Healing the fragmented self in the IFS therapeutic model

[Buddy]

FWIW...I question the value of 'inner child' therapy. I will give a short anecdotal comment and then look at the neuroscience.
{snip}

Awesome post. I agree completely!

{snip}
I hope I have explained this coherently. :)

Indeed you have. Thanks for the feedback! :)

 

[Buddy]

In case anyone is interested, I had my own "Aha!" moment while thinking about all this today.

I started thinking about Shijing's and Mr Premise's posts mainly in context with the ADD vs non-ADD model. And then things started clicking together.

If you are familiar with the ADHD/ADD subject, then you've probably ran across the term 'hyperfocus'? Well, to me that just means an ability to concentrate very deeply on something that really interests me.

In daily life, away from the forum, what normally happens when I'm 'done' thinking about something, is that my energy returns, my mood brightens back up and my attention is back to scanning the environment again (what some non-ADD folks call 'distractibility').

But on the forum, what actually happens, at times, is that I am writing what I have been thinking while I'm still in that concentration mode. I think that's what Mr. Premise is showing when he indicates that he could understand me when he concentrates hard. I also think this may explain the contrast in various posts of mine as noted by Shijing.

So, on the forum, I should do my talkin' after I've done my figgerin', I reckon. :)

 

[go2]

Bud, do you mean you think outloud? :)

 

[shijing]

So, on the forum, I should do my talkin' after I've done my figgerin', I reckon. :)

Makes sense to me, Bud -- give it a shot and see what happens :)

 

[Buddy]

Bud, do you mean you think outloud? :)

I can, but I didn't mean that. I was just using 'talkin' as a synonym for 'writing and posting'. Usually, I only think out loud when I want to externalize the thought process for another perspective, but sometimes, I'll give myself brief instruction or make a short comment to myself, both out loud, because it actually seems natural to some extent and goes back to childhood. If you're busy doing something quickly, why slip into an internal thinking space just for a sound-bite? Ya might miss something! :D

Somewhere on the forum, there's actually a recommendation to do just that in a Work context, though, and I think it was suggested as a means for debugging one's own logic. :)


---------------
Edit: to provide more info for clarity

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=Bud]
So, as I see it, in this summary, we have an exclusion form leading to an identification form in the same process of thought which is referred to as enlightenment???. At least, I can't see how that would work. Which is why I think the interpretation is flawed. Could there be an issue with a translation of a word or two?
[/quote]
You are correct about the translation thing - a more accurate translation of the concept is "I am Brahman". The word Brahman used in this context is very similar to the Tao - something that includes everything but cannot be adequately explained in words. I probably should have written this in the previous post - so please accept my apologies for the omission. "I am That" is a popular english translation which leaves behind scope for confusion. I guess they use "That" instead of "Brahman to avoid mistaking with "brahmin" which sounds similar and is known to the western world - but I could be mistaken.
As far as I can understand, people following this exclusion method apply the exclusion and abstraction process until they arrive at this identification with Brahman. They lose their personal identity in the process which would mean that the false personality is gotten rid of. They say that what is left after the false personality is removed is this realization of the infinite consciousness and this is the state they call enlightenment. It is described as a state of bliss - a state where everything is exactly as it should be - so there is nothing to be done. Taoists have a similar saying - "do nothing and nothing is left undone" - but I do not know how much, if anything, is lost in translation there.
The process followed to arrive at this stage most likely involves a crystallization within the personality structure. But this particular perspective which is the result of the crystallization process is called "putting oneself at par with the Creator" and regarded as a "sin against the soul" by Illion in "Darkness Over Tibet".
I was musing about "mysticism" in general and posted some information which is related to this topic on this thread . It is possible that when the state of self-consciousness (Real I) is skipped and the state of objective consciousness is arrived at directly, the space left behind after the false personality is removed is filled with attributes of sleeping consciousness, alignment with which happens to be the default state in this particular 3D existence.
OSIT

 

[Buddy]

You are correct about the translation thing - a more accurate translation of the concept is "I am Brahman". The word Brahman used in this context is very similar to the Tao - something that includes everything but cannot be adequately explained in words.

This is very wonderful of you to say, obyvatel, so that I could confirm my reasoning. I would like to offer this also, since I forgot to add it as a conclusion to the example:

When I said:

...the logical end of a non-ponerized exclusion method should result in either a realization that "I am all" (nothing is distinguished from what is there), or (and here I mean the logical 'exclusive OR') "I am nothing" (everything has been distinguished and there is nothing left).

I forgot to add:

...And since "I am nothing" is a logical contradiction, the only possible conclusion remaining is "I am all"...where the final step is to BE it instead of saying it. Does this "All or Nothing" thing sound similar to Laura's writing on "BEing and the thought of non-being?" Maybe somebody's onto something here. :)

 

[happyliza]

I recently came across the IFS (Internal Family System) therapy model while looking for some material for working with the inner child. The IFS system has a model which is quite in line with the 4th Way view of the human psyche. It deals with concepts like little I's, buffers, identification, divided attention while using different terminology. IFS is a therapeutic model whose goal is to heal the psyche - so it is practical and I found it helpful to see some Work related concepts from that practical therapeutic perspective. IFS can perhaps build on the psychological framework laid down by books like "Myth Of Sanity", "Narcissistic Family"and "Drama Of the Gifted Child". While trying to review the system, I have used two sources - _http://www.selfleadership.org - the official website of IFS - and the book " Self-Therapy: A Step-By-Step Guide to Creating Wholeness and Healing Your Inner Child Using IFS, A New, Cutting-Edge Psychotherapy " by Jay Earley.

Origin of IFS
The founder of IFS is Dr Richard Schwartz, a family therapist. According to Dr Schwartz, he combined concepts and methods of existing schools of family therapy with the hands-on knowledge of sub-personalities which emerged from his long experience working with clients. The IFS model has evolved over the past 20 years. Dr Schwartz says that one of the key features of IFS is that it studies the often complicated interrelationships between the various sub-personalities within the psyche which is often ignored in other psychotherapeutic techniques. Sustained behavioral changes are difficult to obtain without looking at such inter-relationships within the components of the psyche. The IFS model basically views the psyche of being composed of relatively discrete parts which have their own qualities and own individual roles to play in life. Due to traumatic life experiences - specially in childhood - many parts are forced out of their normal roles and the whole system is reorganized in an unhealthy way which persists into adult life. Readers familiar with the recommended reading material in this forum know this dynamic quite well. IFS aims to identify individual parts and their inter-relationships with other strongly connected parts and work with them to restore the ecological balance in the inner world.

Parts of the Psyche

IFS model identifies a Self which is regarded as the spiritual core of the psyche having qualities like perspective, compassion and creativity. It broadly categorizes other different parts of the psyche into managers/protectors, fire-fighters and exiles. Like the name Internal Family System suggests, different components of the psyche are treated like people with whom it is possible to enter into communication.

Self
The Self is the center of compassion and nonjudgmental perspective in the psyche. Healing of the psyche happens through this state of Self. And after healing is effected, the goal of the IFS process is to have this Self as the master of the psyche where it properly organizes the work of the different parts. The Gurdjieff analogy of a house of servants comes to mind in this context. The Self in IFS terminology possibly plays the role of the steward in the house of servants after psychological healing. Jay Earley writes about the following characteristics of the Self from a psychological healing standpoint in the book "Self Therapy"
[quote author=Self Therapy with some paraphrasing for clarity]
The Self is the agent of psychological healing in IFS. It is, by nature, compassionate and curious about our parts. The Self wants to connect with each part and get to know it and heal it.
Let's look at four qualities of the Self that are particularly important for psychological healing. When you are in the Self, you will naturally embody these qualities.
1) The Self is connected. When you are in the Self, you naturally feel close to other people [or parts of the psyche] and want to relate in harmonious, supportive ways.
2) The Self is curious. When you are in the Self, you are curious about other people [or parts of the psyche] in an open, accepting way..........This curiosity comes from an accepting place, not a critical or judgemental one. When parts sense this genuine interest, they know they are entering a welcome environment, and they are not afraid to reveal themselves to you.
3) The Self is compassionate. Compassion is a form of kindness and love that arises when people [or parts of the psyche] are in pain. When you are in the Self, you naturally feel compassion for others as well as yourself.
4) The Self is calm, centered and grounded. This is especially helpful when you are relating to a part that has intense emotions. Intense grief or shame, for example, can be overwhelming if you are not grounded in the Self.

Protectors/managers
Protectors/managers are the parts of the psyche which are largely responsible for running our lives. They try to maintain functionality and keep the psyche safe. Due to traumatic life experiences (in childhood or later), these parts often take on extreme roles where they try to keep the psyche from feeling intense emotions and maintain the status quo. In this sense, they act like Buffers as described by Gurdjieff. Protectors/managers can block off pain that arises from deep inside the psyche so that it is not felt consciously. They also work towards arranging external circumstances so that this deep internal pain is not triggered by outside events. These are the parts which are accessed at first when doing inner work on the psyche.
Most protectors come to play extreme roles as a mechanism to cope with traumatic events - especially encountered in childhood. The dissociations described in "Myth Of Sanity" is attributed to the work of protectors in the IFS model. Protectors could use a variety of strategies - like closing off emotions by being overly intellectual, going into denial, compulsively meeting others' needs, projecting feelings on other people etc as defence mechanisms to protect the psyche. The strategies used are based on the level of knowledge and experience that the psyche had at the time when the traumatic events were experienced. So older the trauma, more primitive the coping strategy. These protectors fail to realize that the psyche is no longer a child and has more resources at its disposal to deal with adult life situations and is no longer as endangered by similar situations. Some protectors take on the role of the inner critic (or negative introject) mimicking a parent or authority figure.

Exiles
Exiles are young parts that suffered the original trauma in the past. These are the parts that hold the pain which the protectors are trying to keep from surfacing. Exiles are often stuck at a particular time in childhood at a specific age when it encountered some trauma. Sometimes, the trauma plays out over the years and the exile holding the trauma is not frozen at a single time point. In general, exiles exhibit a wide variety of painful memories - feeling lonely, abandoned, abused, betrayed, ashamed, angry,terrified, powerless etc. In addition, they have negative views about the world and themselves.
Because exiles hold the pain from past events, they are exiled by protectors into the dark recesses of the psyche, away from the light of consciousness. Earley makes a distinction between what is called the inner child and the exiles in the following way
[quote author=Self Therapy]
IFS uses the term exile to refer to what has been called the inner child. However, people often talk about the inner child as there were only one. In IFS, we recognize that there are many inner child parts or exiles, each carrying its own burden. Every exile must be healed in a way that is unique to it because each has its own feelings, burdens and memories.
[/quote]
These emotions and views held by exiles are called their burdens. IFS maintains that the parts are not defined by their burdens - they have their own intrinsic potential. So when the burdens are shed through therapy, the parts can take on a new and different role in the psyche.

Firefighters
Firefighters are dangerous parts inside the psyche (the name does not seem to do them justice - osit). Dr Schwartz writes
[quote author=Dr Schwartz]
[This] group of parts jumps into action whenever one of the exiles is upset to the point that it may flood the person with its extreme feelings or make the person vulnerable to being hurt again. When that is the case, this third group tries to douse the inner flames of feeling as quickly as possible, which earns them the name firefighters. They tend to be highly impulsive and strive to find stimulation that will override or dissociate from the exile's feelings. Bingeing on drugs, alcohol, food, sex, or work are common firefighter activities.
[/quote]
Self mutilation is also described as a firefighter inspired activity in the self-leadership website. Jay Earley writes that such firefighters can even cause somebody to have a traffic accident to prevent some locked up memory from being accessed. Reading this, it reminded me of DC Hammond's lecture "hypnosis in MPD" or the Greenbaum speech which I had read in the cassiopaea website few years back. In that lecture there was mention of self-destructive elements mind-programmed within the psyche to protect secrets - some really dark stuff. It seems that the IFS system scratched the surface in this regard with their "firefighter" part.
[/quote]

I have just come across this thread and the method that you elaborated on IFS. Is anyone using this system? I certainly understood it better and much quicker that other methods to get to our main 'I'. So would be interested in getting some feedback before I may go off on the wrong tangent. It isn't so much the inner child part. More the terminology and method. However before I go off and try to get hold of the book I would like to know whether it is advisable to adopt this method as having read the whole thread there was little mention about the overall usefulness - mainly just why not to identify with inner child trauma etc.

What resonated with me is that I was really interested in doing hypnotherapy, and have done some study in that regard. The above method seems to use that same system - parts etc, to drill down, get permission etc to reach the root, cause, bypass the painful memories, blocks etc. Hypnotherapy can be a much quicker way to remove/be aware of the causes of trauma - as Laura has written about in much detail from her own extensive practise. So long as there is professional follow-up and one is lucky enough to have someone as experienced in the correct aspects for the client's requirements - example to lead or not to lead in certain instances.

So I liked the labels, as for me they were easy to remember, made perfect sense if the framework is used so self remember and 'identify' who or what is controlling - i.e. the many 'I's.

 

[obyvatel]

I have just come across this thread and the method that you elaborated on IFS. Is anyone using this system? I certainly understood it better and much quicker that other methods to get to our main 'I'. So would be interested in getting some feedback before I may go off on the wrong tangent. It isn't so much the inner child part. More the terminology and method.

I have not followed the method by the letter in a therapeutic sense but have used the concepts. IMO it is practical illustration of aspects of Jungian psychology like shadow work and active imagination. A good understanding of these concepts can be useful while practicing the writing exercises suggested in the Redirect thread.

For deep-seated trauma, my personal experience is that body-related intervention is very useful in addition to cognitive approaches. A couple of threads discussing body centric approaches are Peter Levine's In An Unspoken Voice and Pat Ogden's Trauma and the Body .

 

[happyliza]

Thank you Obyvatel for the explanation. Body work is new to me so I will gen up on this too. Sounds good. I have the Redirect book so it should be a good combination. I have the other two books on my wish list already. :)

 

[13 Twirling Triskeles]

I will quote from the "To A Louse On seeing one on a Lady's bonnet at Church" message:

[...]

At this point, Mouravieff talks about two ways to develop discernment.

-The negative method, or method of exclusion, is recommended to man 3, that is, the intellectual type;

-The positive method, or method of integration, is recommended to man 2, the emotional type.

One question that might be asked is: how can you tell the difference between someone who has the center of gravity in the intellect, or one who has the center of gravity in the emotional? I think that the key is above, that for the person with the intellect as center of gravity, a "critical analysis" is the general method of dealing with life, and there is very little "imaginative" ideation about things, even very anomalous things. It is very hard for such a person to "believe" anything at all. Even if they create theories about things, they always seem to be still somewhat "open" to the next bit of data.

The individual with the emotional center dominant may seem to do a lot of "critical analysis," but they do it with a "terminus a quo" - or a starting point of belief. They are not quite able to divest themselves of a starting belief to which they cling no matter what. This can create special problems.]

Looking at the first way, the way reccommended to a person who is more "intellectual," and has pretty much a sleeping emotional center, Mouravieff mentions that the individual with the anaesthetized emotional center will NOT see the light except at the peak of his efforts. He describes the problem in this way:

In principle, man 3 is endowed with a tendency not to believe. He is of a rather sceptical nature: he often and easily progresses to a critical analysis of the facts and problems that face him. The centre of gravity of his mental life is in intellectual activity.

The negative method takes these characteristics into account.

In observing the movements of the inner life, it undertakes a critical analysis of the most scrupulous and impartial type possible. It observes the comings and goings of the little 'I's or groups of little 'I's and, recognizing them as being Non-I's, makes an effort not to be identified with them.

Little by little, he thus discards that which does not indicate a real and permanent tendency in the currents of his mental life. When such constatations are repeated in a controlled way, over and over again, the observer will perceive that certain elements are permanent, and consequently cannot be subjected to the principle of exclusion with true objectivity: he will then find himself not far from the threshold of the real 'I'.

We can see that such a method asks neither for an ideal nor for faith. It nevertheless has its danger: it requires total impartiality in the observations and conclusions to be drawn from it.

This is where the input of a sincere group is INVALUABLE and even CRUCIAL. Because of the problem of "sleeping emotional centers" having their energy usurped by the intellect, it is almost impossible to be impartial without the mirror of the group.

If such impartiality is not observed from the start, the man risks falling deeper into Illusion.

His situation will then be worse than it was before.

As a result of these exercises, a certain modification is produced in the structure of his Personality, so that the ties between the centres, of which we have spoken in chapter VII, atrophy and eventually fall. If, at that moment, the magnetic centre is not strong enough to establish its authority directly over the centres, the man will become amoral, and dangerous to himself, as well as to others.

Now, let's look at the second way, the way of the individual whose center of gravity emotional. Mouravieff notes at the beginning that the person who follows this method will be encouraged by sparks from the consciousness of the real' I' which will accompany him all along the path.

The second method is positive. It can only apply to man 2, the centre of gravity of whose mental life is found in the heart. This man may have an ideal and try to reach it. For this he will attempt to reassemble those elements of his Personality where the seeds of his ideal are scattered. This method is the reverse of the preceding since it tends not to the exclusion of unstable elements but to a synthesis, an affirmation. If such a man is called hot, it is because he has given free rein to his positive emotions: exactly the opposite of the cold method of critical analysis and exclusion.

Those of you familiar with alchemical terminology might note that this could very well be the "wet way vs the dry way." The "wet way" would be the cold method of critical analysis, the "digestion" and "putrefaction" and the "dry way" would be the method of reassembling via heat and calcination. The dry way is said to be "faster," but less certain and Mouravieff notes this also:

This is not without danger, but the danger is of a different nature. It comes from an initial error in the choice of an ideal, or rather from the attitude when the choice is made. The fact that this ideal has been approved by the master changes nothing. It is a question of lack of sincerity towards oneself. The profound divergence between admitted and unadmitted aims can cause an interior rupture which, when strongly emphasized, can go so far that it provokes division in the Personality.

In other words, the terminus a quo amounts to lying to the self and what we have already discussed above: the Integral lie. This is the problem of someone trying to work alone, through pride or lack of self-esteem, or having so much self-importance that they cannot open up and share the mental processes they are going through for feedback. Again the work of a group is CRUCIAL. That's one of the reasons that the work of QFG requires the giving up of all "sacred cows." And we have set the example by giving up any "belief" that the C's are anything other than an interesting phenomenon that must be researched and analyzed before anything is considered even possible, much less probable.

A rapid analysis of these two methods of work reveals the role of impartiality - that form of objectivity of which man is capable - and later of sincerity.

Not to make conscious use of these two qualities, especially towards ourselves, is the source of many errors in our lives which we will not know how to mend later on.

There is within us a dominant aptitude either for impartial judgement or for sincerity.

Here Mouravieff has suggested that impartiality might belong to the intellectual type, and sincerity toward the goal - even if unaware of lying to the self - belongs to the emotional type. You can be sincere as all get out and still go down in flames. Old saying comes in here: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

This aptitude corresponds to our type, and determines in principle what method we should choose to follow.

We must not forget, however, that our natures are mixtures as much from the fact of our birth as from our education and upbringing. This means that, while applying the method which best suits our dominant aptitude, we must not lose sight of the other method; both have their roles to play in our efforts towards evolution, but in different proportions for different people.

Exactly so. It is not so simple, and in some cases, cold critical analysis is important, and in other cases, keeping the devotion to the goal in mind is most important.

But in either case, objectivity is the key.

The activity of QFS, the working group, is pretty much as described above, with a kick. This process is familiar to its members and quite a number of them have been "in the crucible." As many more have felt the heat and run screaming in terror...

But now, let's go back to something from the beginning of this post.

The problem of achieving objectivity - which is CRUCIAL - is that the energy of the negative emotions are utilized to protect the self against TRUTH. Note Mouravieff's comment about "negative emotions, for which the keyboard is very large, ranging from melancholy to hate."

Those whose center of gravity is the emotional center, and that emotional center is very poorly developed, are generally seeking only love and acceptance. Unfortunately, they identify emotionally with their mechanical programs so deeply that it is almost impossible to tease them apart. They can even be quite intellectual. The key to this kind of intellectualism is that it is always obscure and convoluted and very poorly communicated. The word "density" is very low. Lots of words, little meaning. All of the words that such a person speaks are designed to hide the real self and can even serve to hide the self from the self since this is the kind of dialogue that goes on in their head. It exemplifies the varied "keyboard" of emotional "buttons."

A person whose emotional center is so buried and twisted is living in terror as I noted above in the discussion of the "right man." Remember that such a person MUST be right at all costs because, deep inside, they are struggling with horror at their own helplessness. Their rightness is a dam that holds back their worst fears: that they are lost and alone and that there really is no god because how could there be a god who loves them if they have to suffer so much? Their inability to feel truly loved and accepted deep within is, in effect, like being stranded in a nightmare from which they cannot wake up.

This helplessness, this fear of being alone, is very possibly based on fear of failure. Such a person is terrified of not being "good enough" to love.

As a consequence, such an individual may work very hard to succeed at something - or several things - as compensation. They work very hard to know a lot about a number of things, generally material things so that they can give evidence of their competence in a material way to the outside world.

When you listen to such a person talk, they nearly always come across as knowing lots of things and will incessantly talk AT another person, divulging all of the things they know about any given subject, their experiences, and so on and so forth. There's that "word density" problem again. Lots of talk, little substance.

Such an individual finds it almost impossible to admit that they are ever mistaken about anything, and even if of a very gentle disposition, can give the impression of a repellant self-righteousness. They are hypersensitive to any kind of criticism at all, and quite often, interpret simple interest in their activities as "critical."

What then happens is that such a person - feeling that they must compensate for some criticism with "rightness," will utilize the emotional energy to create conditions where they can prove that they are not only good enough, but better than others. The "dreaming" energy of the emotional center combined with a clever intellect, can produce all kinds of strange experiences that border on literal schizophrenia.

This is one of the reasons that QFG does not have much tolerance for imaginative weirdness and "seeing things" that are not objective. There is no doubt that such things happen, but when they do, they are almost invariably tricks and traps into STS illusions. The evidence that this is so is that they are not "objectively" available to all viewers. And so, when something operates on your subjective perception, it is very possibly real AND a trap. "Seeing the unseen" has nothing to do with seeing lizards or ghosts or any such subjective psychic phenomena.

A saying I heard years ago: "Neurotics build castles in the air; psychotics live in them." Added later: "4 D STS collects the rent."

Remember this: A and B influences can also be viewed as "creative" or "entropic," and certainly there can be "A" influences that may appear to be very "spiritual" or "esoteric". Remember what Mouravieff tells us about those who make the mistake of believing such delusions, quoted above, but worth repeating:

"This second figure, with black magnetic centres, represents the situation where man deludes himself and, believing he is absorbing 'B' influences and making the necessary selection all the while, he in fact absorbs 'A' influences, those of the black arrows that are in some way parallel to the white arrows of the 'B' influences. This will put him into contact with people who possess magnetic centres of the same nature: who are themselves duped or who dupe others, and who have no direct or indirect link with the esoteric Centre. "

Our only defense is purity of the magnetic center achieved via objectivity.

And so, we come back now to Robbie Burns who described a simple country girl all decked out in her fancy bonnet, her mechanical programs, seething with lice.

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An' foolish notion
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us
An' ev'n Devotion.

The gift of being able to see ourselves as others see us would save us from many errors and foolish thoughts and ridiculous behavior , and we would most certainly cease being devoted to those things that shore up and support our illusions about ourselves.

* * *
OMGoddess. As I re-read this today, I began crying (tears of recognition and relief) — because I am realizing that this description - particularly the bold portions I changed to purple print - are describing me so precisely.

As if Laura were right inside my psyche - looking directly at my ego and describing what she SEES. And now I, too, can See this “me” I’ve been avoiding seeing - refusing to see - refusing to name. Talk about shining a bright light into the inner darkness. Thank you, Laura, for your “in”-sight.

You know what? It’s not really as painful as I imagined it would be to admit this. It actually feels like a relief. Yes, it’s embarrassing and humiliating to the ego self to see it’s truly ugly, creepy, disgusting, pathetic self, but to “me”, it feels as if a huge burden has lifted. And now I have something real and concrete and substantial to work with instead of some foggy, hazy concept.

Recalling an earlier thought I had: I am being so right-right-right, I’ve totally fallen over the edge into the Land-of-Wrong!

I used to know better than to “be right by making others wrong”. I knew - not just intellectually, but also viscerally - emotionally - experientially - that whenever I pointed a finger out there at others - blaming, accusing, criticizing, fault-finding - there were 3 other fingers pointing back at me. And whenever I found myself finding fault with others, I would stop and look inside for where I was “guilty” of similar behavior, attitudes, and thinking. And I would always find it - my own matching “wrongness”. And my criticism would dissolve.

But something happened along the way. I made a decision - or a series of decisions. Oh! I see. It was after I began studying psychopathology. I wanted to make a strong differentiation between the pathologicals and myself. It was so seductive - because I could see, feel, and observe the differences.

But I used those differences as a justification to bash the pathologicals and put my self on the moral self-righteousness high ground. Jeeze! Not much different than the self-righteous evangelicals I’ve been criticizing these many years.

Whoah! This is soooooo beyond outrageously wrong! I totally closed my heart and refused to feel any compassion. And this attitude extended to include anyone and everyone who didn’t match my own vindictiveness and retribution and desire for punishment — which I wrapped in pretty papers called “justice and fairness”.

Eeeeek! I’m feeling appalled and even disgusted. It is repellant. No wonder I refused to practice External Consideration for Others. I was so totally focused on Internal Considering. And reading that definition in the Cassiopaea Glossary this week was also a loud wake-up call for me. Combined with the above-quoted material, I just got a double-whammy.

I am sooooooo grateful. This is exactly what I’ve been hoping would happen if I could join this Network. I knew I could trust you to practice “ferrocious compassion” — and that’s what I sensed I needed — not pat-pat on my head pleasantries.

OMGosh - Now I’m laughing. Because “repellant” and “repulsive” is precisely what I was feeling towards those little reptilian creatures I was seeing in my imagination mind. And it’s exactly how I’ve felt when observing others’ self-righteous egos “being right”.

I’m feeling both feelings at the same time. I’m repelled, disgusted, appalled, towards my own self-righteousness — and I am also laughing at how totally ridiculous, pathetic, and embarrassing a spectacle I’ve been making of myself — parading about in all my vanity and pride — showing off my fancy bonnet which is, unbeknownst to me, seething and crawling with lice. Oh no! I may go into whoops of laughter.

And now I also see why I was refusing to practice External Consideration of Others. Wow! I had no idea how far down that black-magnetic-centre path I’d traveled. I had clues and hints. But I refused to admit. No wonder 7 muscle groups went weak on me last year. This was my body’s attempt to alert me that my inner attitudes were weakening my physical body.

I don’t know why I’m laughing though. This is really serious stuff. It seems to me that I’m laughing because I’m finally “Seeing”. And what I’m seeing is the Truth. She (my ego ID) likes to feel lots of self-pity so she attempts to elicit sympathy from others so she can remain in charge and escape detection because she wants to avoid and hide from any Truths that reveal her true nature.

But the Truth can never hurt my true Self - it can only set that Self free. And that’s how I’m feeling. Free. Possibly free from believing my own lies and deceptions and narratives and stories.

And this is precisely how I’ve been colluding, cooperating, complying, conspiring, and making pacts with my ego self. By avoiding, resisting, resenting, and refusing to make “her” (ego self) look into the Network Mirror. I wanted to hide her — from others and from myself too. I didn’t want to see her and I didn’t want others to see her either. She really is rather un-attractive and repulsive and pathetic. Ouch!

I am feeling very “light” - as if I’ve discharged a huge bundle of negative emotional energy that was stuck in me - almost like a spirit attachment - draining my energy and affecting my health on every level. This has been like drinking the pure clear waters of life.

I feel as if I just had an amazing therapy session.

Thank you, Gaby, for posting this quote from Laura. Thank you Laura for what you wrote about what Mouravieff said. Thank you Obyvatel for opening this subject of IFS.

Actually, what I came onto this Board for was to re-read this thread, and post my own positive experience with using the IFS method last August 2013 which cleared up a PTSD issue I’ve had with rain since I was 5 or 6 years old. But, I will save that for a separate post. This one is quite beyond long enough.

Thank you all. Now I’m crying again - in gratitude for all of you - just that you all exist - and that you’re doing what you’re doing for Creation. I feel as if Creation feels blessed by your presence. I certainly do.

Now I want to continue reading this thread - after I have a cigarette. LOL

Edit: quotes

 

[13 Twirling Triskeles]

You are correct about the translation thing - a more accurate translation of the concept is "I am Brahman". The word Brahman used in this context is very similar to the Tao - something that includes everything but cannot be adequately explained in words.

This is very wonderful of you to say, obyvatel, so that I could confirm my reasoning. I would like to offer this also, since I forgot to add it as a conclusion to the example:

When I said:

...the logical end of a non-ponerized exclusion method should result in either a realization that "I am all" (nothing is distinguished from what is there), or (and here I mean the logical 'exclusive OR') "I am nothing" (everything has been distinguished and there is nothing left).

I forgot to add:

...And since "I am nothing" is a logical contradiction, the only possible conclusion remaining is "I am all"...where the final step is to BE it instead of saying it. Does this "All or Nothing" thing sound similar to Laura's writing on "BEing and the thought of non-being?" Maybe somebody's onto something here. :)

I don’t know if this is relevant to your discussion of the “Exclusion” method Obyvatel brought up - but just in case it is, I decided to chime in here with my own personal experience — to wit:

Back in November 2002 - while at a friend’s house - I began to cry — which, at that time, was sort of un-usual in itself. The conversation went like this:

Friend: Why are you crying?

Me: I feel so guilty.

Friend: About what?

Me: I feel guilty for “being”.

Friend: Can you release that guilt?

Me: Pausing a moment to see if I could release the guilt — No. It won’t release.

Friend: Well, can you Poof it to beyond?

Me: Oh Yes! I can do THAT!

And I did. And it all poofed. Then 3 things happened simultaneously.

1. My non-stop, discursive, never-ending inner dialogue ceased - leaving a huge expansive SPACIOUSNESS. (Beginner’s Mind?)

2. Time disappeared. By that, I mean linear (past-present-future time) disappeared — to be replaced by what I named as Eternal Time. It was not the normal sense of “Sequential Time”. It was a sense of having all the time in the world. There was no “End” because time didn’t have a beginning or an end. It was all just ISNESS.

3. All my past emotional pain and trauma became “irrelevant”. Almost as if the past pain no longer had any power to disturb me. It didn’t disappear really. I could make myself recall it if I chose to do so. But the past pain had no power because I could no longer experience it as “pain”. It was just a memory of pain - but not a painful memory.

My friend left the room. I got up and walked over to a huge wall mirror - looked into my eyes reflected in the Mirror and SINCERELY - and with total INTENT - asked my Self —

“Who AM I?”

And the answer was: “I AM”.

Nothing else. There was no “object” for me to BE. Just Subject (I) and Predicate/Verb (AM). The End.

* * *
Now this could be viewed as a “subjective” experience. Certainly by this Network because it is not observable by you all — and I am no longer operating in that mode at this time.

The only objectivity I can add here is that this “state” of consciousness - or whatever it could be called - lasted approximately 2-1/2 years - and all my friends and family told me how totally different I was to how I’d always been before.

Even my speech patterns and style changed.

Well, the point of my post was just to mention that I experienced that Exclusion principle slightly differently than how it is quoted above, yes?

Thanks for this thread. I am continuing to re-read it because I really do want to post about using the IFS system to resolve a long time PTSD issue.

 

[Nienna]

13 Twirling Triskeles, I know that some of us like using different colors in our posts, but there are some people who have problems with the colored posts as it hurts the eyes and makes it harder to read. Using color to highlight important sentences we are trying to show as very important is not a problem, but having a lot of color does bother some.

I think that we would find your posts just as interesting if they were in black type. :)

 

[13 Twirling Triskeles]

13 Twirling Triskeles, I know that some of us like using different colors in our posts, but there are some people who have problems with the colored posts as it hurts the eyes and makes it harder to read. Using color to highlight important sentences we are trying to show as very important is not a problem, but having a lot of color does bother some.

I think that we would find your posts just as interesting if they were in black type. :)

Thank you Nienna -- I'm so sorry. I will refrain from using colors in future - except, as you advise, for emphasis.

It's precisely the reverse for me. It's the black type that is very difficult for me to read. So I didn't realize that black is actually easier for others to read. But as this is about practicing External rather than Internal Consideration, I will post in black rather than colors.

Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention. I was wondering why most people used black rather than colors. I thought it was just laziness and preferring to use the default of black rather than experiment with other colors. Now I see that using black was actually practicing external considering and not laziness at all.

My apologies to other Forum Members for making it more difficult rather than easier to read my posts.

Thanks again. Lesson learned. :)

 

[Nienna]

13 Twirling Triskeles, I know that some of us like using different colors in our posts, but there are some people who have problems with the colored posts as it hurts the eyes and makes it harder to read. Using color to highlight important sentences we are trying to show as very important is not a problem, but having a lot of color does bother some.

I think that we would find your posts just as interesting if they were in black type. :)

Thank you Nienna -- I'm so sorry. I will refrain from using colors in future - except, as you advise, for emphasis.

It's precisely the reverse for me. It's the black type that is very difficult for me to read. So I didn't realize that black is actually easier for others to read. But as this is about practicing External rather than Internal Consideration, I will post in black rather than colors.

Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention. I was wondering why most people used black rather than colors. I thought it was just laziness and preferring to use the default of black rather than experiment with other colors. Now I see that using black was actually practicing external considering and not laziness at all.

My apologies to other Forum Members for making it more difficult rather than easier to read my posts.

Thanks again. Lesson learned. :)

You don't need to apologize, nor feel that you did anything wrong. And, thank you for clarifying why you did this.

Do you know that we have several different themes (colors) for this forum? Maybe you would like to try different ones to see if they are easier on your eyes to help with your reading? You can try the different themes by going to the top right corner of the page. Do you see all of the different colored boxes? Just click on one to change your theme and try it out. If you already know about these, then, sorry for the noise.