no analysis, no inner dialogue.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I suppose that the witness can be used in a wrong way. For example, if I experience some kind of emotion I'm not allowed to have, let's say - sadness, and if I'm trained in meditation, I can shift my attention from that emotion to the silence or the witnessing part of my consciousness, and then - by means of energetic nature of psyche - emotion goes to the background and finally is gone. But really gone? Maybe just "exiled" - as W.C. put it.

I noticed I can even do that with contemplative prayer - to manipulate the prayer to close myself to some emotions or experiences. I feel it's even more twisted, because then I use the "feeling" of God's presence to avoid facing a part of my present experience - not by directing my attention to God as a Person, but by directing attention towards my feelings about God. Have you ever done such a thing?

So maybe it's what we do with our non-reflecting awareness that can be beneficial or harmful?

Psychodynamic approaches emphasize the need for "observing ego" in the process. Some people become lost in their experiences and they "drown" in them, so they have to develop an ability to distance themselves - still feel the feelings but not losing themselves in them. But some people are to distanced, and they need to learn how to "associate" - how to drown a bit more into their emotions. But the balance seems to be very delicate here.

How the witnessing capacity influences this dynamics of dissociation/association?

I wonder what would be a good advice to people who practice some kind of witnessing meditation or at least - mindfulness in everyday life - and don't want to repress their emotions.
Maybe the point is not to focus on the witness, but abiding as a witness focus on the content of awareness, on emotions, feelings, whatever comes up?

Another serious question arises: is pursuing the witness any good at all? do you think it's a natural capacity that was lost after the Fall, or is it artificial reaction to some problems caused by the Fall?
I think that without witnessing I would have much more problems with managing my life that I could have by potential misusing it - but it's just my guessing.

Mt:

For myself, body awareness seems quite important; it helps contain parts in pain so I can relate to them, but isn't prone to repression or the kind of distancing which is manipulative. In Focusing feeling awareness can arise anywhere, but the area from throat to genitals seems the most sensitive terrain for this; however, it isn't just emotion one is aware of, but the "unclear felt sense," or the unknown or fuzzy edge surrounding where the emotion is localized in the body. Ann Cornell, who is a linguist by academic training, has developed some expressions which seem to generate a state of presence which is neither exiling or over-identifying with respect to emotion. I'd recommend her book "The Power of Focusing," but here are some examples.

When we say, for instance, "I'm depressed," neuro-linguistically we have generated "I=depression." In effect, all that we know to be ourself in that moment is depression itself. But we can also say:

"I part of me feels depressed."
"Something feels depressed."
"I'm sensing something that feels depressed."
"I'm sensing something in my chest that feels depressed."
"There's a part of me in my chest that feels depressed."

And then we wait for all the felt sense to form. Maybe "depressed" is more a label than what truly fits the sensation. So we can say

"I'm checking to see if "depressed" fits completely, or if there's more."

We bring awareness to the sensation, or where "depressed" is located, and wait at the fuzzy edge, inviting this place to show us more about how it feels. And we wait for thirty-seconds or a minuite or so and see what comes. And, we also notice if another part of us critical or uncomfortable with the depressed part comes into awareness. In fact, we may already be merged with the critical part, and this limits our ability to be with the depressed part and allow it to unfold.

When we're swamped or over-identified with emotion, or when too distant or dissociated, in both cases body awareness tends to be minimal. The "unclear felt sense," which is more than we can know exactly, allows the body to communicate its meaning into conscious awareness.

So here is a good link to summarize the steps for that process. Clink on Focusing Partnership, then Self-Guiding Instruction, then scroll down to Ann Weiser Cornell and Barbara McGavin. There you'll find a one page guide to the process, but again, a few phone sessions are recommended. So many people feel they are doing this process as described, especially experienced meditators, but are missing imporant "steps" in the process and not fully benefiting.

www.focusing.org


There are also Focusing teachers throughout Europe, often providing phone sessions. I'd strongly recommend one or two before really reading the book completely through. It is such a relief to know this process well. Then the book can serve what you already know viscerally. Ann and Barbara's students may present the process in the most helpful way for dealing with exiled and/or merged parts.

And yes, I've noticed what you describe in my own prayer life re: attachment to consolations. Especially when God's presence disappears from my awareness, and I try to hold onto traces of His presence in my soul, rather than allow the dryness resulting from His greater unknown depth.

quote:

Originally posted by Mt:
I'd like to hear what you think about Wilber's idea that meditation can disable us to be in touch with our feelings.

I think "meditation" encompasses too broad a range of practices for us to be able to draw any conclusions. We have to zoom in on a particular form of meditation.

Here is a section of Satipatthana Sutta Discourses by S. N. Goenka and Patrick Given-Wilson:

http://books.google.ca/books?i...20sensations&f=false

Goenka has dozens of meditation centers around the world. Here he is talking about observing sensations.

He does say that "the observation must be made without any separation of observer and observed" (p. 52).

However, he is also teaching people to think of their feelings as only physical sensations.

While it's true that physical sensations accompany feelings, it's not true that a feeling is only a physical sensation. A feeling is also something felt on an emotional level ("feeling your feelings"), and feelings tend to produce thoughts, which in turn produce more feelings. There may also be an awareness of the nature of what you're feeling ("I'm angry about . . . ").

By telling people to stop these natural processes from happening, he is effectively training them to shut down certain pathways in the psyche.

Interesting discussion here. Certain meditation practices can encourage an array of defensive strategies that are maladaptive. Those strategies over which we have conscious (relative) control are suppression, avoidance, distraction, denial, and minimization, to name the major players that tend to be unhealthy ways of coping.

Dissociation, like repression, on the other hand, is generally thought of as unconscious and automatic. We cannot cause them to happen. In psychology/psychiatry dissociation is "A disruption in the usually integrated functions of consciousness, memory, identity, or perception of the environment. The disturbance may be sudden, transient or chronic." We see dissociative states on a spectrum from extreme reality distortions as in Dissociative Identity Disorder (used to be called Multiple Personality Disorder ) to more transient states of forgetfulness/amnesia.

In the example Derek provides above, we can see how shifting our focus of attention in meditation, a seemingly innocent thing, can employ one or more of these unhealthy defenses (denial being the most obvious in this case). Even good intentions, e.g., wanting stillness of mind through meditation, can serve as rationalizations for unpleasant thoughts/emotions/motives.

(Rationalization: dealing with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his/her own thoughts, actions, or feelings through the elaboration of reassuring or self-serving but incorrect explanations.) I don’t need to go to AA because I’ve found Vipassana meditation makes me feel better.

Another troubling defense we may see among meditators is autistic fantasy, defined as “ dealing with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by excessive daydreaming as a substitute for human relationships, more effective action, or problem solving. “ This certainly got me through middle school, but in my case it was a healthy defense. ; -)
On the other hand, increasing self-observation through witnessing meditations is desirable in people who are overly reactive when they could benefit from being more reflective and self-controlled. Anything that aides in increasing the capacity to tolerate painful affect and to delay gratification in those prone to self-destruction, impulsivity is a good thing.
In fact, Mindfulness meditation is actually widely prescribed for people with the so-called "affective dysregulation problems" seen in Borderline Personality Disorder for instance. This is consistent with the focussing work w.c. has been encouraging.

So the point you’ve already all made is to know what is a healthy detachment and what is a maladaptive defense in witnessing-type practices.

(All quotes taken from the DSM-IV TR, Defensive Functioning Scale)

The one thing that seems unequivocally good is getting to know yourself at a deeper level.

So, for example, if the person who made this statement:

quote:

I don’t need to go to AA because I’ve found Vipassana meditation makes me feel better.

would practice a form of meditation that caused them to become aware of what was driving their rationalization, then I'd say that form of meditation was a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek:
The one thing that seems unequivocally good is getting to know yourself at a deeper level.

So, for example, if the person who made this statement:

quote:

I don’t need to go to AA because I’ve found Vipassana meditation makes me feel better.

would practice a form of meditation that caused them to become aware of what was driving their rationalization, then I'd say that form of meditation was a good thing.

You make a good point. It's that whole fruit tree metaphor. We can just end all of our discussions with the fruit tree, never fails to settle us down.

Thank you, Shasha, for clearing up terminology. I used dissociation/association in the NLP sense - to disconnect or connect with an experience. But, as you point out, dissociation is an early and destructive defense mechanism which is not likely to be caused by meditation.

I wonder what you'd call in psychoanalytic terms a meditator's exaggerated distance from his/her emotions and feelings. Perhaps, some sort of isolation or intellectualization.

Hey Mt.,

I guess it would have been more reasonable to get your definition of the terms you're using rather than providing you with those from psychiatry, as though they're somehow better...Sorry about that.

Yes, isolation of affect or intellectualization are certainly associated with a characterological tendency to avoid/deny threatening emotions (or any emotions in some cases).

DSM definitions:

isolation of affect - dealing with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by the separation of ideas from the feelings originally associated with them. The individual loses touch with the feelings associated with a given idea while remaining aware of the cognitive elements of it (e.g., descriptive details.)

intellectualization - dealing with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by the excessive use of abstract thinking or the making of generalizations to control or minimize disturbing feelings.

These two often go together and can be on a wide spectrum. People who are prone to these aren't naturally aware of what they're doing. It usually takes others close to them complaining about lack of emotional reciprocity for them to realize this is how they relate.

More healthy is suppression, a conscious deliberate avoidance of emotion. (People often say "repression" when they mean suppression.)

Suppression is more healthy because you are first acknowleding emotion and then using conscious control. "I just won't think about that right now."

Mt, it seems you have a healthy curiosity and gaining understanding of the potential misuse of witnessing in your meditation/ prayer life. Keep us informed of what you learn, if you like.

I have DID and it started probably around the toddler years from different types of abuse. I agree with Phil that the (I am not my body) is not a great idea esp. for someone like me, because I am already dealing with trying to recover all parts of myself in a compassionate attitude.

When feelings come up, I say - "What do you want me to know? or What are you trying to tell me?" I have the choice in what I want to do with them. Our feelings are a wonderful tool to point us to what we may need to work on further internally. I want to embrace all parts of my being for I feel they are a divine gift.

As far a meditation, I like calming peaceful ones that bring the body, mind, and spirit closer together to communicate and work in unison.

Also, in the East, they tend to not focus on any of the things that come up in meditation. I find the visions & words to be very informative. I just let them go by, but I try to make note of the ones I want to learn more about an area that may need my attention or just tell me what is going on in regard to becoming whole.

HealingWater, there are some older threads here on something called "Focusing" that you might find interesting. It sounds like Focusing might expand upon the good direction you're already taking.

Thank you. I will look it up here.

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
Mt:

In my experience from doing Focusing, the witness might even be a part wanting to feel safe, and therefore needing the kind of relational awareness emphasized in the Focusing process. IOW, to be heard, listened to, allowed to express what it wants and what it doesn't want, which is central to Ann Weiser Cornell's style of Focusing, called Inner Relationship Focusing.

And so if the witness isn't this ever-stable state of awareness, but possibly a part afraid of something else, then, in Focusing terms, merging with it would involve exiling other parts. And, along with the other parts being exiled (whatever the witness part doesn't want to feel), the witness also cannot be known well. And so there ensues a endless digression of witnessing which might not be as clear and lucid as we think it is. Interestingly, Cornell speaks of five human powers utilized in the Inner Relationship process, and a fifth step beyond our reach, "grace."

Dear WC
Can you please mention your source as far as your last sentence is concerned: Interestingly, Cornell speaks of five human powers utilized in the Inner Relationship process, and a fifth step beyond our reach, "grace." I am doing a research on focusing and sure would like to know where Weiser Cornell called the fifth step grace.

Whoops, sorry to have overlooked another one of your posts here, jg. Again, w.c. is not participating in the forum nowadays.

What kind of research are doing, if you don't mind sharing about your work.