Joe Dispenza - Breaking the Habit of Being Yourself
- Thread starter Bluefyre
- Start date
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
Keep going. It balances out the new agey stuff later.Rhiannon said:
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
To elaborate a bit, he gives techniques for disabling programs, so in that it's a complement to the Work. You can ignore the new agey stuff.
Rhiannon said:
Thanks for bringing that up Solie! Interesting timing, since I haven't read "Breaking the Habit of Being Yourself" yet, but I have just finished his latest book called "You are the Placebo: Making Your Mind Matter".
After finishing it, and on numerous occasions while reading the book, I felt quite at unease thinking "isn't that what new age is preaching?". I've thought about it since then and meant to open a new thread on the book where I also wanted to mention that concern.
The thing is that I'm really not sure and quite confused how to exactly interpret what he writes there, or rather what his end point is. The main theme of the book seems to be a closer look on the placebo effect and that this effect is indeed quite astounding. Then he explains (quite convincingly I have to say) the mechanism in the body/brain behind the effect, and that it is actually not the placebo that "works wonders", but something that is happening in the state of the person in regards to thoughts, feelings etc. Which is kind of a no brainer, but indeed really interesting. And that what actually heals there is something the person is doing themselves to themselves. So he explains how that mechanism can be used without any outside stimulus (aka. Placebo), by using the knowledge that has been gained on how the effect is created and happens in the brain/body and other findigs in the field. Yes the placebo effect is a interesting field of study and quite remarkable things have been studied and reported that can result out of it.
I think he is on to something there, to some extent, but somewhere there is a worm (and maybe a big worm) that I can't quite put my finger on yet.
The thing that I'm sure of though is; any new age type who reads that book, will get away with the strong conviction that "I indeed create reality and it is proven in the book".
It is rather confusing for me that Dispenza never makes a clear statement about new age types of thinking and believes, so an ordinary reader, like 99% of those who read it, will probably get away with the believe that "new age" is indeed reality.
The thing is though, that he is talking about the own personal realities, believes, behaviours etc. of people themself (including all kind of illnesses and behaviours that need a change) and not about changing the realities of others or your surroundings. A important distiction. Yes it is true we can change our states, beieves and patterns by choices based on knowledge and thus chance our personal reality.
The thing is we indeed know from the latest neuroscience research (that he explains as well), that it is indeed possible to change oneself by actions, engaging new pathways etc. and that quite profoundly. Indeed to a certain extent we can create our own reality.
So for anyone that isn't deeply familiar with quantum physics, epigenetics, neuroplacticity, neurology etc., let alone "the work", one can very easily misinterpret it and over generalize it.
The other thing people get away with is, I think, that there isn't any type of illness or bad behaviour that can not be changed by, I quote "thought alone". He mentions "by thought alone" quite a lot, even though his own explanations, of how it works, is much more complicated then just "thought alone".
He shows the studies he and his colleges have done on people who used his meditation and also people who followed what is written in his book. Quite astounding case studies, where some people were able to heal quite significantly from their illnesses that are normally considered incurable. On a couple of case studies, he says things like (paraphrasing) "this person experienced literally something like a orgasm in their brains and it can be seen in their brain scans here and their own testimony". He says stuff like this as though it is disarable thing, to also experience that kind of "brain orgasm" . Further repelled from my side.
I purchased his meditation from the book, out of curiosity, and I immediately felt repelled as well there. After the first part, that is the " open-focus technique", the second part of the meditation starts, that is summarized as follows on his website :
Here is what the meditation audio says in that second part:
So I'm rather on guard.
Mr. Premise said:
I can not speak for the "breaking the habit of being yourself", but I think the placebo book is useful too in some respects, like getting to know how stuff works in your brain and body, but you really have to be on guard about that new age type of stuff, because if intended or not, it can sneak in.
I found it quite useful too, no doubt, but had to really compare/remember other knowledge and weed out the wheat from the chaff and keep guard. Without that prior knowledge, I could have easily misinterpreted things he says/presents there.
Pashalis said:
In my personal experience with the book, I found out that yes, it may have some new agey things, and it can also be a bit repetitive, buut as mentioned before he does have good points too. The way I took the information was paying more attention to the neuroscientific concepts, more like a guide to understand how our neurons work and how communication travels from one to another. Like to understand the capacity we have to literally reshape our brain. Beyond the new agey concepts that the book may have, I think these concepts come in handy. Of course we know that just because we have "positive" thoughts, doesn't mean anything, but actually behaving and doing things towards this positive thoughts is the point and that is how we can create new synaptic connections that can be positive to us.
I remember something that was mentioned to me in the past: start acting like the self you want to be . So with the explanations that Dispenza offers in the book, I think we can understand more about how to be aware of our thoughts that can really harm us, and the one's that can be helpful towards being our best self.
After reading the book I was interested to know more about Dispenza and saw some of his TedTalks and conferences, this one I thought has some good points:
My 2 cents :D
Yes, it does have maybe a bit more than one foot in the YCYOR camp.
But I do think there's something in the idea that you can have spontaneous personality transformations, and that the reality we inhabit and the way that we perceive it depends on who we are and where we're at as a person. The main premise of the book is that it's not just what you think and hope for that can trigger big changes in your life, but it's about matching your feelings to those thoughts. Changing who you are by changing what you think and how you feel by hacking your subconscious through meditations.
If you've had periods in your life where you felt bad for a long time and periods where you felt good, you do feel like a completely different person and reality feels like a different place, too. I'd really experienced that phenomena and changed my own reality/life situation through it. And when I read the book I knew that Dispenza was explaining to me what I'd gone through and what had happened to me. Only, it happened to me by accident, whereas he's selling a method for making it happen in a controlled way.
So it's only because I've actually experienced what he's writing about that I know there's truth in the book. Maybe if I hadn't, I'd have gotten a couple of chapters in and laughed at the money I'd wasted on it. But then it's a case of separating out what's true from the mumbo jumbo.
But I do think there's something in the idea that you can have spontaneous personality transformations, and that the reality we inhabit and the way that we perceive it depends on who we are and where we're at as a person. The main premise of the book is that it's not just what you think and hope for that can trigger big changes in your life, but it's about matching your feelings to those thoughts. Changing who you are by changing what you think and how you feel by hacking your subconscious through meditations.
If you've had periods in your life where you felt bad for a long time and periods where you felt good, you do feel like a completely different person and reality feels like a different place, too. I'd really experienced that phenomena and changed my own reality/life situation through it. And when I read the book I knew that Dispenza was explaining to me what I'd gone through and what had happened to me. Only, it happened to me by accident, whereas he's selling a method for making it happen in a controlled way.
So it's only because I've actually experienced what he's writing about that I know there's truth in the book. Maybe if I hadn't, I'd have gotten a couple of chapters in and laughed at the money I'd wasted on it. But then it's a case of separating out what's true from the mumbo jumbo.
T.C. said:
I totally agree. The book can feel a bit like The Secret v2 but it is based on a self-evident truth, quite widely accepted here, that your unconscious mind largely creates your reality and life circumstances. It does this through your behaviours (or lack of), and the more mystical life/universe interaction stuff. And I really like the core idea of it, which is as you said, 'hacking' your unconscious mind. Maybe debugging would be a better word. We are programmed full of all kinds of useless hampering ideas, especially about ourselves, and it's extremely hard to touch or influence them - many seem impossible to change. If focused meditation can help break through those barriers then that is awesome.
It is not a free lunch either. To have the discipline and the time to sit aside and dedicate yourself to a meditation, and then to go through the challenges that life throws at you when you try to grow and change, it not an easy ride. Not like The Secret memory board stuff anyway.
Thanks for bringing this up Solie! I also think that the book is a bit new agey, but I must say that I find very valuable ideas inside it anyway.
For me, even if it can be a little repetitive when he speaks about "creating your own reality" and I don't fully identify with the examples he gives about "changing your life" and "creating the reality you want to experience", I think that the way in which he talks about how we are "creatures of habits", so to say, gives some interesting perspectives. He extends on the idea that we are "programmed" and gives some insight into how to observe ourselves and find our programs. He does a good job explaining how our thoughts create habits in our body and how we create a vicious cycle between thoughts and emotions, until we no longer think well because our thoughts and emotions are intertwined. He kind of says that you can't really think with the same mind and body that's been so used to same repetition over and over again, so there must be an effort to change, so that we can open ourselves to new possibilities. For me, this makes a lot of sense, but from there to "create your own reality by imagining things", well that's another story and I'm not really much into that either. ;)
Nevertheless, I've been thinking about this idea that he proposes as visualizations for something to occur in life. I don't know if I would try something like it because I think there's much to work on still before going into this kind of experiment. Yet, at least from what I have been able to understand, he's ideas of visualizations are similar to the ones described by Laura in the Knowledge and Being videos. He talks about connecting to the quantum field and all that, which probably just makes it a bit fancy and maybe isn't scientifically accurate. Yet, it gives an idea of some sort of information field to which we tune, so to say, and we do that by changing our state of being (our frequency). When he talks about visualizations, he talks about having no expectations as to how the experience is going to show up exactly.
This idea also reminded me of something I read in Life is Real Only Then, when "I Am"
I'm not advocating self-deception by any means, but I certainly think these ideas are intriguing and related to the kind of thing that Dispenza is proposing in his book. And it gave me some food for thought.
Other than that, Dispenza also explains that we must be ruthless with ourselves, sincere, and let go off a selfish state of survival in which we are extremely worried about what others think of us and trying constantly to reinforce our acquired identity, and move out of that survival mode of being into a "creative" mode of being in which we are not so limited by our programming and we can sort of "create our own identity" or become what we want to become.
So, yes, I suppose there is some value in what he says, but, as most of what is our there, we must take it with a pinch of salt, think about it, reflect and discuss so that we can get a better understanding. So bringing it up here is great Solie, thanks!
For me, even if it can be a little repetitive when he speaks about "creating your own reality" and I don't fully identify with the examples he gives about "changing your life" and "creating the reality you want to experience", I think that the way in which he talks about how we are "creatures of habits", so to say, gives some interesting perspectives. He extends on the idea that we are "programmed" and gives some insight into how to observe ourselves and find our programs. He does a good job explaining how our thoughts create habits in our body and how we create a vicious cycle between thoughts and emotions, until we no longer think well because our thoughts and emotions are intertwined. He kind of says that you can't really think with the same mind and body that's been so used to same repetition over and over again, so there must be an effort to change, so that we can open ourselves to new possibilities. For me, this makes a lot of sense, but from there to "create your own reality by imagining things", well that's another story and I'm not really much into that either. ;)
Nevertheless, I've been thinking about this idea that he proposes as visualizations for something to occur in life. I don't know if I would try something like it because I think there's much to work on still before going into this kind of experiment. Yet, at least from what I have been able to understand, he's ideas of visualizations are similar to the ones described by Laura in the Knowledge and Being videos. He talks about connecting to the quantum field and all that, which probably just makes it a bit fancy and maybe isn't scientifically accurate. Yet, it gives an idea of some sort of information field to which we tune, so to say, and we do that by changing our state of being (our frequency). When he talks about visualizations, he talks about having no expectations as to how the experience is going to show up exactly.
This idea also reminded me of something I read in Life is Real Only Then, when "I Am"
I'm not advocating self-deception by any means, but I certainly think these ideas are intriguing and related to the kind of thing that Dispenza is proposing in his book. And it gave me some food for thought.
Other than that, Dispenza also explains that we must be ruthless with ourselves, sincere, and let go off a selfish state of survival in which we are extremely worried about what others think of us and trying constantly to reinforce our acquired identity, and move out of that survival mode of being into a "creative" mode of being in which we are not so limited by our programming and we can sort of "create our own identity" or become what we want to become.
So, yes, I suppose there is some value in what he says, but, as most of what is our there, we must take it with a pinch of salt, think about it, reflect and discuss so that we can get a better understanding. So bringing it up here is great Solie, thanks!
Solie said:
Hi Solie, it was the same impressions for me when I started reading BTHOBY. It seemed like a lot of new age fluff that reminded me of The Secret. But later on in the book, he does expand more into his ideas of what he means by that. I guess what stood out for me was his discussions on how our emotions and thoughts are out of alignment and essentially that we keep on receiving and living the same life over and over expecting change, but that it doesn't come about until we start making changes in ourselves because we may think that we want to better ourselves, but our emotions are stuck in the past. When he was saying that we can 'overcome' our environment through setting intentions of who we want to become, this might come down to a matter of interpretation and someone who is very new-agey can take it in a way that confirms their beliefs, but I took it to mean that if we change certain perspectives and beliefs that we have that are limit us in some way, that the environment and the people in it who reinforce these beliefs in us loose their grip and we start to become a better version of ourselves by bringing forth what we want to see from ourselves.
His methods are different, because there is a big focus on meditation to get in touch with the body and sort of reprogram our beliefs and thoughts from a subconscious level, although I'm not sure how true that really is or if it really works. Although he emphasized consistency - which I haven't been too consistent with.
But I do remember one time doing the meditation where I was visualizing the 'energy', images and associations from a past life therapy I had, and picturing what it would be like to walk out of the lonely doors in the monastery to the outside world where life and relationships are happening, and did notice that for a few days afterwards, I was a lot more open, straightforward and engaging with people because I liked who I was a lot more, so there was definitely an effect or some rewiring happening on some level. Although I'm not sure if that is a YCYOR type of thing. I thought of it as more trying to let go of the past life in some sense. But I didn't stick with it for the amount of time he suggests and noticed triggers or A influences kind of bringing me back to my 'old self'. But I found his discussions on faith, asking a higher power for help, being honest with who we have been and who we want to become as very fascinating. I did buy his meditation CD's and even though there are some fluff parts to it, I don't think he's that off the mark, osit. It reminded me a bit of this article I read on SOTT the other day, which the context is a bit different but the principle seems similar. Feeling authentic in a relationship comes from being able to be your best self, not your actual self
Pashalis said:
He does go more into the highlighted portions above in BTHOBY explaining the science behind meditation, how intentions and focus can create changes in the brain, how emotions and the subconscious operate. Although I don't know if meditating and getting into a 'space' oriented state like he describes in the book is actually a way to bypass the analytical mind and tap into the subconscious. I mean, it could! But I dunno. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
Wow! I haven't read You Are the Placebo, but I don't remember him saying anything like that in BTHOBY, but I could be wrong. I just looked up the dates when the books were written, and You Are the Placebo was written a few years after BTHOBY. Maybe some of his ideas and concepts diluted a bit in the time between both books.
My understanding is similar, I think that the "non-anticipation" of how things occur is the key, when meditating, focus on being grateful for who you want to be, not how you want it to happen. Which IMO is very similar to Laura's Knowledge and Being. Also it does take effort, quite a lot to meditate every day, so it's not a free lunch, it requires work.
I've been doing his meditations twice a day for the past month or two, I edited the audio meditation to skip the "fluff" and just focus on the good stuff, I also do pipe breathing before hand to get me in a good state to meditate. Another thing I do is I do the meditations just after I wake up and just before I go to bed which seems to help with getting into the alpha brain state and out of beta (waking state).
I do agree that there is certainly some new agey stuff in there and he does work with Greg Braden and Bruce Lipton, so there is that to consider, but I do think there is some important info here and IMO it does gel with the work, more so if you are doing the work, because you are more aware of the traps.
I've just started reading the Placebo book, about 3 chapters in, the case studies are fascinating, I do think he is evolving his concepts from BTHOBY.
He is actually coming to my city in April for a 2 day seminar, seriously thinking of going along, if I can afford it.
Thanks Solie for bringing this up. I haven't read the book yet, but I remember having had similar feelings about other self-help books I've read. They can sometimes feel a bit new-agey, and part of the reason I think is that they are written for a large audience - you can't just throw them stuff in their face à la Gurdjieff :D, hence the "feel-good vibe" many authors use, osit.
That being said, no book is perfect and what we get out of it depends as much on the content as on our current understanding. I think to get the most out of a book, we need to apply our own knowledge and form new and interesting connections. If we are 'turned off' by a certain vibe or some phrases that sound 'off', we might miss much good information and stimulating thoughts.
So, I think the examples you gave from the book could be read in a different way - instead of being turned off, we could ask: how does this relate to my life? Is he right, after all? If not - why and how precisely isn't he right? For example:
Indeed, I'm powerful enough to influence matter. In fact, I have no idea where my limits are - maybe I could literally move mountains if I could overcome my stupid programs enough and actually DO what I set my mind to do. Obviously, changing one's life requires decisive action, which the author doesn't seem to dispute here.
All you have to do? I mean, moving even one inch closer to one's 'ideal self' is the most impossible, incredibly difficult task! But it is a worthy goal I think. Also, becoming aware of one's power is not trivial. For example, do I have the power to become the CEO of a multi-billion-dollar business? I think yes, with the right knowledge, everyone could do it. You dedicate a lot of energy to that task in all possible ways, get into a corporation, and move up using knowledge, self-mastery and dedication. It's doable. Yet, most people would say "it's impossible". So, realizing one's powers, one's potential, is very important I think - if we realize that we could move mountains if we wanted to, then we know there's something to strive for and can start working on it. For this, experience in self-observation and self-work is required; otherwise we just don't know how little of our potential we actually use.
Well, I think the idea that 'all is one' is very powerful, especially if it can be proven by science! It is also horrifying. If 'all is one', then whatever we do counts, then we are individually responsible for the fate of the universe, then every little stupid or malevolent thing we did and do will hurt us and our soul. What an impossible burden! But also great motivation to learn and grow.
I don't remember when, but didn't the Cs say something similar - that when we change in the present, we also affect the past? If true, that even increases our burden: we are not only responsible for the present and future, but for the past as well - so we'd better get our act together!
Anyway, I'm not saying we shouldn't criticise New Age mumbo jumbo, but I thought I'd share how I understood those quotes, and how it may sometimes be useful to 'take what we can' from books based on our own understanding. Of course, many new agers will probably twist such information to suit their own illusions, but: we know better, so it can't affect us the way it can affect new agey types who only see what they want to see. We are free to collect the good parts and put them to use!
That being said, no book is perfect and what we get out of it depends as much on the content as on our current understanding. I think to get the most out of a book, we need to apply our own knowledge and form new and interesting connections. If we are 'turned off' by a certain vibe or some phrases that sound 'off', we might miss much good information and stimulating thoughts.
So, I think the examples you gave from the book could be read in a different way - instead of being turned off, we could ask: how does this relate to my life? Is he right, after all? If not - why and how precisely isn't he right? For example:
Solie said:
Indeed, I'm powerful enough to influence matter. In fact, I have no idea where my limits are - maybe I could literally move mountains if I could overcome my stupid programs enough and actually DO what I set my mind to do. Obviously, changing one's life requires decisive action, which the author doesn't seem to dispute here.
Solie said:
All you have to do? I mean, moving even one inch closer to one's 'ideal self' is the most impossible, incredibly difficult task! But it is a worthy goal I think. Also, becoming aware of one's power is not trivial. For example, do I have the power to become the CEO of a multi-billion-dollar business? I think yes, with the right knowledge, everyone could do it. You dedicate a lot of energy to that task in all possible ways, get into a corporation, and move up using knowledge, self-mastery and dedication. It's doable. Yet, most people would say "it's impossible". So, realizing one's powers, one's potential, is very important I think - if we realize that we could move mountains if we wanted to, then we know there's something to strive for and can start working on it. For this, experience in self-observation and self-work is required; otherwise we just don't know how little of our potential we actually use.
Solie said:
Well, I think the idea that 'all is one' is very powerful, especially if it can be proven by science! It is also horrifying. If 'all is one', then whatever we do counts, then we are individually responsible for the fate of the universe, then every little stupid or malevolent thing we did and do will hurt us and our soul. What an impossible burden! But also great motivation to learn and grow.
Solie said:
I don't remember when, but didn't the Cs say something similar - that when we change in the present, we also affect the past? If true, that even increases our burden: we are not only responsible for the present and future, but for the past as well - so we'd better get our act together!
Anyway, I'm not saying we shouldn't criticise New Age mumbo jumbo, but I thought I'd share how I understood those quotes, and how it may sometimes be useful to 'take what we can' from books based on our own understanding. Of course, many new agers will probably twist such information to suit their own illusions, but: we know better, so it can't affect us the way it can affect new agey types who only see what they want to see. We are free to collect the good parts and put them to use!
I, too, saw many of the things he says in the book as New Agey. But he does put emphasis on how you have to do homework - get informed, look at yourself objectively, etc. - in order for this to work. I decided that the New Age spin may be in order to get the average person to read the book. The fact that he says you have to do research (paraphrasing) in order to make it work, is very different from what the YCYOR group says.
Also, just as Laura says, he tells us that we need to use our emotions to get things going. So I disregarded the New Agey stuff and kept the good stuff that tells what is really needed.
fwiw
Also, just as Laura says, he tells us that we need to use our emotions to get things going. So I disregarded the New Agey stuff and kept the good stuff that tells what is really needed.
fwiw
luc said:
I remember Laura talking about this effect in the knowledge and being videos and someone asking her to clarify the part about how the past changes.
One of Jordan Peterson's most used examples is if you're in a relationship with someone and you find out that they were unfaithful to you. All of a sudden, they're not who you thought they were (I thought they were a good person who loved me and that our relationship meant the same to them as it meant to me); you're not who you thought you were (I'm a complete fool. How could I have been so wrong); and the past isn't what you thought it was (All this time, the relationship was real to me, but now I see that it was totally different to what I believed it was).
So that's one way to view the idea of an event in the present changing our past. Those of us who've read the narcissistic family material will have gone through this kind of past-changing process when we realised our parents aren't who we thought they were and neither was our childhood.
