Self Remembering

[cubbex]

Hi whitecoast. I don't have the answers but something occurs to me which I'd like to offer as food for thought.

If I see injustice and evil and that gets me upset and angry, are those negative emotions? If so, is that the correct use of negative emotions? Or can they be said to be positive emotions, since they get me to do the right thing?

As I am reading this relates haha, well, maybe those are negative emotions but expressed in a different way, but if you are weak to express yourself with negative emotions it would mean you have not yet control over yourself, so it may be dangerous. OSIT

Well I came back again with ouspensky:

Further, or even before that, one finds many very dangerous effects in the expression of negative emotions. The term 'negative emotions' means all emotions of violence or depression: self-pity, anger, suspicion, fear, annoyance, boredom, mistrust, jealousy and so on. Ordinarily, one accepts this expression of negative emotions as quite natural and even necessary. Very often people call it 'sincerity.' Of course it has nothing to do with sincerity; it is simply a sign of weakness in man, a sign of bad temper and of incapacity to keep his grievances to himself. Man realises this when he tries to oppose it. And by this he learns another lesson. He realises that in relation to mechanical manifestations it is not enough to observe them, it is necessary to resist them, because without resisting them one cannot observe them. They happen so quickly, so habitually and so imperceptibly, that one cannot notice them if one does not make sufficient efforts to create obstacles for them.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Hi whitecoast. I don't have the answers but something occurs to me which I'd like to offer as food for thought.

If I see injustice and evil and that gets me upset and angry, are those negative emotions? If so, is that the correct use of negative emotions? Or can they be said to be positive emotions, since they get me to do the right thing?

As I am reading this relates haha, well, maybe those are negative emotions but expressed in a different way, but if you are weak to express yourself with negative emotions it would mean you have not yet control over yourself, so it may be dangerous. OSIT

Well I came back again with ouspensky:

Further, or even before that, one finds many very dangerous effects in the expression of negative emotions. The term 'negative emotions' means all emotions of violence or depression: self-pity, anger, suspicion, fear, annoyance, boredom, mistrust, jealousy and so on. Ordinarily, one accepts this expression of negative emotions as quite natural and even necessary. Very often people call it 'sincerity.' Of course it has nothing to do with sincerity; it is simply a sign of weakness in man, a sign of bad temper and of incapacity to keep his grievances to himself. Man realises this when he tries to oppose it. And by this he learns another lesson. He realises that in relation to mechanical manifestations it is not enough to observe them, it is necessary to resist them, because without resisting them one cannot observe them. They happen so quickly, so habitually and so imperceptibly, that one cannot notice them if one does not make sufficient efforts to create obstacles for them.

I think there is a useful distinction to be made between 'negative emotions' in the sense Ouspensky uses in that quote and the negative half of the emotional center (positive half = 'I like', negative half 'I don't like') which I think is the sense used by Windmill Knight. There is a use for the negative half of the emotional center in Windmill Knight's example, and no positive use for 'negative emotions' in Ouspensky's sense.

 

[cubbex]

Yeah I think that applies to the conscious suffering people talk in other threads. Useful distinction indeed.

 

[whitecoast]

Hi whitecoast. I don't have the answers but something occurs to me which I'd like to offer as food for thought.

If I see injustice and evil and that gets me upset and angry, are those negative emotions? If so, is that the correct use of negative emotions? Or can they be said to be positive emotions, since they get me to do the right thing?

Hi Windmill knight. I would say those aren't negative emotions, so long as there's no identification, et cetera. That's more like an objective reaction to a negative circumstance. Obviously not all external conditions are to be pleasant, but certain mental-emotional reactions that will the organism to correct the situation can't be considered negative (due to their positive role), providing the emotions simply bring about the realization of their objective purpose or function, and consume a person's energy no further.

Example: if someone makes rude and insensitive comments, you can become perturbed and chastise/reprimand them without it being a negative emotion. But suppose you keep thinking about that event afterward, and it still causes annoyance such; I would consider that a negative emotion, because aside from possibly serving as a waking trigger or object of study for a person level 4 or below, it has no objective place in a fully awakened being.

 

[andi]

Hi all.

I've been reading the hole thread and I and I'm not sure I understand the difference between self-remembering and self-observation. In the first half of the thread, there was an obvious difference, and later, towards the end of the thread, after A.I. and anart have given simple and understandable examples, I started to see no more difference between this two concepts.

Now for example, I can be aware of myself for extended periods of time. When I talk to a friend I am in the same time listening to what I say and in the same time make adjustments to what I will say next in order to evaluate the situation and be considerent to the other. In case I want to say something to this friend that I think he may not understand or accept, then I pay even more attention because I have to be aware of his reaction and see if he appears to be interested or not and in response I have to weight my choice to what to say next.

This I have always considered to be self-observation and not self-remembering. Yes in a way one is being self aware because of being aware of what is going on and acting less mechanical.

I understood that self-remembering is something one only gets glimpses because it is so difficult to be in that state and is similar to a state of detachment where one is aware of the bigger picture of everything happening around him and not only that witch the attention is focused on, as in my case with the friend.

When I first experienced what I thought/think was self-remembering, I had (as is also described in the beginning of the thread) the feeling of being a little behind my eye and up a little and at that moment I was understanding all I was doing(reading) with great facility while in the same time, with the same facility, I was hearing, feeling my body and sensing all around me.

After this first experience, I realized this I was having this experiences all of the time in childhood when I was put in a state of extreme fear. My biggest fear in school was to read in front of the class (and we had to do it very often) and whenever came my turn, right before I was to start reading, I detached from my self and found myself sitting in the back of my head looking at my self reading but without me putting any effort to do it - it seemed as if my body was doing it without me having to do anything about it. I, being in the back of my head was looking at the same time to see if anyone was going to lough at me and I was monitoring constantly to see if my reading was fluent so that no-one would think I don't know how to read.

So this is something I had to go thought a couple of times a week. Plus I also noticed this to be the same sensation when I am in immediate danger of if i get scared suddenly - I just jump out of my skin.

I tried to achieve this self-remembering on purpose and I can do it when I READ as it was the case with the first experience identified by me as being serf-remembering. If I try I would be able to achieve it for an instant, after witch I would loose it because of thinking about it. However, when it happens by itself -that is, when I read, this self-remembering state comes when there is evident danger that can be produced from what I am about to read .. so it is as if this state is making sure I want die of shock, sort of.


Is this self-remembering or similar or is there another explanation altogether different. I categorized it as being self-remembering but after having read this thread, I'm trying to see if there are other explanations.



Thanks, and as always - if you see there is a need for a mirror - please do. ;)

 

[StrangeCaptain]

Hi all.

I've been reading the hole thread and I and I'm not sure I understand the difference between self-remembering and self-observation. In the first half of the thread, there was an obvious difference, and later, towards the end of the thread, after A.I. and anart have given simple and understandable examples, I started to see no more difference between this two concepts.

I got confused and unconfused several times throughout this thread. I finally came out of it with the following tentative ideas:

self-remembering: the state of seeing that you are 2 people (at least :P); seeing first-hand and in the moment the division within; seeing that discrepancy of who you really are and who you could be

self-observation: self-remembering plus application; from that state of division being able to choose in favor of your destiny as opposed to acting in the same automatic fashion in which one always has

 

[andi]

Thanks Patience for answering so fast ;)
I see what you mean.

Added:
What you said I understand it more with the intellectual center.
I'm not sure this is what I'm trying to do but I think I'm trying to understand through the emotional center -feeling it, experiencing it..

 

[Approaching Infinity]

self-observation: self-remembering plus application; from that state of division being able to choose in favor of your destiny as opposed to acting in the same automatic fashion in which one always has

I think this is close enough for horseshoes. Another thing that may help is that in ISOTM G said there are two kinds of self-observation: 1) the simple recording of impressions or 'taking pictures', 2) analysis. In order to self-observe, you need to self-remember, i.e. divide awareness into observer and observed. Most people can't do this, or at least don't do it. For example, take a guy that points their finger at whomever he's talking to. You'd be surprised how many people, when this is pointed out, will say, "I don't do that" (while pointing their finger at the person who said it)! Most people have very little body awareness, and that includes their movements and their visceral reactions (which includes all physical data of emotion). So a great way to start self-observation is to focus on your body: postures, facial expressions, habits, tics, gait, gesticulations, head movements, visceral sensations, etc. You'd be surprised how much you can discover about yourself by doing so, and how helpful it can be (as Levine makes clear in In An Unspoken Voice). An awareness of posture, facial expression, breathing patterns gives clues to emotional state, as several members have pointed out in their own examples lately. As S-O progresses, you can see your physical habits, your emotional habits, and even your intellectual habits. But you need to see them before you can be aware of context, and the "why" of it all...

From ISOTM:

"There are two methods of self-observation: analysis, or attempts at analysis, that is, attempts to find the answers to the questions: upon what does a certain thing depend, and why does it happen; and the second method is registering, simply 'recording' in one's mind what is observed at the moment.

"Self-observation, especially in the beginning, must on no account become analysis or attempts at analysis. Analysis will only become possible much later when a man knows all the functions of his machine and all the laws which govern it.

"In trying to analyze some phenomenon that he comes across within him, a man generally asks: 'What is this? Why does it happen in this way and not in some other way?' And he begins to seek an answer to these questions, forgetting all about further observations. Becoming more and more engrossed in these questions he completely loses the thread of self-observation and even forgets about it. Observation stops. It is clear from this that only one thing can go on; either observation or attempts at analysis.

"But even apart from this, attempts to analyze separate phenomena without a knowledge of general laws are a completely useless waste of time. Before it is possible to analyze even the most elementary phenomena, a man must accumulate a sufficient quantity of material by means of 'recording.' 'Recording,' that is, the result of a direct observation of what is taking place at a given moment, is the most important material in the work of self-study. When a certain number of 'records' have been accumulated and when, at the same time, laws to a certain extent have been studied and understood, analysis becomes possible.

"From the very beginning, observation, or 'recording,' must be based upon the
understanding of the fundamental principles of the activity of the human machine. Self-observation cannot be properly applied without knowing these principles, without constantly bearing them in mind. Therefore ordinary self-observation, in which all people are engaged all their lives, is entirely useless and leads nowhere.

"Observation must begin with the division of functions. All the activity of the human machine is divided into four sharply defined groups, each of which is controlled by its own special mind or 'center.' In observing himself a man must differentiate between the four basic functions of his machine: the thinking, the emotional, the moving, and the instinctive. Every phenomenon that a man observes in himself is related to one or the other of these functions. Therefore, before beginning to observe, a man must understand how the functions differ; what intellectual activity means, what emotional activity means, what moving activity means, and what instinctive activity means.

"Observation must begin from the beginning. All previous experience, the results of all previous self-observation, must be laid aside. They may contain much valuable material. But all this material is based upon wrong divisions of the functions observed and is itself wrongly divided. It cannot therefore be utilized, at any rate it cannot be utilized at the beginning of the work of self-study. What is of value in it will, at the proper time, be taken up and made use of. But it is necessary to begin from the begin­ning. A man must begin observing himself as though he did not know himself at all, as though he had never observed himself.

 

[andi]

Thanks A.I. I recently started recapitulation because I found I was loosing the reins in some places -like I have somewhat lost the enthusiasm I had in the beginning, I think because of the things I have gone through lately.

I reevaluated my state and found I didn't understand the S-R to well after all. I skipped the part with the classifying of what goes to what center. This is a case for another thread however.

I'm doing the S-O for a while now, witch has brought big benefit. I want to make sure I'm doing things correctly this time.

Edited for clarification.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Now for example, I can be aware of myself for extended periods of time. When I talk to a friend I am in the same time listening to what I say and in the same time make adjustments to what I will say next in order to evaluate the situation and be considerent to the other. In case I want to say something to this friend that I think he may not understand or accept, then I pay even more attention because I have to be aware of his reaction and see if he appears to be interested or not and in response I have to weight my choice to what to say next.

This I have always considered to be self-observation and not self-remembering. Yes in a way one is being self aware because of being aware of what is going on and acting less mechanical.

I think the first bolded part is self-observation. The second is more self-remembering. Being aware of context is self-remembering. When you "remember yourself" you can be externally considerate, because you're not wholly identified with your machine, caught up in the 'stream' of habits, emotions, thought-loops.

I understood that self-remembering is something one only gets glimpses because it is so difficult to be in that state and is similar to a state of detachment where one is aware of the bigger picture of everything happening around him and not only that witch the attention is focused on, as in my case with the friend.

I think that for practical purposes, being aware of your friend is self-remembering. Perhaps there are "higher levels" of it where one is aware of everything, but that's pretty far off for most of us.

When I first experienced what I thought/think was self-remembering, I had (as is also described in the beginning of the thread) the feeling of being a little behind my eye and up a little and at that moment I was understanding all I was doing(reading) with great facility while in the same time, with the same facility, I was hearing, feeling my body and sensing all around me.

I'd say that's self-remembering and self-observation. By remembering yourself, you're able to observe yourself, your body, your machine. There's an inner separation. Dabrowski called it "subject-object in oneself".

After this first experience, I realized this I was having this experiences all of the time in childhood when I was put in a state of extreme fear. My biggest fear in school was to read in front of the class (and we had to do it very often) and whenever came my turn, right before I was to start reading, I detached from my self and found myself sitting in the back of my head looking at my self reading but without me putting any effort to do it - it seemed as if my body was doing it without me having to do anything about it. I, being in the back of my head was looking at the same time to see if anyone was going to lough at me and I was monitoring constantly to see if my reading was fluent so that no-one would think I don't know how to read.

A couple observations and speculations. Gurdjieff said essence comes out in an extreme emotional shock. In Levine's book, he quotes Marie-Louise von Franz, who wrote: "The divine psychic core of the soul, the self, is activated in cases of extreme danger." I think Dabrowski would say your experience shows "nuclei of subject-object in oneself", basically an example of spontaneous disintegration/dissociation, albeit a traumatic/defensive one. I think there's probably a link between dissociation and self-remembering (positive dissociation as talked about by John Shumaker?), and all that Dabrowski stuff...

As a side note, at the point in the book of that von Franz quote, Levine is writing about "tremblings" and relating them perhaps to the experience of "fear and trembling". Dabrowski wrote about this too:

The feeling of guilt [by guilt, I think he's talking more about remorse, as defined by Needleman in another thread] is a poignant experience, and is connected with the experience of “fear and trembling.” As we have shown, it has a considerably greater influence on the whole of personality than does simple dissatisfaction with oneself, or the feeling of shame. When this experience is accompanied by the process of consciousness, it reaches deeper into the subconsciousness than other experiences. On the one hand, it reaches with its roots into heredity and often into the phase of early-childhood injuries, and on the other, it is transposed into the feeling of responsibility for the immediate or more distant environments, or for the whole society.

Just some food for thought, which may relate to Obyvatal's post elsewhere about immobilization and higher centers...

 

[Buddy]

When I first experienced what I thought/think was self-remembering, I had (as is also described in the beginning of the thread) the feeling of being a little behind my eye and up a little and at that moment I was understanding all I was doing(reading) with great facility while in the same time, with the same facility, I was hearing, feeling my body and sensing all around me.

Since you limited the description to a moment in the present, I would call that an example of Self-observation in cognitive terms - the necessary "monitor" being present due to the inductive cognitive loop running (attention is divided between "normal awareness" and awareness of self in relationship to the internal and external environment), as I understand it. With practice, one can add more and more to what one can see and observe.

After this first experience, I realized this I was having this experiences all of the time in childhood when I was put in a state of extreme fear. My biggest fear in school was to read in front of the class (and we had to do it very often) and whenever came my turn, right before I was to start reading, I detached from my self and found myself sitting in the back of my head looking at my self reading but without me putting any effort to do it - it seemed as if my body was doing it without me having to do anything about it. I, being in the back of my head was looking at the same time to see if anyone was going to lough at me and I was monitoring constantly to see if my reading was fluent so that no-one would think I don't know how to read.

Are the details of the experience, including the surroundings, vivid? And are the details of this experience more vivid than say, the previous few hours and the few hours afterwards? If so, I'd call that a conscious shock inducing a heightened self-awareness. IOW, for a time, you were on a higher, more intense level of consciousness compared to your ordinary state.

So this is something I had to go thought a couple of times a week. Plus I also noticed this to be the same sensation when I am in immediate danger of if i get scared suddenly - I just jump out of my skin.

Are you still connected with all your body senses as if everything else but the placement of the monitor is still the same?

I tried to achieve this self-remembering on purpose and I can do it when I READ as it was the case with the first experience identified by me as being serf-remembering. If I try I would be able to achieve it for an instant, after witch I would loose it because of thinking about it.

Yep, that's how it goes. The narrator draws you into identifying which becomes a state of comparative sedation. After awhile, the sedating effect of self-talk may become so noticable, it'll almost make you feel sick if you're a neurologically very sensitive person. That's why I have a hard time reading long texts and may never complete an article and why it may sometimes take me hours to compose certain posts.

However, when I am sedated, or in "hyperfocus" mode, it's nooooooo problem!

However, when it happens by itself -that is, when I read, this self-remembering state comes when there is evident danger that can be produced from what I am about to read .. so it is as if this state is making sure I want die of shock, sort of.

Again, the Work says that "unexpectedness" in general can turn (shock) on a person's inductive loop, or Self-monitor for varying lengths of time. Although it's not stated exactly in those words.

Is this self-remembering or similar or is there another explanation altogether different. I categorized it as being self-remembering but after having read this thread, I'm trying to see if there are other explanations.

I would say you can call it one or the other depending on what you are doing at the moment. Having said that, my Self-remembering (such as it is) varies in quality and quantity constantly. However, when I am in a state that may be called Self-remembering, not only am I aware of self in relation to outer environment, I'm also watching what I'm doing and I'm aware of the seemingly separate physical, feeling and intellectual levels I seem to be occupying and moving within at the moment. I can also, on occasion, feel how what I'm up to relates to where I've come from (from the viewpoint of my past while growing up - IOW, how I got here).

This is kinda hard to describe and it takes so many words to linearize something that happens on several levels simultaneously, so I may have screwed up my intended response. Please ask for any needed clarification. Thanks, andi.

These are just my thoughts. Others may disagree or have reason to believe all this is something else entirely, so FWIW. :)


-------------------
~Added later~

BTW, perpetual apologies for the chaos I added to the thread earlier. I didn't mean to. I don't know that I ever got across what I wanted to say at one point, so I let it go in the interests of getting back on track.

 

[andi]

[quote author=A.I.]

Now for example, I can be aware of myself for extended periods of time. When I talk to a friend I am in the same time listening to what I say and in the same time make adjustments to what I will say next in order to evaluate the situation and be considerent to the other. In case I want to say something to this friend that I think he may not understand or accept, then I pay even more attention because I have to be aware of his reaction and see if he appears to be interested or not and in response I have to weight my choice to what to say next.

This I have always considered to be self-observation and not self-remembering. Yes in a way one is being self aware because of being aware of what is going on and acting less mechanical.

I think the first bolded part is self-observation. The second is more self-remembering. Being aware of context is self-remembering. When you "remember yourself" you can be externally considerate, because you're not wholly identified with your machine, caught up in the 'stream' of habits, emotions, thought-loops.
[/quote]


I see..it makes sens.

I think that for practical purposes, being aware of your friend is self-remembering. Perhaps there are "higher levels" of it where one is aware of everything, but that's pretty far off for most of us.

Ok, so Self-Remembering is remembering to self-observe basically and be externally considerate.
So if I understand this correctly, when one is only self-observing, especially in the beginning, one is not really applying ext-consideration because he is simply taking mental pictures. After a while one is able to analyze as well and then self-remembering come into play to help one not only observe but be present as well and take appropriate action - witch will make one more self aware.

Well, if this is correct then I still don't see how self remembering comes before self observation.
But in a way I do see why it comes first, cause it makes sens - one remembers to observe kind of thing.

Am I mixing things up?

I also wander why G was saying that he could do all kinds of stuff like hypnosis, etc - but the he could not succeed in remembering himself. Was he not able to full self observe and self remember in the same time?
I imagined that what G was trying to achieve, for an normal person, things would have to happen very very slowly to even catch them - witch makes me think that the state he was trying to achieve was a hyper-conscious state.

A couple observations and speculations. Gurdjieff said essence comes out in an extreme emotional shock. In Levine's book, he quotes Marie-Louise von Franz, who wrote: "The divine psychic core of the soul, the self, is activated in cases of extreme danger." I think Dabrowski would say your experience shows "nuclei of subject-object in oneself", basically an example of spontaneous disintegration/dissociation, albeit a traumatic/defensive one. I think there's probably a link between dissociation and self-remembering (positive dissociation as talked about by John Shumaker?), and all that Dabrowski stuff...

As a side note, at the point in the book of that von Franz quote, Levine is writing about "tremblings" and relating them perhaps to the experience of "fear and trembling". Dabrowski wrote about this too:

Quote from: Dabrowski

The feeling of guilt [by guilt, I think he's talking more about remorse, as defined by Needleman in another thread] is a poignant experience, and is connected with the experience of “fear and trembling.” As we have shown, it has a considerably greater influence on the whole of personality than does simple dissatisfaction with oneself, or the feeling of shame. When this experience is accompanied by the process of consciousness, it reaches deeper into the subconsciousness than other experiences. On the one hand, it reaches with its roots into heredity and often into the phase of early-childhood injuries, and on the other, it is transposed into the feeling of responsibility for the immediate or more distant environments, or for the whole society.


Just some food for thought, which may relate to Obyvatal's post elsewhere about immobilization and higher centers...

Thanks for this A.I. ;)

 

[andi]

[quote author=andi]
After this first experience, I realized this I was having this experiences all of the time in childhood when I was put in a state of extreme fear. My biggest fear in school was to read in front of the class (and we had to do it very often) and whenever came my turn, right before I was to start reading, I detached from my self and found myself sitting in the back of my head looking at my self reading but without me putting any effort to do it - it seemed as if my body was doing it without me having to do anything about it. I, being in the back of my head was looking at the same time to see if anyone was going to lough at me and I was monitoring constantly to see if my reading was fluent so that no-one would think I don't know how to read.
[/quote]

[quote author=Bud]
Are the details of the experience, including the surroundings, vivid? And are the details of this experience more vivid than say, the previous few hours and the few hours afterwards? If so, I'd call that a conscious shock inducing a heightened self-awareness. IOW, for a time, you were on a higher, more intense level of consciousness compared to your ordinary state.[/quote]


Hi Bud, it depends what one describes as vivid. Sure, it was vivid in a way- like you said - on a higher more intense level of consciousness. Everything seemed more real and the feeling could not be compared to nothing that would happen that specific day.
When I would FINALLY finish my reading turn, I could feel like floating over my seat maybe for the rest of the class. And of course, I could not resume to listening want was going on - I was like buzzed.

Are you still connected with all your body senses as if everything else but the placement of the monitor is still the same?

If I understand you correctly, the monitor is me being behind may head a little. Then yes, full body senses but the monitor is somewhat detached - like it is not so alarmed as my body is.
But I'll have to watch for this when it happens next time to really say that for sure.

After awhile, the sedating effect of self-talk may become so noticable, it'll almost make you feel sick if you're a neurologically very sensitive person. That's why I have a hard time reading long texts and may never complete an article and why it may sometimes take me hours to compose certain posts.

I can attest to that. I too take hours to write a post and the internal talk can be very draining - if this is what you are saying. I concluded that this draining is due to my programs of importance and the extensive work of the intellectual center trying to do everything and all perfect and letting no other center make his own efforts OSIT.

However, when I am sedated, or in "hyperfocus" mode, it's nooooooo problem!

I usually get so tired trying to understand things and if possible to understand it yesterday, that after a good break I work much more efficiently - when the intellectual center gets to tired I think.

so I may have screwed up my intended response. Please ask for any needed clarification. Thanks, andi.

Yes there is something I no do understand: what do you mean by present , and if it would not be in the present how would it change the situation?

Since you limited the description to a moment in the present, [..]

Thanks much for the input Bud ;)

 

[Buddy]

so I may have screwed up my intended response. Please ask for any needed clarification. Thanks, andi.

Yes there is something I no do understand: what do you mean by present , and if it would not be in the present how would it change the situation?

Since you limited the description to a moment in the present, [..]

Thanks much for the input Bud ;)

Hi andi. The difference I was trying to draw attention to relates to the value of recapitulation and the emotional processing that removes remembering blocks to help the practice.

For me, until my recap is mostly completed, then when I feel totally in the moment and 'on top' of everything, Self remembering is more like being totally present but not necessarily remembering everything about myself that I am capable of remembering. So, I meant to imply that there are different degrees of everything possible - consciousness, Self-observation and Self-remembering.

IOW, as it seems to me, from the 'Watcher's' point of view, Self-remembering is the added dimension to Self-observation which includes what you know about yourself from the 'past' and how it relates, or may relate to the 'present' - and anything else you may be capable of perceiving and remembering about "andi" at the same time.

To do Self-remembering, we definitely have to have part of attention 'out of our heads', else the faculty that does rationating (the feeling center cognition, or the non-language based, "weighing" that is necessarily involved in learning and living) is out of control and all it's inferences are suspect because we then tend to reverse meanings (act from feelings dominated by the negative half of the emotional center as if they are a "cause" of behavior).

It seems to me, some of Laura's writings point out this "weighing" aspect of mentation - like in that chapter of the Wave dealing with "the High road vs the Low Road", and other places where the word "weigh" is used. Thing is, most of those times that we feel "stuck in a rut" are exactly those times when this faculty has turned off and we never realized it. Why? Because it is the very faculty (with the attendent monitor) you need to have "on" before you can realize it via the method of juxtaposition. But then, we can be "alarmed" or "shocked" into remembering that we used to have it.


-----------------------------
Edit: grammar/syntax changes for clarity

 

[andi]

Thanks Bud for the clarification, I will return to the responses I got when I will gather more understanding. Right now it is a bit over my head.
However, the self remembering thing seems to form a clearer picture for now.