Phil:

I had a thread on this before, by some name. Anyway, thought I'd pose it again.

There are an increasing number of times, and of duration, when the internal dialogue (id) goes silent. This often occurs during and after prayer, as an opening in the soul of natural grace to the Holy Spirit, where the mind has been unified beyond its tendency to sustain its existence in duality (the struggle of one pole against the other as though they arise separately).

The soul can "look" at the id and it will pause for a few seconds, or longer; but our fallen nature makes a permanent state impossible, which I believe is the weakness of the Buddhist model, as it suggests enough meditation practice ameliorates this. I've been around some impressive Buddhist teachers, and maybe only one had a significant alchemical balance pervading his life.

So when the soul focuses its presence on the bodily contraction, noticing the polarized tension, and holding both, a more visceral, hidden presence emerges that is near the heart of natural grace, or how the body was designed to embody the soul. And although this is a great effort when compared to how the Holy Spirit easily comingles with the bodily intelligence during prayer, there is still a strong kundalini response to be dealt with, as the poles become energized and begin seeking their full/final re-unification in the world of senses.

As such, the internal dialogue is a powerful sign of our fallen nature; this tendency to trance-out is so insidious and common that we are both very near and very far from each other because of it. One aspect of being separate from God, beyond creaturely knowledge, is also this separation of the poles and the post-Fallen attempts to rejoin them without the Holy Spirit.

If you think you are in control of your own mind, try stopping "your" thoughts for more than a few seconds.

If we can't control duality even at the level of thought, then the illusion of controlling government, or world affairs, or our own personal dilemmas, which are the most intense, visible form of polarization, is simply impossible to resolve, especially since the mind attempting to do so is the same largely automatized id making us think our thoughts are our own and personally created and important.

The false self (fs) functions via the separation of poles, even though they both arise together beyond our control. Perhaps this is one meaning of the Fall, where we no longer are in control of "nature," no longer naming it, as we are no longer situated in presence via Presence. As such, the fs's delusional sense of control has a survival-based impetus.

And so all behavioral systems appear in need of completion or improvement, yet are never finished projects, always lacking somthing regardless of the creativity invested in them. This is the id generating the illusion that the mind is different from itself. The "external" conflicts are actually just the id activating the same thing in our nervous systems.

The essentially unstable non-dual presence, or the chaotic life of life in which the duality of creation occurs, and the Holy Spirit as its transcendental source, comprise the Fallen tensions that draw the body-mind into an alchemical disposition, where the poles neutralize each other, like matter and anti-matter, destroying/dissolving the fs. So the body as the temple of the fallen soul can't be revealed without the immanent and transcendental presences mingling with each other: the union of heaven on earth that only happened in the unfallen, incarnate Christ. Meanwhile, the fallen world, inside and out, continually generates the intense pain (not just its outcome) needed to see the automated drama, although it usually devours/destroys the nervous system before the soul can see its unity beyond/within forms via Christ.

In the crucified and resurrected Christ, if we could accept pain, its own hidden center of presence would join conscious presence, and we'd see the life of life behind both the beautiful and the grissly forms of gradual awakening.

The Holy Spirit is beyond the soul's power, but the latter is included in it as creature as we see that even in non-duality we die and aren't the Creator. Fallen or not, we are not a form of Presence, but of presence.

w.c., I think you were referring to this thread

As such, the internal dialogue is a powerful sign of our fallen nature; this tendency to trance-out is so insidious and common that we are both very near and very far from each other because of it. One aspect of being separate from God, beyond creaturely knowledge, is also this separation of the poles and the post-Fallen attempts to rejoin them without the Holy Spirit.

I think that (and the whole post) is very insightful. Only, I think there are instances when a spontaneous flow of thought is not about the false self or inner brokenness, but about solving another kind of problem, or even a creative kind of flow. Eg., when I'm writing a book and am in the middle of planning a chapter, I often experience a kind of inner dialogue or spontaneous thinking that relates to that task. It can be annoying in prayer, but usually goes away after awhile if I don't indulge it. Outside of prayer, while driving around, say, this can actually be enjoyable.

So the mind works away at what we might call "open questions" or "unresolved problems." When that problem is "me," then it's likely that the flow of thought will be about how to fix myself (or others) so I'll be OK (false self-ish). But there are lots of other open questions about which the mind is engaged. The "trick" is to become more responsible about what we allow to go there in the first place.

The soul can "look" at the id and it will pause for a few seconds, or longer; but our fallen nature makes a permanent state impossible, which I believe is the weakness of the Buddhist model, as it suggests enough meditation practice ameliorates this.

Ooo. Ooo. Ooo. A major claim�and a shot across the bow of Buddhism. This could get interesting. It's going to take some time to absorb your very thick analysis, WC. (And "thick" is very much a compliment in this context.)

Re: the ways in which thought can embody creative intuition, as Phil is referring to, my sense is that those occasions are when the will is open to something larger than itself. When we are tranced-out, our will is typically contracted, drawn into the struggle to arrest one pole of the dualistic tension against the other, or preferring the speaker or listener in our heads rather than seeing them as co-arising. And so the soul's spontaneity expressed in a more poetic awareness would imply this suppleness of the will attuned to the aesthetic dimension.

I think that's a good analysis, w.c. I guess the point I was making is that the mind is responsive to questions and problems, especially those invested with emotional intensity. "How to write this chapter?" is a different kind of question than "how to get approval?" but to the mind, it's almost like it doesn't matter. If the question is stuck in there, the mind will work on it.

One way, then, to try to get at what's going on in the id (I like that term, as it resonates with Freud's ID somewhat) is to listen to what's going . . . what "themes" there are . . . and what questions might be implicit in these. Once we have uprooted the question, we can then try to get at whatever emotional roots might be generating it, then we can deal with those feelings in various ways. We can also examine the question to see if it's something we really want to hold onto. All of this is being evaluated from a higher level of spiritual awareness, which is often capable of letting go of certain questions as irrelevant. Of course, as long as it's stuck in a subconscious level, the mind will work on it with or without our permission.

I realize this is a more cognitive approach to working with the id, but it's often helpful. Thought flow coming from deep woundings might be much more resistant to this approach, but even then, a certain amount of space can be created by working with the questions.

Phil:

What you're describing actually takes place in various ways during Focusing, Sedona Method, and with Byron Katie's model. Ann Cornell's style of Focusing seems the most suited for the deeper woundings held subconsciously and needing relational presence for emergence and healing. But each model involves a kind of easing back into conscious presence, where both poles of the conflict can be accepted, which is the beginning of the soul's alchemy that partially neutralizes the energy of the id, which makes it less powerful in terms of the craving/aversion dichotomy you were alluding to.

In the Sedona Method, this polarity is broken down into 5 wantings: wanting approval/love, control, survival/security, oneness, separateness. Of course, it is the wanting that generates the polarity and feeds the id, not love, control, survival, oneness, separateness themselves.

Byron Katie's work is probably the most like your description, although paradoxical in its power to release identification from emotion so there is more space internally. Here's a link to her work (Look at the four questions and the turnaround):

http://www.thework.com/WhoIsByronKatie.asp

http://www.thework.com/FourQuestions.asp

Here are a few of Katie's aphorisms/koans:

http://www.thework.com/DailyMsgArchive.asp

Here are a few of Katie's aphorisms/koans:

Interesting list. In my experience, WC, personal affirmations seem to work well for some types of people (Type A's?) and for others (like me) they come across as useless platitudes. I've seen lists like that before (many) and instead of inspiring me they inspire nothing more than the feeling of not being good enough. That's hardly the cure, eh? That list suggests that everything is all in our mind. It's the stories we tell ourselves. Our beliefs. Etc. Well, of course. We know that. The insinuation is that we can take the narrow beam of our belief system and switch it over to some other, more positive and beneficial one and forget about that negative one we've been entrenched in. We just need to put on the right sized blinkers, if you will. But this doesn't work. This won't ever likely work for some people because they won't easily be convinced they aren't seriously flawed because, well, they are flawed. And besides being flawed, they usually donned some kind of honkin' big false self mask. To narrow one's vision into a positive mode where one realizes that our problems arise because we make everything a "story", etc., is to simply slip on another mask, and we know it. We can't so easily be fooled. That's what hypervigilence (and experience) gets you.

Part of the "problem" of some people, I think, is that they're not wrong. They're not in error. There is a light and dark side to everything and, call them doom-and-gloomers if you will, but they are quite in tune with the problem side of things. Giving these types of people pep talks might be a waste of time. What we need is to be affirmed that, yes, life really does suck much of the time. We know that. We're immersed in it. We have first-hand experience in that. Our lives are centered around that. We can try to run from it, but this kind of stuff (whether we prefer to talk about it or not) is a major part of life. Perhaps in another day and age we might have honored it. But today we run away from it because we're all expected to be light and positive. Well, we're all dying and in pain. There is much to celebrate, sure, but there is also much to mourn. I don't want to be peppy Katie Couric, thank you. That's not me. So let me throw a couple aphorisms out there:

You move totally away from reality when you believe that there is a legitimate reason to always feel good.

Reality is often worse than the stories we tell about it, thank God.

I'm very clear that everyone in the world is likely to be indifferent to me at one time or another. I'd just better realize that and be wonderful surprised and appreciative when this isn't so.

And etc.

And as for internal dialogue, has anybody mentioned that its prominence and persistence could be due to some people needing (like me), who are not exactly swimming in social connections and relationship, sort of keeping themselves company with talk?

Brad:

Those koans of Katie only make practical sense after employing her method, or some other, wherein release of attention into the space of presence occurs. So you're getting sick on the fruit of the work to be done without doing the "work."

And id has little to do with lack of social contact, since talking with others is usually accompanied or driven by the id itself; it just sounds different.

As for reality being worse than the stories we tell about it . . . this can't be known until we have some extended moments of reality without stories filtering it.

One way of understanding post-Fall reality is to see separation from God as life contracted and feeding upon itself via the id; yet, even though this separation generates the id, it occurs within the backdrop of "We live and move and have our being," within God.

Buddhism embraces the inherently unstable body-mind as its primary focus, and within the suffering of the id feeding upon itself brings the limited power of the soul's natural grace to bear as presence, engendering a degree of alchemy such that polarities collapse into each other as consciousness momentarily free of the id rather than simply through instinctual processes of dissolution/survival-based reactivity.

And so in Buddhism there appears to be a mis- understanding re: the difference between the present moment and the eternal, such that B doesn't even distinguish them. This is a fundamental error, since in referencing everything to the mind's capacity for knowledge, there is no recognition of the difference between the soul and the mind, the former able to receive, in darkness to the mind, transcendental Grace beyond its capacity for unstable access to natural grace. This instability is relational as regards the will, not mental in terms of the id.

The present moment is the domain of presence. The eternal is the domain of Presence.

Those koans of Katie only make practical sense after employing her method, or some other, wherein release of attention into the space of presence occurs. So you're getting sick on the fruit of the work to be done without doing the "work."

WC, I was making the point, to use your terms, that she was saying the fruit was composed of luscious apples, perfectly ripe bananas, and seedless grapes. Perhaps it's a fine line between exercising and trying to replace one skewed version of reality with another. But life is also worm-eaten apples, overripe bananas, and sour grapes.

It's my view that a good life is one in which we can maintain the most pleasing and useful illusions. But I wonder if, at least for people like me, more pleasing (call them "realistic" if you will) illusions are possible. Perhaps the path is to burrow down into one's "doom and gloom", understand it, make friends with it, etc. Perhaps (as with ADD) there are many types of mindsets that are misdiagnosed as depression. I'm just saying that, at least in my experience, taking the "positive" approach hasn't usually been very life affirming, as odd as that may sound.

And id has little to do with lack of social contact, since talking with others is usually accompanied or driven by the id itself; it just sounds different.

Perhaps so. And everyone's experience is likely to be different or the same experience may be described differently. But many times in my experience the id just seems like it's keeping me company.

As for reality being worse than the stories we tell about it . . . this can't be known until we have some extended moments of reality without stories filtering it.

That may be true. But I was, again, trying to illustrate how a "positive" aphorism (or only positive aphorisms) might possibly not be as helpful and could actually make us feel worse because of unrealistic expectations. It is, I think, only in comparison with others that we feel inadequate. We can try to do these exercises and live up to the finer expectations that we have of life or we can deflate and let the air out of some of these expectations and do the same thing. God grant me the wisdom to know what I can and can't change and to know the difference, I suppose. In my case it is "God grant me the humility to drop my stubbornness and the thousand subtle ways I find to run away from myself instead of accepting it."

Brad:

What Katie is saying is that from within presence, the polarities dissolve much more quickly, and so the pain of life which you are referring to tends not to stagnate into beliefs and traumatizing patterns. This is purely experential and can't be understood otherwise.

The id, being highly personalized so as not to appear automated, seems to keep us company, but is really devouring our capacity for free attention. The present moment can give a much richer company.

My sense is that what you've related re: your struggle with the "fixer" may be involved here and goes back to the other thread where we discussed the importance of internalizing a nurturing relationship in order for there to be rest within the nervous system; otherwise we are trying to create rest out of a primary state of hypervigilance and just giving ourselves more disturbance, although we dress this disturbance up as meaning, belief, etc. Even within the limited domain of human presence, its relational power can generate openings within the nervous system for just letting ourselves be without the need to comment on it; these openings collapse because of our fallen nature, but their relational imprint allows us access.

And I'd add that without this internalized presence of the "other," the present moment is much more frightening or unstable, as it constantly reminds us of the loneliness which is the potential space for that anticipated internalization of the other.

I think what we run into is the idea of "If I am sane (or unbroken, or functioning normally) then I should be at peace." Well, probably by most definitions of sanity I am sane, but I definitely am not a peace and I definitely am not functioning normally by normal standards. Can we work on stuff and thus improve our lives? Surely. But I wonder how often we have a more idealized model of normal in mind and not a more intimate, realistic and conscious model of ourselves. You can't squeeze blood for a turnip. That sort of thing.

This is sort of a random thought. Doesn't relate to id�unless we were to look anew at our id and suppose that, for us, it could be normal, as least in terms of the amount, if not necessarily the content.

But that intimate version you are referring to is almost impossible without internalizing human presence, especially when attachment relationships were so thin or deficient.

But that intimate version you are referring to is almost impossible without internalizing human presence, especially when attachment relationships were so thin or deficient.

Recently there was a guy who blew himself up outside a packed football stadium. Local radio host John Carlson had an exclusive interview with the guy's father. He thought his son's problems stemmed from the son's inability to relate to his peer group. Otherwise he was talented, outgoing, ambitious, friendly, and full of life. The other four kids in the family are all apparently fairly well adjusted, at least socially. What if someone had been there to say "F that�if you're comfortable with, say, older women then find a 40-year-old who wishes to rob the cradle." People become unhealthily and unreasonably alienated, but these days I would keep a close eye on alienation that might be of a saner variety because, frankly, there's an interesting wave washing over the culture right now and the saner ones don't always ride it. They get out of the ocean.

As much as I tell myself that I want a plethora of friends and lovers, and that the lack of same is all due to a deformation, I realize more and more that I simply do not like and can not handle these types of relationships. This would be considered antisocial, abnormal and a host of other terms. On the other hand, people are among the most violent and treacherous animals on the planet. There is a reason that many people are quite happy with just their pets. So I'm simply stressing to be cognizant of trying to hammer round pegs into square holes. I have no disagreement that the presence of another is healing and helpful and necessary, but perhaps, thinking outside the box, that for some people that other might be a cocker spaniel.

I don't disagree with much of what you say, WC. I just woke up this morning wanting to stress yang to balance the prevailing ying, I guess.

Brad:

I'm not advocating huge steps, but enough of one to demystify, or take some of the fear out of, the process of making intimate connection. And so while a pet is a good thing indeed, contact with a human being who gradually invites us to open further, but without huge risks, restores some confidence in our being able to manage painful affects from a place of inner-sustenance; hence the role of therapist, if such a professional has authentic traits and understands how to engage an attachment relationship without being too task-oriented.

When we use techniques over and over again to try and feel safe, we increase our fear of just being and being known, and that cuts us off from the nourishment that when lacking generates so much longing and fantasy. And so Ann Cornell's book is a good place to start, as it isn't technique but relationship-oriented. You'll find it different, in that respect, than Stanley Block's book.

I'm not advocating huge steps, but enough of one to demystify, or take some of the fear out of, the process of making intimate connection. And so while a pet is a good thing indeed, contact with a human being who gradually invites us to open further, but without huge risks, restores some confidence in our being able to manage painful affects from a place of inner-sustenance; hence the role of therapist, if such a professional has authentic traits and understands how to engage an attachment relationship without being too task-oriented.

That sounds like really sound advice to me. And, personally, I've got to concentrate on the right kind of steps. They size of them may be somewhat irrelevant although they are sure to be small.

When we use techniques over and over again to try and feel safe, we increase our fear of just being and being known, and that cuts us off from the nourishment that when lacking generates so much longing and fantasy.

I think at least part of the fear and/or aversion to forming close relationships is that, frankly, a leopard can't change its spots. And I'm not necessarily talking about my spots. And I�m not necessarily talking about those typical spots of the women, men, and/or cocker spaniels that we repeatedly attract into our lives because of our unique characteristics, needs, and tendencies. I'm talking about the fact that relationships (even just friendships, but less so) are inherently traumatic. Yes, I'm too needy. Yes, I expect the other person to hold things for me that I should hold for myself. (I'm talking "emotions" here, not what you're thinking. I already hold that myself.) And yes, I want too much and expect too much. But I look around at relationships and I'm just not seeing anything but an interplay of mild neurosis, some psychosis, and always a good heaping of dysfunction. The cost/benefit ratio of a close relationship just doesn't seem worth it and, frankly, I�m sort of surprise the so many people get into them!

As I told someone else recently, the only reason I might want a close relationship is because of the sex, the self-esteem boost that comes from being accepted by another (As Sally Field said: You like me! Your really like me!), and to have a companion to do a few of those things that are just never fun to do by yourself (and, no, I'm not referring to Benefit #1). Maybe the real trouble is that I've just found it near impossible to find a person to model or reflect back that kind of things that I need. God will have to play matchmaker because I haven't got a clue.

Anyway, sorry about taking your id topic off course, WC. No. Wait! All that stuff I said is EXACTLY the kind of id that is typical in my head. There. Done. Connected.

But I look around at relationships and I'm just not seeing anything but an interplay of mild neurosis, some psychosis, and always a good heaping of dysfunction. The cost/benefit ratio of a close relationship just doesn't seem worth it and, frankly, I�m sort of surprise the so many people get into them!

Maybe it's because we're essentially relational?

There are lots of healthy relationships out there. I'd guess I know more people in healthy ones than in unhealthy (even including my spiritual directees, here). I think the key is the friendship level, and the bond that develops from just hanging out and living life together. Those are the kinds of things that don't break down too easily and are difficult to walk away from.

I know this is an id thread. Maybe we need on on relationships. I don't think we've ever had one dealing explictly with that topic.

I think it's interesting the importance of relationships keeps coming up on this thread and "Healing the false self" as well.

There seems to be an inverse relationship between our developed capacity for intimacy and the activity and intensity of the id. The more internalization of "I-Thou" presence we have, the more disposed to alchemical transformation are the organism's polarized energies. Since those unalchemized energies get translated into the id, and personalized as false self, the more conscious presence there is in the body the less trapped in the head and more open in the front of the body we will feel.

The id is always comprised of a speaker and a listener, which is the false-self personalization/contraction, as it is withdrawn from the present moment in which relationship occurs. During childhood, having a voice that is seen, heard and understood in the heart and mind of the parent is the authentically intimate attachment relationship, which collapses the polarized energies of seeking into the heart as being known and resting in being, out of which spontaneous, true self expressions arise, such as we see in play and creative activity, which is always relational.

I think it's interesting the importance of relationships keeps coming up on this thread and "Healing the false self" as well.

Perhaps, as Phil suggests, we should start a thread on relationships. But perhaps we are concerned at all with the id and the false self because we wish to fix them, and we wish to fix them only because we see that as a way to partake in the greatest human treasure of all, being in a meaningful relationship with other human beings and the world. I could also add that we wish to be in relationship with God, and no doubt this can be an independent and separate achievement, but I'm guessing that when we are in relationship with other human beings and the world around us that we are automatically in relationship with God in a powerful way.

By ourselves we seem to rot in our own excesses. Hell, I know that. It's not necessarily that relationships moderate us (but God only knows that's exactly what the female of the species does for us, thank God). It's that they open us and thus we become more fully ourselves. But that's tough to do when we have this idea in our heads that we're so flawed that we must hide ourselves or we must constantly have the approval of others. I think it all stems for this and if one finds a way to heal this then the rest should quite naturally fall into place. Then one can start relationship hell and realize a little id ain't as bad as we thought.

The id and false self cause a great deal of pain even in their protecting us from genuine contact with others and God. But they contain, buried in their distortions, the longing for such intimacy, and so "fixing them," or the attempt to do so, is actually to be out-of-touch, viscerally, with their energies, being run by them as polarized mental constructs rather than relating with them as sensate parts within awareness.

But they contain, buried in their distortions, the longing for such intimacy, and so "fixing them," or the attempt to do so, is actually to be out-of-touch, viscerally, with their energies, being run by them as polarized mental constructs rather than relating with them as sensate parts within awareness.

The "polarized mental constructs" is a difficult concept for me to grasp, but I hear what you're saying about "fixing them". What would be your paradigm, "mining them"?

There really isn't a paradigm, per se, once the relational environment is acquired for being seen, heard, and understood. As for the Focusing process I'm alluding to above, allowing exiled parts to come into sensate awareness is relational itself. The desire to fix becomes one of the parts needing presence, or being seen, heard, and understood, just as one would hope to find in a therapist adept re: attachment-based healing.

"Polarized mental constructs" simply means the more abstract understanding of longing and all its contains re: intimacy, presence, attachment, etc.