Session 6 July 2024
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Rain
The Force is Strong With This One
On another topic, it really, really angers me that the lifespan isn't 800 years anymore. 
I thought about this my whole life. There would be time for mistakes, time to get to know yourself, what you like, what you dislike, time to realize things about other people, time to do all the things you are interested in, not to have to choose just one or two... Time to explore! We could learn so much more.
I thought about this my whole life. There would be time for mistakes, time to get to know yourself, what you like, what you dislike, time to realize things about other people, time to do all the things you are interested in, not to have to choose just one or two... Time to explore! We could learn so much more.
Haiku
Jedi Master
I found this, Nomendei - Puzzling thoughts
Nomindei.com
Depressive Realism ...
I've been reading some of this, interesting to say the least. Haiku ...
Nomindei.com
Depressive Realism ...
I've been reading some of this, interesting to say the least. Haiku ...
On another topic, it really, really angers me that the lifespan isn't 800 years anymore.
I thought about this my whole life. There would be time for mistakes, time to get to know yourself, what you like, what you dislike, time to realize things about other people, time to do all the things you are interested in, not to have to choose just one or two... Time to explore! We could learn so much more.
As they pointed out in the session, the perception was kinda different, since time is relative and it seems perception of it depends on the cosmic environment the earth is at the moment we are referring to.
So, it could be the case that for a person living thousands of years back then, time was perceived differently, in other words, what we think of 6000 years in todays days, it could have been perceived differently in the past. Perhaps a person living that long would have perceived the same “amount of time” that a person living 120 years in today’s days or something like that.
nf3
Jedi
What do you suppose it means to be "in" 4D?
Rain
The Force is Strong With This One
I know
. Maybe the number of experiences, and things learned, would be similar. I was halfway joking. Still, there is so much to see and learn that sometimes one thinks about how it might be different with a longer lifespan.
nf3
Jedi
Yes, I'm asking for opinions on what that would look like since it's a group decision.
Need to reread it and gather my thoughts. Thanks Chateau and FOTCM crews! 
I found this website where you can see some of the research done on inner experience. I don't know if it's the same researcher mentioned in the session, but it seems pretty similar to what was discussed regarding inner speech:
hurlburt.faculty.unlv.edu
I haven't read all of it yet, but it seems to me that what the woman in the video posted before relates is close to what they describe as the experience of those who don't have inner speech.
Here's a simple summary of what this researcher found: Do You Have an Internal Dialogue? Not Everyone Does
It seems that researchers don't know why this happens but there's a theory I read somewhere (I can't find the article now but will do my best to find it again). They say that inner speech lights up some prefrontal cortex areas of the brain along with the auditory parts of the brain without engaging the motor parts of the brain that would be used to speak, and the theory is that people who can't speak to themselves internally can't use that prefrontal cortex area and auditory area without engaging the motor area. Well, something along those lines.
For me, if we focus only on inner speech it become a bit more confusing than perhaps talking about it in terms of what Joe asked in the session about having an observer:
I thought that was pretty interesting, the mention os parts of ourselves, and it makes me think of Gurdjieff's 'little Is' concept and how the idea was to get a butler to organize those little Is (servants) in the house so that the Master (soul) could arrive. Perhaps the butler is the first observer until the Master arrives?
I've been studying about Internal Family System (IFS) which is a model of psychotherapy that I thought was interesting because it brings up the subject of inner parts and how they sort of take over by blending with the self (which is the core essence for them) and the whole therapy revolves around un-blending self from these (often childish) parts and increasing what they call self-leadership in the internal system. That's a very short summary and they aren't the only ones to work with this 'inner parts' concept and perhaps they're model isn't 100% accurate but I just thought it is very interesting.
Now, the reason I bring it up is that, in one of my trainings they showed a video of a person who has DID as the therapist was trying to work with her using this type of therapy, and the main difference with her is that there seems to be no Self, that is, the therapist mostly needs to talk directly with the 'parts' but then there's no observer that kind of knows what is happening or what the conversation was. That made me think of what the Cs said about Dissociative Identity Disorder:
So, first, let me highlight that according to that, souled individuals CAN develop DID too, so let's not just conclude that all who have DID are OPs. The purpose is more to understand the dynamics and differences.
For me, that's interesting in light of what I've been researching about IFS because, when using that model, what is believed to 'heal' is the ability to bring up the 'Self' and have the self be aware of the inner parts and increase that 'Self energy', so to speak, which for me translates to kind of like awakening and strengthening the 'inner observer' so that it can organize those 'inner parts', and for that you need an internal dialogue. And also, while studying about it, I thought that it seems to be that what they call the 'Self' has a protective influence against fragmentation too.
I still haven't got any conclusions derived from these thoughts, so these are just some ideas that came up while thinking about this inner speech stuff.
I also thought about Artificial Intelligence and how bots like ChatGPT can create pretty complex speech and yet, it too doesn't have inner speech. It is just reacting to prompts and producing an answer but it's not really thinking, just reacting, which is pretty obvious when you interact with it and you ask it to 'think' about its answer: it just says 'OK' and gives the same answer or something nonsensical.
Russell T. Hurlburt home page
Dr. Hurlburt is Professor of Psychology and author of books on inner experience and statistics
I haven't read all of it yet, but it seems to me that what the woman in the video posted before relates is close to what they describe as the experience of those who don't have inner speech.
Here's a simple summary of what this researcher found: Do You Have an Internal Dialogue? Not Everyone Does
It seems that researchers don't know why this happens but there's a theory I read somewhere (I can't find the article now but will do my best to find it again). They say that inner speech lights up some prefrontal cortex areas of the brain along with the auditory parts of the brain without engaging the motor parts of the brain that would be used to speak, and the theory is that people who can't speak to themselves internally can't use that prefrontal cortex area and auditory area without engaging the motor area. Well, something along those lines.
For me, if we focus only on inner speech it become a bit more confusing than perhaps talking about it in terms of what Joe asked in the session about having an observer:
I thought that was pretty interesting, the mention os parts of ourselves, and it makes me think of Gurdjieff's 'little Is' concept and how the idea was to get a butler to organize those little Is (servants) in the house so that the Master (soul) could arrive. Perhaps the butler is the first observer until the Master arrives?
I've been studying about Internal Family System (IFS) which is a model of psychotherapy that I thought was interesting because it brings up the subject of inner parts and how they sort of take over by blending with the self (which is the core essence for them) and the whole therapy revolves around un-blending self from these (often childish) parts and increasing what they call self-leadership in the internal system. That's a very short summary and they aren't the only ones to work with this 'inner parts' concept and perhaps they're model isn't 100% accurate but I just thought it is very interesting.
Now, the reason I bring it up is that, in one of my trainings they showed a video of a person who has DID as the therapist was trying to work with her using this type of therapy, and the main difference with her is that there seems to be no Self, that is, the therapist mostly needs to talk directly with the 'parts' but then there's no observer that kind of knows what is happening or what the conversation was. That made me think of what the Cs said about Dissociative Identity Disorder:
So, first, let me highlight that according to that, souled individuals CAN develop DID too, so let's not just conclude that all who have DID are OPs. The purpose is more to understand the dynamics and differences.
For me, that's interesting in light of what I've been researching about IFS because, when using that model, what is believed to 'heal' is the ability to bring up the 'Self' and have the self be aware of the inner parts and increase that 'Self energy', so to speak, which for me translates to kind of like awakening and strengthening the 'inner observer' so that it can organize those 'inner parts', and for that you need an internal dialogue. And also, while studying about it, I thought that it seems to be that what they call the 'Self' has a protective influence against fragmentation too.
I still haven't got any conclusions derived from these thoughts, so these are just some ideas that came up while thinking about this inner speech stuff.
I also thought about Artificial Intelligence and how bots like ChatGPT can create pretty complex speech and yet, it too doesn't have inner speech. It is just reacting to prompts and producing an answer but it's not really thinking, just reacting, which is pretty obvious when you interact with it and you ask it to 'think' about its answer: it just says 'OK' and gives the same answer or something nonsensical.
Last edited:
Thanks so much Laura and Andromeda for this amazing session and thanks also to the Chateau's crew.
So much thing to think and ponder.
Well, it seems that we have not reached again the worst. And everyday I wonder how could it be worst that we have are already seeing all around the world.
So much thing to think and ponder.
Well, it seems that we have not reached again the worst. And everyday I wonder how could it be worst that we have are already seeing all around the world.
