Interesting how at times I realize I haven't really been in the present moment, and yet there has never been, quite literally, any other place to be. Whatever perceptions that are taking place are occuring within the same mind/space. The difference seems to be whether or not I'm sucked into the internal dialogue or not.

What I find is that the internal dialogue (referred to hereafter as ID) is going on all the time, almost as much an autonomic nervous system process as anything else, except that I can notice it. In this noticing there is some space, but the free space shifts around or collapses as the tide of the ID pulls from other angles, like water inevitably finding a new course after encountering resistance.

The trance-like state of the ID, and the fleeting present state awareness, are both occuring within the same nervous system. The difference amounts mostly, it seems, to how attention is placed. For a few seconds attention can notice this natural entropy of ID, but then replicate the ID by commenting on itself a few seconds later, perhaps thinking the new sense of meaning/commentary on the present moment, rather than the unanticipated, bare quality of it, is still the present moment. And so the freshness of the present moment (PM) is lost easily under the weight of this huge habit of ID-based perception.

None of this is bad/good. I'm just wondering out loud (which can easily be the ID itself, especially if the monologue turns into dialogue without awareness of answering the call of either).

I've trained in Buddhist meditation over the years, but the point I'm making hasn't really been experentially addressed in that model, in my own experience anyway. In Buddhist sitting meditation, the instruction is just to notice thoughts and let them come and go. This is fine, but the tendency of ID is more physical and autonomic than most conscious mental functions, at least once having watched and sensed it inside my head and body. There is really a kind of survival impetus in the mind to engage the ID and not see the difference. Perhaps it is the common trance that keeps people on the road from mass and regular car pile-ups. Wouldn't want to aruge against its value, and to do so would, of course, be the ID co-opting attention all over again. LOL.

As I play with this, noticing the present moment, letting it fill up more attentional space, and noticing how the ID is always seeping into that space, there is some humor and awe for how programmed we are, and how fleeting this freedom is. When there is enough freed-up space to last a minute or so, the ID pulling at the edge, always looking to slip its hand inside a mental orifice, then it is very clear . . . . . .

I've never really been here before. And there's really nothing going on.


Objects appear in awareness with almost a life of their own. ID seems to drain presence, and is always using up as much space in the nervous system as possible. ID is almost like being possessed, and seems to contain many of the characteristics of what I'd refer to as my personal identity.

Any disappointment in the present moment requires the ID to fuel it into a stable, enduring encounter, or it fades from awareness. Central to the endurance of the emotional pain is the ID's use of memory, especially those with a strong emotional charge, which can more easily collapse attention via old patterns in the nervous system.

Along with this immediacy of presence and the awareness of ID always seeking control, and always eventually getting it, (not as in evil, but simply as habit), is the rawness of the present moment. This I feel in the body, a kind of sensate aspect of the experience. Through Focusing (Eugene Gendlin), I'm aware that these bodily sensations can speak in ways similar to the internal dialogue, but are more on the order of archetypal patterns . . . deeper and more interesting, but perhaps just more attempts by the ID to regain its position in the common order of things.

Some years ago on a Focusing retreat, this became acutely clear. During the process of sensing and listening to nervous system pain/memory/chakra energy (chest, stomach, etc), the unfolding of the archetypal meanings bottomed-out/collapsed, and the energy released completely into pure peace throughout my body and into my head. The peace was honey-like, but without any polarity or passion to it. Absolutely no meaning. Mind was completely relaxed attention throughout body, but still able to notice things from the head perspective. Not like the transcendental peace of God. Eyes were open. No trance. Just alive and connected without any thought of it.

This lasted for several hours, and I can taste it now and then as these moments of freed-up attentional space occur. And so the loneliness of the present moment that arises after "mindfulness practice," seems just more of the ID, but a deeper reservoir it draws from to keep itself in business. I don't expect it will ever go completely out of business, since its function seems so primary to human collective, mostly unspoken, agreements.

http://www.jancox.com/468.html


"A Real Revolutionist would look upon the dialogue that goes on within everyone as a sort of simplistic, silly, sophomoric thing that is personally meaningless. The dialogue is literally just background noise. It's no more than the inescapable noises echoing up from the stomach after you eat a meal. If you get good, it's the rushing of the blood, elevator muzak in the brain.

You should look at all this as a whole; this is not some half-baked proverb I'm coming up with: "Yeah, I guess a lot of what goes on in my head is garbage." A lot? Ha, all of it is! I don't care how important it seems. If you had a continual awareness of how childish, but how inescapable, those noises are, you would find out something valuable to use.

No one ever questions the basic pertinence of what goes on in their heads. They approach it piecemeal. "You're right, some of the things that go on in here are garbage. Parts of it are nonsense." What do you mean, parts? I'm suggesting that a Revolutionist would begin to see that the WHOLE process is NOISE. Not upsetting noise, not good noise, not partially one and partially the other. Nope. It's more like you were born with cheap fillings in your teeth that pick up two or three low wattage a.m. stations on your radio.

These noises have to go on in your head, but they have no pertinence at all. It's all silly. If you don't like silly, think of it as sophomoric. It's truly, as far as New Intelligence is concerned, unimportant -- UNTIL YOU THINK OTHERWISE. You can be sitting there thinking, "How true that is," and laughing, then suddenly something hits your G-spot upstairs and you're whistling along with the muzak again. Go along with the dialogue, about something serious, and then it IS serious. Get it? If it's serious to you, IT'S SERIOUS.

There's no way you can ordinarily, intellectually, deal with this flow that goes on up top because it's too fleet. There's no way to directly deal with the process of what goes on in your head because, at the very least, the process was going on a split second before you were conscious of it. At the very second that you were aware there was a "me" in here and a "not-me" out there, there was the dialogue.

You can't catch the flow, you can't stop it, you can't tackle it. You can't keep up with it -- you just can't. If you still believe you can slow it down and look at it...what do you want me to call you? How about "later"? How about "never"? How about "John Q. Public."

The dialogue is either (1) planning or (2) rehashing, the ordinary past. If you can get a sort of free-time, nonspecific view of all this, then I don't have to TELL you it's silly and sophomoric. What has the dialogue ever done for you? Look right quick. Look at what's going on in there. Is it anything really new? "When I get there, I'm going to do so and so. Alright... When I get there, I'm going to do so and so..." I suggest that, when you see it, at best, it's silly. In the City, without it, people are struck deaf, dumb and blind -- no longer fully functional. Yet, you can see that it's only background noise.

Of course, you can't get rid of it. If you think you can, you've taken up fighting with the Tar Baby. (If you don't remember that story, it's about a rabbit who was tricked into attacking a tar baby and stuck to it -- the attack was his downfall, because the harder he fought, the stucker he got.) You could look at looking at your dialogue as a sort of tar baby. If you try to attack it, as "psychological" or otherwise, you're arguing with a tar baby. You're stuck to it like glue."

A bit of true genius from Evelyn Underhill about
A)The Contemplation of Trancendence and B)The Contemplation of Immanence.

http://www.ccel.org/u/underhil...tm/iv.vii.htm#iv.vii

I relate more to B) and gravitate toward Merton's Dark Mysticism. I guess that's just how I'm put together. Do you relate more to A), w.c. ?

You need not answer of course, but I am curious.

immanence.com

MM:

As I've opened more to "A" over the past 10 years, "B" has become more easily accessible. It would be impossible to measure them more exactly, except to say they are related. Of course, some Buddhists cultivate a high degree of immanent presence, yet remain unaware of the transcendental expression, or so it seems. In fact, Christians with some ripening of the mystical sensibility seem to find the present moment much less difficult to apprehend, and work less strenuously to that end, than some Buddhists I've known.

That said, the posts I've made on this topic, while related, are suggestive of a different angle of awareness availabe to us, at least in my experience so far. We are so closely melded to the habit of internal dialogue that we seldom have moments of knowing its automaticity, and think we are controlling it out of a sense of pursued meaning. We don't think of it controlling us, or even of purposively engaging "it," since it seems to be our very selves.

This is really about gaining/noticing more room in the nervous system, which is characteristically ordered by the ID (just as cells are +/- charged), both consciously and unconsciously. Without some humor for this "dilemma," it is a heavy affair of trying to stop what cannot be stopped.

Does this have anything to do with your recent interest in psychic phenomenon and Rupert Sheldrake?
Are there charisms operating automatically?

No to the first question. The process I'm trying to describe was first encountered about 15 years ago, involving the writings cited in the second post.

As for charisms . . . . what/which do you mean specifically?

Great topic, and I hope to participate more when we get back up and going here.

Mind was completely relaxed attention throughout body, but still able to notice things from the head perspective. Not like the transcendental peace of God. Eyes were open. No trance. Just alive and connected without any thought of it.

YES! That's part of what I call the true self state, and I experience this often. There are absolutely no thoughts, bodily diffusion of energy, clarity of awareness, and a kind of natural opening to transcendence which mitigates agains self-reflection. I think the kundalini process conduces toward this state and constantly works to overcome blockages to it.

The dialogue is either (1) planning or (2) rehashing, the ordinary past.

Yes again, to which I would add "problem-solving." It's almost as though there's a kind of unconscious computer that constantly churns away at things; when these come into the light of consciousness, these inner workings are experienced as thoughts.

Now consider a person whose life and identity is a "problem" because of shame and inner woundings -- whose computer is constantly investigating "how to be OK" or "I'll be OK when . . . " Behold, the noisy mind!

"Now consider a person whose life and identity is a "problem" because of shame and inner woundings -- whose computer is constantly investigating "how to be OK" or "I'll be OK when . . . " Behold, the noisy mind!"


From the POV I've been alluding to on this thread, shame and inner woundings don't feel like shame and inner woundings unless they are being routed through the internal dialogue. Bare attention to the sensations shows this to be the case, prior to the story generating a higher interest level, or more entertainment, out of the pain. None of us would regard our emotional dramas as "entertainment," but if we could deal just with sensations, attend to those, and give some space for noticing how in that space of bodily attention they don't yet collapse into drama, then we might also begin to notice that there is a kind of autonomic circuitry for producing drama, which we've delayed a bit with a shift of attention. This shift of attention can be watching how the second side of dialogue appears before it engages the energy of thought, i.e, becomes a full blown internal discussion, answering one side with the other, and assisted by sensing the intensity of energy at its pre-staging, i.e, before it feeds into that emerging, habitual story line.

As you allude, the talking about a problem (inside our heads) isn't really an attempt to solve the problem, since that would leave us without the drama. ID appears to be our identity, and so we seldom question its authority; such would be the suicide of meaning, in the routine sense at least. But we are wired up to engage thought automatically, hence the prevalence of internal dialogue. When we don't answer ourselves (inside our heads), we have a moment to see the ID is automated. And so it appears that much emotion, rather than sensation, is ID-generated.

I can feel the wiring in myself. Tonight I watched a movie, and as the "drama" unfolded, I could see/sense how the drama in the movie was activating memory-based emotion in my nervous system. Watching this happen showed how urgent and automated this habit is, just as much as other physical urges are, and not at all my choice. The choice was in noticing. Once in the drama, there is no choice, except what appears to be via participation, although at that point I don't feel like I'm acting/participating, since I'm completely identified with the ID seen as the movie of characters like its own inner exchanges. Watching this happen was more interesting than the movie. It was funny to catch myself sliding into the circuit groove, or more often noticing that I'd already been sucked in entirely.

And so, how much of life is this very same sliding into the circuit of drama? How different are the conversations we have with each other than the ones we "have" inside our heads?

Word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, working of miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tounges and interperetation of tounges.

According to a spiritual gifts inventory from Denver
Seminary, I am strongest in word of wisdom, word of knowledge, and healing or mercy gifts. People in need of healing sense this gift and move towards me.
I'm enneagram type 9 as in mysticalmichael (9) and that is the psychologist's personality. ROTFL

Anyone who reads and listens to preaching as much as I do has word of wisdom, word of knowledge gifts, and I am above average in those areas. Discerning of spirits is growing and I expect it to be well developed by the time I reach 50. (God willing) As far as psychic ability, I am a poor reciever, but a good transmitter. I can think things across the room to other people. I'll begin to think something and people in a conversation across the room beging to talk about it. People know if I am looking at them and often turn around
as though they can feel it, far too often to be coincidence.

I rely on my sponsor for discerning of spirits and prophecy sometimes he gets impressions or dreams about what's going on with me now or in the future. -Those kind of things. Often gifts appear when there is a need or a "draw" upon the gifts.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

MM:

As for the relation between charisms and ego and false self functions via the automaticity of the internal dialogue within the nervous system, one can only speculate. So I'd guess that some charisms, to the extent they arise more from kundalini arousal, and less so directly from the Holy Spirit, could feed into the collective perceptions of the internal dialogue. A practical question might be "Could you let go of that?" and then see what resistance or clinging arises. The Sedona Method is a simple way of supporting this.

As of late, it has become clearer how the archetypal forces, which are organized via kundalini, feed into the internal dialogue, since they are still polarized forces. It is easy to become enamoured with them as they unfold into conscious awareness, since they often impart some partial healing, or sense of being more alive from the inside-out. If early development was significantly thwarted, then this watering hole can become a permanent station in life. So this process can stagnate if we cling to a particular image (an understandable false self insecurity) and not continue to let go via receptive, bare awareness. This is just my experience of Focusing, as I understand it in relation to the alchemical process of the nervous system whereby polarized expressions of energy eventually collapse into the body's version of pure awareness, which seemed to involve those energies entering the central-most channel of the subtle body, experienced as peace with no further characteristics. Nevertheless, this is still a creaturely phenomenon, although perhaps a non-dual state that comes closest to a transcendental moment; it could have been an abiding immanence, or what Phil describes as "Be here now, in love," but that already may involve the Holy Spirit.

I guess the main thing here would be to have some sense of what it's like to observe the internal dialogue, and what awareness is when it isn't being co-opted into this neural circuitry. Traditional Christian spiritual direction focuses mainly on the increasing capacity of the will to recollect/dispose oneself to God, which awakenes many yearnings that have no peace until they collapse from their polarized states, which is the kundalini process only recently recognized in the west. Phil's metaphor "Rest in the awareness of God's love for us" might engender a state of attentional space that isn't being processed via ID. Even so, having some understanding/recognition of the ID, how it organizes almost all of awareness as a globalizing nervous system function, leads to other considerations after one retires from formal prayer. Since grace awakens deep yearnings, these can feed powerfully into ID, and so some method besides recollection may be needed to cultivate unbiased attention.

St. Paul seems to address your question in his famous statement in I Corinthians re: gifts of the Holy Spirit in relation to love. He seems to be saying: focus on love, and whatever else comes has a more spacious context where one can let it go, since it's a gift anyway. However, Paul seemed to struggle himself with nervous system-based passions arising from his devotional life.

Many interesting things said here.

Given your description of the ID, WC, I tend to see it as sort of a "back channel", an alternate form of communication within individuals and between individuals. It is inherently powerful because it is automatic, often unconscious and somewhat stealthy. One wonders, as you've speculated, whether we can ever get rid of this autonomous thinking since it appears we need it. Perhaps shame has taken over this normally healthy part of our minds that "keeps our cars on the roads". Our shame is like a virus in the computer operating system of our minds. It will try to expand � and not only in our own minds but it will also try to pass itself onto others.

Perhaps negative ID simply has become a habit; a habit that I suspect is fueled covertly by anger (an anger created by shame). Sure, there's undoubtedly some problem solving going on but I think this "problem solving" has mean motives. If we see ourselves as being broken and in need of fixing then this constant "problem solving" is a way of rubbing our noses in it and shaming ourselves. The "problem solving" might more often be self-torture for our supposed sins and defects. It's a twisted form of penitence. I think the ID is largely a manifestation of anger. We're "lashing out" even if this is directed inward where it is safe to do so. One suspects that if we break through the anger and bitterness that this ID can resume handling the usually mundane minutia that it's meant for. One suspects that if we truly accept who we are with all our flaws (as much as can be reasonably done), then our internal dialogue might stop eating us alive internally and mangling our lives externally by polluting and side-tracking our external attention possibilities.

Brad:

Yes, shame and other expressions of woundedness feed the I.D. But I'd say it is more than just an adaptive response; rather, a primary function of the nervous system operating via polarized energy, whether a paticular nervous system is crippled with toxic shame or not (as opposed to the proprietary signals that keep us from undressing completely in a public place just to get some sun). The author of the link I posted in the first one or two posts suggests that I.D. is how the nervous system tends to work in the human psyche, where constructs of self-other are minimal symbols of those internal, polarized energies. It isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but can be seen as limiting if one has curiosity about its reach within human awareness. Something has to happen within a person to make them want to explore this otherwise pervasive, and normally occuring state of mind, maybe not unlike early explorers who were otherwise comfortable, yet decided to risk their lives in testing whether the earth was round or flat. So I would only go so far in psychopathologizing the I.D., since its function is so pervasive and global, regardless of culture or language or how functional/dysfunctional a person appears to be. And rather than a "back channel," it governs cognition in general. To test this, just see how long you can remain aware of your "own" I.D. before agreeing/disagreeing with one side or the other, or otherwise talking with it in some way.

Most of the time we either are so melded to the I.D., or if questioning it, might say, "Well, I do that just to keep myself company. But I can turn it off if I want to." Oh really . . . . . Well, give it a try.

Various thoughts spurred on by all your posts:

Internal dialogue has never solved a single problem for me so I suspect that problem solving isn't its primary purpose although it may have invaded our problem solving mechanisms and this machinery still grinds on, doing the best it can with what it's got. Or this could just pertain to me.

If acceptance is on the tail end of resolving the shame-to-anger chain, then clearly forgiveness is the key to unlocking acceptance and releasing our binds altogether. Of course, let an agnostic bring religion into the discussion, but what is Christ if not the embodiment of forgiveness and the life (the true life) that comes from this?

We become afraid of our own minds in their idle or steady states. That's an impossible state of affairs. Our minds become harmful to us because of the ID, but where else can we go? Certainly meditation is a way to try to penetrate and reveal such paradoxes, but even meditation, as WC has pointed out, can be taken over by or become little more than another vehicle for our negative internal dialogues (although I suspect that because he was able to make this insight that he's making good and real progress).

If we are operating somewhat or primarily in a "false self" scenario then it would make sense if there was resistance to letting go of this false self. Our beachheads have been stormed and penetrated several times (abusive or shaming situations) and we've been pushed back and back again, always regrouping behind new, hopefully, safer lines. Our last stand, so to speak, is being made where we are. To give another inch is to be left with nothing. On the other hand, nothing could serve the survival and immortality of our ID's (and false selves and whatever useless junk is in their) than to present us with this false scenario and thereby cut down (or out, if possible) our normal outward awareness. And outward state of mind becomes an enemy to its survival.

We definitely need anti-virus software for the mind. Maybe that's what chanting is all about or the meditative states brought on by doing things we enjoy such as listening to music. Those are often nice things but they still feel like "throwing in the towel" states of mind; states of mind meant to escape. That's not that far from addictive behavior. But still, we need these times to if only as brief time out periods where we wave the white flag and escape the battle in order to refresh and regroup. But we also need ways to cope when we can't "escape" by moving into other brains states. We need a George Patton running around inside our minds all the time picking off the Rommels of the mental world. I don't mean hyper-vigilance or the constant problem-solving-like squirrel cage wheel we've got going now at 1200 RPM. I mean little, concrete, discrete, and decisive techniques that we can pull out and depend on to give our awareness air cover as surely as a squadron of P-38's.

So I would only go so far in psychopathologizing the I.D., since its function is so pervasive and global, regardless of culture or language or how functional/dysfunctional a person appears to be.

Well, I'm not absolutely sure what you mean or where you're coming from, WC. The way I see it is that there are many internal mechanisms that we probably can't understand and probably shouldn't even bother trying to. When functioning correctly they go unfelt and unnoticed. But I might begin psychopathologizing, say, a spinning tire that is no longer giving us a smooth ride. We take their traction and inflation properties for granted until the ride becomes bumpy ride or we lose sufficient control of the helm. Then we have to take a closer look at them. We look for punctures, worn treads or whatever.

I'm not saying that ID isn't normal or natural. What I'm saying is that because it *is* normal or natural that it's a likely thing to be hijacked by something else for other purposes.

Where something goes from "personality" and crosses over to "pathology" is still a mystery to me. When are we healthy and when are we sick? Is it when it is something that interferes with our ability to make money? To reproduce? To keep our bodies in a healthy working order? When we are addicted? Is it when we have a state of mind that keeps us primarily bored or depressed? Is it when we have a state of mind wherein we have few friends and/or lovers? Is unhealthy defined by us doing physical harm to ourselves or others? Or does it all just relate to some arbitrary threshold of "agony". Above it, we're okay. Below it we are sick and in need of changing. Of course this agony threshold will be heavily shaped by our expectations. Just HAVING sex with a woman on a somewhat regular basis (let alone having a constant and friendly companion) might be nirvana for me. For others they need to dip into the Viagra because what they have now is not enough. Their baseline needs "more" just to be enough. How much is enough?

Sometimes I think sanity and happiness is escaping in this rat's maze AND partaking in it where one can.

By no means am I a walking and talking raving loon, but I do know people whose internal dialogue and state of awareness is really "out there". This one guy I know is quite literally walking and talking seething anger. One senses the decency in this person as they really do wish to control and master these harsher emotions. They are not loose cannons looking to indulge their pains. In that they may be considered enlightened or more aware. But these pernicious and powerful threads we have running inside of us our truly remarkable. They take on a live of their own. I have no problem believing in the concept of multiple personalities or multiple masks. We quite literally are in a battle with ourselves. Maybe more than one at a time. Maybe it's a WWF tag-team affair where the two "good" Brads go up against the two "bad" Brads.

Our internal dialogues and our state of awareness make us aware, in a very general sense, that there is a war being waged inside of us. We may not always (if ever) know what to do or how to react. But clearly we know that something needs to be done. But since we're dealing with mind trying to figure out mind we are limited in not only what we can do and what we can know to do. A very real part of being human is being at least partially helpless. And god knows the trouble we get into when we can't accept this, when EVERYTHING must be fixed.

I think much of our internal dialogue (at least the kind we wish to escape from) is driven by anger (maybe guilt, maybe grief) and that this anger is brought on by shame or some other emotion/component. Whatever the case may be, there is some type of resolution that is in order. Considering that the resolution of many, if not most, internal problems is simply the acceptance of some other thing, I think our internal dialogues and our focus of awareness are worth watching closely from time to time for they are bound to show us the things we are having trouble accepting.

What idea of ourself is threatened if awareness and acceptance should pierce the veil?

What idea of ourself is threatened if awareness and acceptance should pierce the veil?

What is particularly remarkable is that many, if not most, of these things are positive. We resist these positive aspects of ourselves because reinforcing some negative aspect is serving some purpose. What purpose? Often enough, of course, we're just living up (down, really) to other people's expectations in order to avoid criticism and ridicule. We habitually learned that going into unknown territory is overwhelmingly risky and scary and does not pay off. We make a quite rational decision to reject those drives, instincts and passions in ourselves because they do not jibe with past experience, and past experience, all else being even, is an absolutely vital resource. It is ignored only at our great peril. But for some of us it is our great peril not to be able to ignore it. So we're left with a situation where those least equipped to become world-beaters are required to do so if they wish to live an authentic life.

And you wonder why ID may incapacitate, or awareness may wander.

From the perspective of an extended present moment free of the I.D., where there is simply nothing going on, yet everything getting done that is needed, one can see that I.D. is what makes humans think there life is an unfinished business, that there is some unrealized purpose needing more energy and attention.

Oh, I like that thought, WC. I like the thought of our motivations being like small little nagging mothers-in-law (small and little, I said) egging us on out of our coach-potato (or fireside-potato) habits and getting us to accomplish things we might not have otherwise. After all, these planters-of-the-nag do tend to have greater wisdom and experience and thus simply the act of implanting this stuff has a better than even chance of being helpful. These people have, after all, survived to pass on this nag.

Our doubt and guilt and the expectations thrust upon us can help to make us better people and, in the context these traits evolved, alive people. I think we forget that a little noisy head-talk is nothing compared to this talk only one time acting to make us cautious (or daring) and saving us from our deaths (or causing us to become king and to father a prodigious number of children). Yes, WC, I like that thought of yours a lot. Now, whether the Jungian slants to this are correct or not, I don't know. I tend to think Jung has correctly categorized (somewhat arbitrarily, and necessarily so) some of our human tendencies but we should not mistake this outward label for the inner workings which are miniscule, many and often quite random and mysterious. Jung might describe the human race but I wonder if he can do much to describe any one human. That sort of things. That's my main objection to Jung, I think.

But I do think, for instance, that Jung does capture the notion of deeper yearnings -- and deeper yearnings that aren't implanted by mothers-in-law and that, because of their obscure origins (even genetics might not explain them) we might best describe as archetypes or "destinies" (not that the two are the same). Personally, I don't believe that a reductionist view of humans can explain all our motivations and drives. And I don't think this is simply a "destiny of the gaps", that science will eventually remove all grounding and basis for believing we do a thing for reasons other than a sex drive or a non-boredom drive or because we have an excess of serotonin in a certain region of the brain at a certain time. That, of course, doesn't prove a leap of faith to God but I think it does make rational keeping an open mind about such things, and about such things as destiny.

Now, having said that, having brought up the subject of destiny, let me also say that while it is probably true that we have such a thing, our search for it can become too strident and earnest. Balanced with these feelings that drive us (perhaps a 50-50 split) must be the idea that the journey is the destination. That is, watching paint dry is as vital and important as actively, for instance, painting the Sistine Chapel.

And you wonder why ID may incapacitate, or awareness may wander.

For sure this is also representative of just random noise. It also denotes that healing is underway (or an attempt is being made to do so). But I think, perhaps more importantly, it reminds us of our un-made or only partially-completed hero's journey. If there is purpose to life, and if freedom is inherent in that life, then there are all the random possibilities of getting sidetracked, lost, or just plain Shanghaied by dreadful circumstances. There's no shame in this. But the unfinished journey pulls at us nonetheless. It eats away at us if this journey is not undertaken, completed or at least acknowledged. Our very core is shaken by what is left undone, by destinies denied or forgotten. Comparatively, the guilt over what is actually done is surprisingly small, tangible and manageable. But either way, there is no escaping hardship. Surely we would need to brace ourselves against much adversity and suffering if our hero's journey was undertaken.

May we sort out the necessities from the "should-do's" so that on whatever journey we need to make we are weighed down with as little baggage as possible and the destination is not one step farther or more elusive than it needs to be.

Yes. The I.D. largely goes unnoticed, and is designed to give us a "smooth ride." Very few people complain about the internal dialogue. Only those prone to regular meditation practice or prayer consider it a challenge, or something to bring into awareness so its effects can be noticed. Nobody regards the I.D. as pathological, or gone astray, even when under serious stress. Under stress it is usually regarded as a source of comfort, as in the "self-talk" that is going on in every mind all the time. Otherwise, the only noting of the I.D. is when one is caught talking to onself, or as it appears in florid psychosis among the homeless castigating unseen interlopers.

But when the I.D. is seen for its automated function, and is suspended for more than a few seconds via shifts in attention, we then realize how asleep at the wheel we've been, and how seemlessly life works in this state of somnolence. We're zombies who think we're awake; hence, the "smooth ride."

From the perspective of an extended present moment free of the I.D., where there is simply nothing going on, yet everything getting done that is needed, one can see that I.D. is what makes humans think there life is an unfinished business, that there is some unrealized purpose needing more energy and attention. All of that would make sense, form the POV I'm describing, if it weren't the I.D. actually running the hero's program, or any of the other process-oriented notions re: destiny or journeys. The I.D. seems as much in operation via archetypal enegies as more conscious, ego-centered activities i.e, all of it being polarized.

I know that is all very stark sounding, but in the present moment where one can see the operations of the I.D., it is clearly the case, and quite a relief as well.

As harsh sounding as these comments are, it isn't an indictment about having done anything wrong. It's just human enough to only get glimpses of this automation occasionally. Besides, it's all happening within the same nervous system, just some different wiring creating different landscapes, as it were. From the I.D. POV, one pole of the pain of life is occuring outside somewhere, and the goal is to fix it or treat it toward change in some way; whereas, from the present moment POV, one can see that both poles arise within the nervous system simultaneously.

One sure sign of how wedded we are to the I.D., how it is our very nature as humans (fallen?), is how desperate we get whenever our pet ideas fall into question/criticism, or there's any uncertainty about what we believe in. These are moments when the I.D. intensifies in almost obvious ways, where we spend long periods, even days, arguing to ourselves, making a case for one side or the other in our heads as though our brains were holding a sort of "Peoples' Court."

And this is not a bad analogy for the I.D. It always has us in court, defending and accusing, arguing and fussing, and over what we might say, in retrospect, are minutae: "Yeah, that issue wasn't really deserving of all the muscle I gave it. But it's good practice for the more important things in life." And on and on we sleep.

"They might simply deny its existence and call it normal "thinking". But I think it's there in the majority of people and that's why we inundate ourselves with noise and try to leave not a moment unscheduled with activity.


From a certain POV, all the above is the I.D., hoisted on activity as something else.

Very few people complain about the internal dialogue.

You're the shrink, so I'm going to take your word on it, but although few people may complain about it surely they often make it their number one priority to shut it up or shout it down. I think most people are terrified of the inner dialogue and I think they know it's there, although they might not describe it as such. They might simply deny its existence and call it normal "thinking". But I think it's there in the majority of people and that's why we inundate ourselves with noise and try to leave not a moment unscheduled with activity. Cell phones have been a godsend for this. Conversely, computers (computer forums and email, in particular) have been a godsend for people like me who have a low threshold for noise but still want and need to communicate and can do so with almost complete control over when, where and how loud and raucous. [I do think we can take this attitude and preference "on the road", so to speak, and simply travel about lower, slower, less intensely, while talking more softly and less loudly. We needn't compete with the rest of the noise out there and it would probably be counterproductive to do so. A trust in destiny (and God, if you will) means trusting that our presence, no matter how humble (and particularly because it is low-key and humble) will be appreciated and be attractive to a certain segment of people because there is a purpose to our lives.]

But when the I.D. is seen for its automated function, and is suspended for more than a few seconds via shifts in attention, we then realize how asleep at the wheel we've been, and how seemlessly life works in this state of somnolence. We're zombies who think we're awake; hence, the "smooth ride."

I sometimes wonder, WC, if our notion of "awareness" isn't secretly about control. While asleep, like you said, things can just smoothly go their merry way. When things aren't going unconsciously smoothly then the Master Control Program, so to speak, needs to spring into action in order to fix things. A wisdom far beyond me will have to say whether we should fix things and then move back into relative sleep, whether we fix things by specifically activating and then staying in higher levels of awareness, or whether our focus on fixing and on higher awareness aren't just different manifestations of the same problem and the real solution is something else. Maybe consciousness first came into being because it was the only way some mental aspects of our selves could be fixed. If this is so it could be to assist with nuts-and-bolts problem solving techniques but I think it more likely that consciousness was a way to connect with the intangible aspects of existence that aren't easy to describe or put into words but that are vital toward mental and spiritual health. After all, this most definitely isn't about the material of my mind and body trying to set things right. Things couldn't be more right. I can't even foresee of an instance where my body couldn't get the good food it needs, the clean air it needs to breath, or the clean water it needs to drink. Shelter, although humble, is also not a problem. But still needs persist. In fact, it's not necessarily that we are inherently unappreciative of what we have because we now, in this modern age of abundance, have time to think and fuss because we're not occupied with the historical nitty gritty of actual survival. No, I think our drive for survival, if anything, foreshadows our need to get to a next stage and fuss with that next set of problems. It's not ALL just infantile indulgence. (I hope!).

Lots of good "outer dialogue" about the "inner dialogue." I'm down to my last minutes of time purchased from Barnes and Noble, so I won't be able to comment much.

- - -

I wonder how you all would account for the recognition of "next steps," which seem to emerge on their own out of some kind of inner process. For example, when writing something, planning a talk, doing a slideshow, etc., I come to some kind of impasse. Forging ahead would produce garbage (not that I haven't done so ), but taking a break and waiting awhile, the "next step" seems to surface. It's not a consequence of deliberate engagement in ID, for, as Brad has noted, that hardly ever accomplishes anything. Nevertheless, it's as though some kind of inner process continues to work on the issue/problem, and, eventually, it emerges, sometimes amidst the other inner processes.

This attentiveness to "what's next" seems to me to be of critical importance in the spiritual life. We can pray for guidance here, and usually come to some clarity about it. Living in the present moment, attentive to "what's next," exercising the will in loving disposition . . . that's clearly the way to go, I believe. When ID is strong, however, it can sabotage all of the above.

(My Barnes and Noble internet time is up; see y'all around -- still no electricity at home. )