External Consideration turns into Internal Consideration

[Paragon]

The instantaneous emotional reaction at another person's behavior may be related to what Daniel Goleman calls "emotional contagion" in his book Social Intelligence. The "low road" circuits of the brain (may be analogous to the lower emotional center) react at a much faster speed than the "high road" circuits or executive functions. And if the internal emotional reaction dictates the external behavior, then we are not practicing external consideration but are in internal consideration mode. To practice external consideration, we need the higher cortical circuits that control the executive functions of the brain to engage and thus appraise the situation in a more objective manner. It is said that just naming the emotion one is feeling at the moment has a braking and calming effect on the emotional center. And naming the emotion (eg I am feeling angry) is likely related to the practice of self-remembering - osit.

Here are some paraphrased relevant quotes from the Social Intelligence
[quote author=Social Intelligence]
When someone dumps their toxic feelings on us - explodes in anger or threats, shows disgust or contempt - they activate in us circuitry for those very same distressing emotions. Their act has potent neurological consequences: emotions are contagious. We "catch" strong emotions much as we do a rhinovirus - and so can come down with the emotional equivalent of a cold. ........
We participate in this interpersonal economy whenever a social interaction results in a transfer of feeling - which is virtually always. ....
Emotional contagion exemplifies what can be called the brain's "low road" at work. The low road is circuitry that operates beneath our awareness, automatically and effortlessly, with immense speed.
The "high road", in contrast, runs through neural systems that work more methodically and step by step, with deliberate effort. We are aware of the high road, and it gives us at least some control over our inner life, which the low road denies us.
The low road can be seen as "wet", dripping with emotion, and the high road as relatively "dry", coolly rational. The low road traffics in raw feelings, the high in a considered understanding of what's going on. The low road lets us immediately feel with someone else [instant primal empathy]; the high road can think about what we feel. ... To oversimplify, the low road uses neural circuitry that runs through the amygdala and similar automatic nodes, while the high road sends inputs to the prefrontal cortex, the brain's executive center, which contains our capacity for intentionality - we can think about what's happening to us.
The two roads register information at very different speeds. the low road is faster than it is accurate; the high road, while slower, can help us arrive at a more accurate view of what's going on. The low road is quick and dirty, the high road slow but mindful..... The speed differential between these two systems - the instant emotional one is several times faster in brain time than the more rational one - allows us to make snap decisions that we might later regret or need to justify. By the Vtime the low road has reacted, sometimes all the high road can do is make the best of things.
...............
That first emotional response happens so quickly and spontaneously that as the amygdala triggers its reactions and activates other brain areas, the cortical centers for thinking have not yet even finished analyzing the situation. However, the more involved the ACC and greater the activity in certain prefrontal areas, the more muted the amygdala become during reappraisal. When the high road speaks up, it takes away the low road's microphone.
The emerging data on reappraisal offer a corrective to a widespread misimpression: that we have virtually no choice in our mental life because so much of what we think, feel and do rushes by automatically, in a "blink". Reappraisal alters our emotional response. When we do it intentionally, we gain conscious control of our emotions.
Even just naming for ourselves the emotions we feel can calm the amygdala . .......The high road to choice also means that we are free to respond as we like, even to unwanted contagion.
........................
Darwin saw every emotion as a predisposition to act in a unique way: fear, to freeze or flee; anger, to fight; joy, to embrace; and so on. Brain imaging studies now show that at the neural level he was right. To feel any emotion stirs the related urge to act.
The low road makes that feeling-action link interpersonal. For instance, when we see someone expressing fear - even if only in the way they move or hold their body - our own brain activates the circuitry for fear. Along with this instantaneous contagion, the brain areas that prepare for fearful actions also activate. And so with each emotion - anger, joy, sadness and so on. Emotional contagion does more than than merely spread feelings - it automatically prepares the brain for appropriate action.
Nature's rule of thumb holds that a biological system should use the minimal amount of energy. Here the brain achieves that efficiency by firing the same neurons while both perceiving and performing an action. That economizing repeats across brains.

What may be worth noting is that the initial instantaneous internal emotional response to someone's behavior may be unavoidable. Naming the emotional reaction by engaging the cortical functions may be the the first step towards regaining internal control over the situation. From there, one can go to objectively appraising the situation and choosing the appropriate response - thus moving to external consideration.

[/quote]

I think I've managed to find a way or a technique to not identify with the instant emotional response. It doesn't always work as my predator fights back literally, and sabotages my efforts. I observe a battle in me between my own negative thoughts putting me down and my desire to overcome that.

For example, I may have just served a lovely customer who was as entusiatic and chatty as I were to them, when the next customer snaps at me and complains about something. Usually this would trigger an emotional reaction, but I have found that if I 'detach' my inner observer from the flood of emotion, and shift my focus back to the outside,(it is very hard for me to describe how I do this in words) I can actually retain a clear mind and even physically I don't feel stressed out or jumpy. There are other very interesting and amazing effects like feeling life itself is flowing through you, that you just do things, as what needs to be done at that present time just happens naturally. You begin to feel connected to the world around you and the bigger picture, knowing that you are consciously shaping your future at that exact moment.

It's very hard to explain the exact Method because it's such an abstract thing that has no words to describe it properly. It's like you have to differentiate the feeling between identifying with an emotional reaction, and focusing on the outside world, to be able to work out how one would achieve that state of mind in a more consistent basis. I apologise for the lacklustre explanation as writing down my thought process is quite hard and I'm not able to really transfer what my intellect knowsin a clear and concise manner.

 

[cubbex]

The best thing to do is take it as data, I mean there is always the non anticipated reaction from other people that could trigger you, but I think it just triggers programs. I mean, what if someone answers like a savage beast (for example) think in what that person is basing its response, its reaction, maybe he/she/it(an animal LOL) is mad or stressed and you are some of the persons that receives its angryness, but that doesn't mean, be angry too. Yes it requires effort, but there is a good article from Laura about emotions and chemicals or something like thath, where there is a session where th cs say, is like matter of practice.

A method I use, sometimes when you need to do the right thing because being external considerate does not mean obviously give to the people everything they want, sometimes you have to say no or say something they will disagree, is that to battle I feel fear and pity for the person so I am not being internal considerate, I do totally the contrary to an action based on those feelings of fear and pity. As a post before, there is always different situations and methods you may use. But I think the important thing here is, to have control over yourself and your emotions.

So its like calibrating the machine.

 

[Mountain Crown]

Hi Jerry,

Could you elaborate on how I am mixing internal and external considering?

This says an internal state is reached which makes external consideration possible, and seems to center on avoiding an internal emotional response:

It is my experience, that instantaneous internal emotional response is avoidable given I am in a state of self remembering. I feel my feet in my boots, the intellect is aware, and I feel the internal state of emotion. The neural circuits are connected and lit up. In this state, I do not react from the memory association of my past. I am present in the moment, and react appropriately to the situation internally and externally. I am externally considerate.

External consideration is to be practiced whatever is happening internally.

This seems clear to the point:

Nor have I experienced external consideration as the result of the sequence of naming and choosing after the single automatic engagement of the emotional center of the sleeping, internally considering machine. This sequence is good work to develop the intellect and emotional connection, but it is not sufficient to practice external consideration.

But this:

The internal neural circuitry must be two ways connected, simultaneously, between the three centers of sensing, feeling and thinking prior to the event for me to be externally considerate.

seems to contradict it.

The point is many appropriate actions or non-actions are not the result of external consideration, but the result of education.

True.

I think using the term "reaction" when discussing this topic can lead to some confusion. My understanding is that when G said we need to stop reacting he didn't mean not to act, but not to act by impulse, even though internally we have emotional "reactions."

 

[cubbex]

True.

I think using the term "reaction" when discussing this topic can lead to some confusion. My understanding is that when G said we need to stop reacting he didn't mean not to act, but not to act by impulse, even though internally we have emotional "reactions."

There is a book that talks abut something very similar, being proactive and not reactive. Its the seven habits of highly effective people, it sounds very similar but not exactly with the idea of win-lose,lose-win, win-win and lose-lose thinking.

 

[go2]

External consideration is to be practiced whatever is happening internally.

Jerry, thanks for your response. I will try to clarify my line of though and how I arrived at this understanding. It is most likely that some of our difference’s are based on how we are using words to describe inner state’s and efforts which are little discussed or understood, even by experts in psychology, philosophy, and religion. I think practice is the key word in your statement, we can practice, until we can do. I will start with a question.

Are you able to be externally considerate, when you are experiencing an emotional storm? Is your smile authentic in spite of an inner state of anxiety or aversion?

The point I am making, based on several years of sustained effort, is that I may appear to be externally considerate, manifesting the appropriate action or non action called for by the context, based entirely on conditioned reflex or habit. I am an externally considerate machine, by your definition. However, I do not think this was Mr. Gurdjieff’s aim. Wouldn’t he wish for us to become real men who can do, because we have being and not that we are only well behaved, conditioned reflex machines? I have reached this understanding based on the following lines of thought.

1. In later Work, George Gurdjieff does not use the terms internal consideration or external consideration. He often said, “One must externally play a role, and internally not identify”. One must satisfy both external and internal conditions simultaneously, to do external consideration, if external consideration is playing a role. It is not indicated, that the external role can be played regardless of the internal state. Perhaps, Mr. Gurdjieff found his early formulation lacking in precision, and leading to confusion in his students.

2. In practice and experiment, I find, I cannot predictably be externally considerate when I am in a state of internal turmoil. I may make the effort, but the subtle facial muscles, posture, and tone of voice betray me. I am practicing. Some people recognize and appreciate one’s efforts to be civil or responsible in spite of an inner storm. However, most of our sleeping fellows are little aware of another’s inner state, if we make even a little effort to be decent, they are satisfied. We may call it an effort to be externally considerate, but it is not external consideration, because I am still internally identified.

3. In the New Testament parable, there is a man who builds his house on the sand. He did not do the inner work of conscious labor and intentional suffering to discover his emotional reactions are mechanical and his executive function is a well oiled machine. When the storms came and winds blew, his house collapsed. He could not be and do when the inner foundation work was incomplete. There is also a man who built his house on the rock. It had a good foundation. He had done the inner Work and was in a state of self-remembering. His house withstood the winds of life. His internal state is stable and he is no longer an emotional and intellectual machine, reacting whenever someone pushes the buttons or pulls the levers. He could do external consideration because he had first (prior) prepared the foundation to become more than a machine.

This thought lead me to question the interpretation that one can be externally considerate in spite of one’s internal state. That is not to say that we should not make the effort or practice to be externally considerate in spite of the internal identification. The failure of this effort is proof that I am a machine, when I am identified.

I wonder if others have experimented with external consideration, and have insight which may clarify through the fog, our efforts to understand how and when we are doing external consideration.

 

[Buddy]

I wonder if others have experimented with external consideration, and have insight which may clarify through the fog, our efforts to understand how and when we are doing external consideration.

Understanding only becomes foggy when a concept is discussed in a null-context space. It appears to me that Paragon provides a lovely example using a customer service situation and an example of what's possible when a person has a 'place' to detach their inner observer to - a running inductive faculty, as I call it.

When he says it is hard to describe, he means that it is not a step-by-step linear process so much as a 'doing'...a "sort of" description that is consistent with a non-linear context based cognitive faculty and something that was possible for him at that time (because sometimes it can cut out on you under certain kinds of stress). That equates with my experience as well. If I had used that customer situation as an example, I would have added that when the irate customer snapped at me, my eyes would have opened wide, my demeanor would become serious and I would be in information-absorbing mode with a sincere desire to make the customer happy as if they had the potential to ruin me. In customer service situations, that's how I always am anyway - like a child who's absorbing info like a sponge. :)

 

[thevenusian]

I wonder if others have experimented with external consideration, and have insight which may clarify through the fog, our efforts to understand how and when we are doing external consideration.

I'm not sure that any of us would embody external consideration in the ideal form you describe unless and until we have become a unified "I", fully conscious at all times and no longer functioning in a mechanical way.

Practicing external consideration, then, until that time comes, is one part of making a consistent effort to move in that direction. Remembering to do it under varying degrees of stress and success is an effort made toward remaining conscious and aware. Like standing on one foot is easy on flat solid ground, but takes practice and learned skill to do standing on a beach in the waves.

I quite agree with you and have a similar experience trying to be externally considerate when I am experiencing emotional turmoil. But in such a case, for myself at any rate, the best course seems to be to just observe what is going on. This usually leads to greater insight and understanding of my own areas of unconsciousness, programs and triggers and that knowledge helps further progress the next time a similar situation comes around. It seems to me that making the effort in this regard, over and over and over- however much one is able in every circumstance- is conscious labor.

 

[Palinurus]

There is also a man who built his house on the rock. It had a good foundation. He had done the inner Work and was in a state of self-remembering. His house withstood the winds of life. His internal state is stable and he is no longer an emotional and intellectual machine, reacting whenever someone pushes the buttons or pulls the levers. He could do external consideration because he had first (prior) prepared the foundation to become more than a machine.

This thought lead me to question the interpretation that one can be externally considerate in spite of ones internal state. That is not to say that we should not make the effort or practice to be externally considerate in spite of the internal identification. The failure of this effort is proof that I am a machine, when I am identified.

I wonder if others have experimented with external consideration, and have insight which may clarify through the fog, our efforts to understand how and when we are doing external consideration.

Hi go2,

From my own self observations, I would say that this 'building on solid grounds' requires several distinct 'switches' in a very short amount of time or even simultaneously.

You have to switch from inner considering to outer observation - just to be able to start the process of external considering.

You have to switch from identifying with the 'lower' self (the emotional storm as you put it) to aiming at identification with the 'higher' self - just to be able to find guidance for your aim to be externally considerate.

You have to switch from the sleeping state to self remembering - just to get detached enough from your inner turmoil to start merely observing what is taking place inside as well as outside.

You have to switch your priorities from Me-ism to Other-directedness. You have to deal with the situation at hand first and then only afterwards complete the process of inner consideration/observation at a later moment to evaluate what you went through and draw lessons from that.

It almost goes without saying that you have to practice these switches many times over to simply get a grip on the mechanisms involved and to reach the inner state that allows you to contribute to cataloguing your little 'i's' as a preparation to fuse them into a real 'I'.

All this -to my mind- forms a part of getting to know your machine inside out and vice versa - not only intellectually and emotionally but the real nuts and bolts of it. You know: the buttons, the programs, the mechanisms, the weak spots and so on. You have to know from experience how all that works on its own (semiautomatic) before you can be able to devise a strategy of interventions to steer away from the automated responses towards fully mastering them consciously.

I agree with you and venusian completely in this matter. It strikes me as a sort of 'shortcut' when Jerry maintains his point that one has to be able to be external considerate at all times regardless of inner processes, and that this would constitute the proper or the better way to proceed in these matters. I fail to understand how such behavior could contribute to knowledge of the self when there are no feedback and reinforcement mechanisms from inner to outer and vice versa. It would boil down to a conditioned reflex or something like that, IMO. It then doesn't make any difference from common well behaved politeness and similar well educated learned external behaviors with no connection whatsoever to the Work.

At least, that is how it seems to me per my current understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this one.

 

[ana]

Are you able to be externally considerate, when you are experiencing an emotional storm? Is your smile authentic in spite of an inner state of anxiety or aversion?

I think that in order to be externally considerate you need to be yourself able to manage your own state first. You can do it by making a realistic evaluation of your own state, can you find the causes of this emotional turmoil? Where does it come from? Not in all cases but In many instances this emotional turmoil comes from identifications with the ego and not from real knowledge input of reality by our emotional center. As it is, we need to stop identificating ourselves and observe, (self remembering). While we are not able to do it, our attention remains captured and while it remains captured it cannot be consciously directed outside.

The point I am making, based on several years of sustained effort, is that I may appear to be externally considerate, manifesting the appropriate action or non action called for by the context, based entirely on conditioned reflex or habit. I am an externally considerate machine, by your definition. However, I do not think this was Mr. Gurdjieff’s aim. Wouldn’t he wish for us to become real men who can do, because we have being and not that we are only well behaved, conditioned reflex machines? I have reached this understanding based on the following lines of thought.

As you say if you are acting or non acting based “entirely on conditioned reflex or habit” you are not externally considering, you are still captured, the attention is not free in order to make a realistic evaluation of another's situation. It is internall considerin still. Furthermore, the third force must come into place. Being polite or well behaved per se amounts to mechanicity wich only help us maintain “internal safety” and non real responsibility with others or the specific situation.

1. In later Work, George Gurdjieff does not use the terms internal consideration or external consideration. He often said, “One must externally play a role, and internally not identify”. One must satisfy both external and internal conditions simultaneously, to do external consideration, if external consideration is playing a role. It is not indicated, that the external role can be played regardless of the internal state. Perhaps, Mr. Gurdjieff found his early formulation lacking in precision, and leading to confusion in his students.

I think that when Gurdjieff said “One must externally play a role, and internally not identify” it was meant to help us free the attention until we were able to direct it consciously.

2. In practice and experiment, I find, I cannot predictably be externally considerate when I am in a state of internal turmoil. I may make the effort, but the subtle facial muscles, posture, and tone of voice betray me. I am practicing. Some people recognize and appreciate one’s efforts to be civil or responsible in spite of an inner storm. However, most of our sleeping fellows are little aware of another’s inner state, if we make even a little effort to be decent, they are satisfied. We may call it an effort to be externally considerate, but it is not external consideration, because I am still internally identified. .

Yes, you are trying to play a role while your attention is trapped (identified)in the internal turmoil. There is a difference between paying attention to what is happening in yourself and becoming identified:

A: Okay, now picture yourself in a forest clearing. In that clearing you are surrounded by a pack of wolves. These wolves, in your mind, represent a blockage. The blockage is emotion. Emotion is a necessary component of life in 3rd density. It can be of great assistance, and it can also be a hindrance. Normally, in critical situations closest to the 3rd density individual's existence, these emotions serve temporarily as hindrances. So, we ask you to picture these wolves surrounding you. And, as wolves will do when addressed in a calm voice, when one takes a deep breath internally and externally, and asks the wolves in a calming, reassuring voice, to simply go back into the forest, that all is well, then the wolves turn and retreat, as wolves will do. This removes the hindering aspect of emotion, which allows intuition to become stronger. Then, in turn, one's intuitions are not "torn." Do you see this effect?

3. In the New Testament parable, there is a man who builds his house on the sand. He did not do the inner work of conscious labor and intentional suffering to discover his emotional reactions are mechanical and his executive function is a well oiled machine. When the storms came and winds blew, his house collapsed. He could not be and do when the inner foundation work was incomplete. There is also a man who built his house on the rock. It had a good foundation. He had done the inner Work and was in a state of self-remembering. His house withstood the winds of life. His internal state is stable and he is no longer an emotional and intellectual machine, reacting whenever someone pushes the buttons or pulls the levers. He could do external consideration because he had first (prior) prepared the foundation to become more than a machine.

I think it is a good analogy, just want to comment that maybe it is not that your internal state becomes permanently stable but that an observer has become permanent and is at charge.

This thought lead me to question the interpretation that one can be externally considerate in spite of one’s internal state. That is not to say that we should not make the effort or practice to be externally considerate in spite of the internal identification. The failure of this effort is proof that I am a machine, when I am identified.

I agree what changes everything is your identification with “changeable states”.

 

[Mountain Crown]

[quote author=go2]I think practice is the key word in your statement, we can practice, until we can do. I will start with a question.[/quote]

I was using the word “practice” in the sense of “to do or perform something repeatedly” as in “he makes a practice of being punctual.”

The above quote is using it in the sense of “to do something repeatedly in order to acquire or polish a skill” as in “practice makes perfect.”

Are you able to be externally considerate, when you are experiencing an emotional storm? Is your smile authentic in spite of an inner state of anxiety or aversion?

As a performing artist I have done this numerous times. Whatever one’s personal life, the show must go on.

Wouldn’t he wish for us to become real men who can do, because we have being and not that we are only well behaved, conditioned reflex machines?

I believe so, yes, that’s why he taught to separate the inner from the outer. There’s no question about the necessity of working on ourselves, it’s my understanding that G’s position is that real inner work is dependent on separating it from the outer.

He often said, “One must externally play a role, and internally not identify”. One must satisfy both external and internal conditions simultaneously

This is accomplished by separating the inner from the outer.

It seems to me G mentioned the identification process to illustrate how impossible it was to act appropriately; that “playing a role” is key because there’s no identification involved.

I find, I cannot predictably be externally considerate when I am in a state of internal turmoil. I may make the effort, but the subtle facial muscles, posture, and tone of voice betray me.

In a case like this there’s always an option to play the role of being sick. Excusing oneself because you don’t feel well is usually met without offense.

We may call it an effort to be externally considerate, but it is not external consideration, because I am still internally identified.

True.

The man who builds his house on the rock is the man who lives by separating the inner from the outer.

All things considered, it’s sometimes easy and often very difficult.

 

[zim]

Deliberately putting yourself in situations where you know you tend to get "baroque and morose" and have what could be called "selfish internal reactions" can be very growth inducing if it is done with awareness and some control and determination to act differently than you have before even if the predator is screaming inside. You know, the old saying: "if you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got."
One situation that I'm sure happens to many people is being in a group where people are talking about something and you just want to add your two cents, tell your story, shine in the group because YOUR story/experience is so much better and more dramatic than that other guy's...
Well, how about if you deliberately did NOT do that? How would that make you feel? You know your story is better, you know you could be getting some attention by telling it, but instead, you deliberately and consciously refrain and tell the other guy "what an amazing experience!" and let him have the attention and glory.
How many of you can do it?

What about when your child is telling you something and you know you want to correct them, you know you want to advise them, (or your partner or anybody) and instead, you just listen and share in their experience. That is, you GIVE of yourself by listening and being in the other person's shoes.

All kinds of emotions can arise and there can be an argument in your head that "

this time my story or advice REALLY needs to be spoken!"

Can you resist that?

Yes it is really hard!!!! , thanks to bring this topic up, during 2007 to 2008 I´ve lived situations where I´ve always thought I gave too much and no body see it... so I felt really bad about that, after that I have been cautiuos with the people now Im giving without expecting anything in return when I can ,but yes it is really hard realized that it is always about "me"...

this time my story or advice REALLY needs to be spoken!"

:P :P :O

 

[go2]

2. In practice and experiment, I find, I cannot predictably be externally considerate when I am in a state of internal turmoil. I may make the effort, but the subtle facial muscles, posture, and tone of voice betray me. I am practicing. Some people recognize and appreciate one’s efforts to be civil or responsible in spite of an inner storm. However, most of our sleeping fellows are little aware of another’s inner state, if we make even a little effort to be decent, they are satisfied. We may call it an effort to be externally considerate, but it is not external consideration, because I am still internally identified. .

Yes, you are trying to play a role while your attention is trapped (identified)in the internal turmoil. There is a difference between paying attention to what is happening in yourself and becoming identified:

A: Okay, now picture yourself in a forest clearing. In that clearing you are surrounded by a pack of wolves. These wolves, in your mind, represent a blockage. The blockage is emotion. Emotion is a necessary component of life in 3rd density. It can be of great assistance, and it can also be a hindrance. Normally, in critical situations closest to the 3rd density individual's existence, these emotions serve temporarily as hindrances. So, we ask you to picture these wolves surrounding you. And, as wolves will do when addressed in a calm voice, when one takes a deep breath internally and externally, and asks the wolves in a calming, reassuring voice, to simply go back into the forest, that all is well, then the wolves turn and retreat, as wolves will do. This removes the hindering aspect of emotion, which allows intuition to become stronger. Then, in turn, one's intuitions are not "torn." Do you see this effect?

It is said, “Man is a wolf to man.” Until today I saw this truth in the external world of violence and predation. Now, I see this truth is meant for two worlds. We are wolves in the inner world and the outer world. I see in this teaching, we are wild animal tamers.

 

[dugdeep]

2. In practice and experiment, I find, I cannot predictably be externally considerate when I am in a state of internal turmoil. I may make the effort, but the subtle facial muscles, posture, and tone of voice betray me. I am practicing. Some people recognize and appreciate one’s efforts to be civil or responsible in spite of an inner storm. However, most of our sleeping fellows are little aware of another’s inner state, if we make even a little effort to be decent, they are satisfied. We may call it an effort to be externally considerate, but it is not external consideration, because I am still internally identified.

In my experience, if I am making an effort, I am not entirely identified with the internal turmoil. Total identification means there is nothing left with which to make an effort or even observe. Identification with my internal emotional state means acting on that emotion, whatever form that may take (fight or flight, in the most primal case). I would say that if you are making an effort to not react based solely on emotion, even if there may be some betrayal in the body's non-verbal communication, the beginnings of non-identification, and the possibility of external consideration, are there.

 

[LQB]

When he says it is hard to describe, he means that it is not a step-by-step linear process so much as a 'doing'...a "sort of" description that is consistent with a non-linear context based cognitive faculty and something that was possible for him at that time (because sometimes it can cut out on you under certain kinds of stress). That equates with my experience as well. If I had used that customer situation as an example, I would have added that when the irate customer snapped at me, my eyes would have opened wide, my demeanor would become serious and I would be in information-absorbing mode with a sincere desire to make the customer happy as if they had the potential to ruin me. In customer service situations, that's how I always am anyway - like a child who's absorbing info like a sponge. :)

In the customer situation example, one person might react with the self-important "insulted" program. Another might react with the "retreat" program to exit the situation ASAP. A third might seethe with anger and engage the "customer is always right" program. It seems to me that a person progressing in the Work has a near-instantaneous choice that the others do not have: to engage a program or use the shock (in this case) to bid the wolves away and engage objective reality directly without a program (like Bud's described reaction). Interaction is now based in creative intuition and flows directly through awareness.


Added: creative

 

[Approaching Infinity]

2. In practice and experiment, I find, I cannot predictably be externally considerate when I am in a state of internal turmoil. I may make the effort, but the subtle facial muscles, posture, and tone of voice betray me. I am practicing. Some people recognize and appreciate one’s efforts to be civil or responsible in spite of an inner storm. However, most of our sleeping fellows are little aware of another’s inner state, if we make even a little effort to be decent, they are satisfied. We may call it an effort to be externally considerate, but it is not external consideration, because I am still internally identified.

In my experience, if I am making an effort, I am not entirely identified with the internal turmoil. Total identification means there is nothing left with which to make an effort or even observe. Identification with my internal emotional state means acting on that emotion, whatever form that may take (fight or flight, in the most primal case). I would say that if you are making an effort to not react based solely on emotion, even if there may be some betrayal in the body's non-verbal communication, the beginnings of non-identification, and the possibility of external consideration, are there.

I think that's a good point. Especially considering the very practical examples of 'external considering' that G gives in places like Views from the Real World. To paraphrase (don't have the text with me): "Sitting here with you, my natural inclination is to sit with my legs folded beneath me, but because you have different customs I sit like you, with my legs down. That's external considering." It's easy to intellectualize and get lost in the terminology, and some concrete examples tend to bring it 'home'.