Splitting as a Symptom of Internal Considering

neema

Jedi Council Member
I also like to thank everyone on all this info as well. It is much food for thought.

Psalehesost said:
Splitting - and some underlying theory, including some of what Laura posted - is also mentioned in Fear of the Abyss by Aleta Edwards. (Thread here.) Here the context, rather than narcissistic or borderline personality, is a kind of personality marked by things including perfectionism, shame and control issues. (It overlaps with narcissistic wounding, but is not exactly the same.)

This book is what has had me really beginning to see, for the first time, some of the larger extent of my black-or-white thinking. This is how my view of everything seems to be organized. Dealing with it is rather gradual.

As the developmental theory Laura quoted goes into, the infant, splitting experiences into all-good and all-bad, is at some point meant - provided all goes well - to integrate the views into a unified world-view. In cases where more "good" than "bad" has been experienced, this is likely to follow, and the infant - which does not really distinguish between self and the world - comes to view both self and the world as "largely good". In the case of "bad" experience having too strong an impact, the synthesis does not proceed - the infant views the self and the world, most of the time, as "bad", and life goes on in absolutes.

The concept of the Abyss also seems significant here, as it enters into the black-or-white thinking of certain people: It is a belief that has formed that a number of things (which things vary from person to person) are bad in absolute terms, and that if one is not constantly toeing the line with regard to these things, then one is basically evil, a monster, and doomed. An imagined "evil" self (subconscious belief) is kept under the mechanical restraint of rigid rules.

Anything and anyone else that does not conform to these rules is likewise easily condemned, and cannot be excused, because that, according to the rigid thinking, would mean to condone the "evil", associating with it, and thus being "evil" oneself.

Until the underlying emotional issue is addressed, everything built on top of it simply keeps growing, strengthening, elaborating over the years. And black-or-white thinking in itself seems from my experience to result in an amassing of contradictory beliefs. Together with the underlying issues, these and the black-or-white thinking also seem to result in an amassing of fears and anxiety. And all this together result in a rigid stifling of life and the possibilities it brings.

I can see that playing out in my past, turning my life into a mess of shifting fears, anxiety, tension, anger, and diversions serving as an "escape". Hiding from people, from the world and from life itself. Obsessions occasionally forming, with splitting serving to categorize the obsession of the day as "right" and (sometimes) those of the past as "wrong". And harsh condemnation of myself not only for mistakes, but for things that are sometimes not even mistakes - noticed not so much in words, but rather in a feeling of doom, gloom, heaviness, guilt and shame. Fear of being "damned" by life and the universe, and unrealistic dreams of this or that endeavor serving as a means of "saving myself" and achieving a "perfect" destiny.

At present, there's the emotional issues and the issues of an incoherent, non-unified picture of reality. Judgment, attitude and what is considered "right" shifts from moment to moment, pretty much as Gurdjieff described.

I think that if something like the "hyperkinetic sensate" of The Wave occurs, a world-view defined through splitting will explode into the uncountable, painful contradictions it is. Such a way of perceiving and judging reality greatly limits understanding, and an inner world defined by it - like mine to a large extent still is - is mostly a muddle of confusion.

Wow, I have to say that describes pretty well my internal thought process.


Laura said:
Thank you, Psalehesost! That is very well put and certain points you included in your post are worth emphasizing:

It always grieves me when I see someone following this path. I just want to shout and shake them "wake up! The world and life depends on what you put into it!" And, of course, they are convinced that they have put a lot into it but it all just blew up in their face. I realize only slowly (a fault of my own brand of internal considering?) that many people are severely crippled by seeing the world as mostly bad and this is so deep and pervasive in them that almost nothing can break its control. That means it must be programmed into them at a preverbal stage of development. I have tended to think that superior intellect/computing power puts the tools in the hands of the person to enable them to get over this if they WANT to. I am realizing that maybe this is not possible in some cases. In other words, my own practice of External Considering needs some adjustment with this further knowledge of human psychology which is what External Considering depends on. I have to stop expecting others to "just get over it, already!" because they can't. I have to realize that no matter how much information I collect and put at the disposal of others, it always depends on the person and many circumstances, as to whether or not they can really utilize it. In this way, I save myself disappointment and save that other person from feeling inadequate because they cannot "just get over it." I tend to forget, in my enthusiasm for seeing what is beyond the next bend in the road, that not everyone can follow and maybe I need to slow down or something. I'm not sure what, exactly.

One thing I notice about people is whether they are creative or not and whether that creativity is linked in some way to a strong spirit of generosity that bubbles over no matter what, even if they have all kinds of fears and other tendencies. Some people can be just racked by these internal conflicts, but the instant they see someone else suffering, they forget about themselves. That is, concern for others supersedes everything else, even their own programs.

Others, however, seem to offer to do things because, as you mentioned above, they have "unrealistic dreams of this or that endeavor serving as a means of "saving myself" and achieving a "perfect" destiny." Over time, you can begin to get a picture of whether a person is doing something because they think it might save them or because of their natural, overflowing, generous nature.

I would say that the person with the creative/generous nature has a better chance of overcoming Internal Considering than a person who does not.

Well, just my own musings there.

Well as one of those “dumb asses” that just can't get over it I like to apologize on behalf of all “dumb asses” everywhere. ;)

But seriously, I really do need to get over it. There have been many times when I have come to the thought of its all doom and gloom and wanting to runaway and to shut out everything and everyone.

But the thing inside me that I can't shut up, is the constant reminder of the investment in me by the universe, by this group, and by life in general. By shutting out life and running away, I am going to “harm” or bring chaos to the universe, osit.

So I really can't go back. It really is do or die for me, and I don't know if that in itself is black and white thinking.

Laura said:
It's almost impossible to NOT experience a little splitting when receiving an emotional shock. Whatever the source of the shock USUALLY (not always) gets immediately put in the "all bad" category in your mind and you review your entire relationship with that individual through the "new glasses" and suddenly see all the things you missed that told you what a rotter s/he was/is. It is right there that the most Internal Considering goes on. It's all about you being so good and whoever being so bad.

Thing is, this is fairly normal as Gurdjieff makes clear.

Hum, it is easy to forget how normal this condition actually can be.

Laura said:
What is healthy, and a sign of moving to better mastery and integration is getting over it fairly quickly and realizing that you were just in a sort of PMS state. And you can't do this by repressing it/suppressing it and allowing it to grow and fester inside.

For me that would be my achilles heel. I have a great tendency to repress/suppress things and allow them to grow and fester.

Well in the end as the Cs say, we will do what we will do.

Again thanks for the info.
 

Buddy

The Living Force
Laura said:
The thing is, to control it. You don't want to go into it and have it take you over. Some part of you has to maintain a sense of humor and perspective, to not take things too seriously. And you have to remember that the point is to get in there, get through it, and get out. The best way to do this that I've found (and it may be different for others) is to use drama and exaggeration. If you can allow yourself to "play it up" to the point that it is ridiculous, you can't help but end up laughing at yourself.

My wife and I use a technique we call "making the fantasy fantastic" that works the way you mean. As a result, we've been able to blow off some initial upset, have some laughs, and then talk about what was bugging us.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Buddy said:
Laura said:
The thing is, to control it. You don't want to go into it and have it take you over. Some part of you has to maintain a sense of humor and perspective, to not take things too seriously. And you have to remember that the point is to get in there, get through it, and get out. The best way to do this that I've found (and it may be different for others) is to use drama and exaggeration. If you can allow yourself to "play it up" to the point that it is ridiculous, you can't help but end up laughing at yourself.

My wife and I use a technique we call "making the fantasy fantastic" that works the way you mean. As a result, we've been able to blow off some initial upset, have some laughs, and then talk about what was bugging us.

We do a similar thing here. And sometimes it can include ranting and being outrageous in a variety of ways. Usually, after half an hour (at most), you have safely vented everything, you now see it as funny, and you follow the part of yourself that is bigger than the bodily emotions. This is another way of "throwing the wolf a piece of meat." You know your machine, you know how to relieve the pressures, you do it consciously and nothing builds up. Not only that, in some instances, if you get into your "drama", you can let off past steam build-up little by little.

The main prerequisite for doing this is to be willing to "play the fool" for a bit, but with the observer/master still in control. You can be angry and "sin not", so to say.

Of course, with the number of people in this house learning to deal with themselves, each other, the incredible pressures from outside, as well as the responsibilities for so many others that we have taken on, you might think that such dramas are regularly occurring events. They certainly were for awhile. But over time, steam build-up has dissipated and now we only have the occasional venting. And sometimes we do a little "group venting" which can be pretty funny.

Obviously, the person who is afraid of emotions, afraid of saying what their emotions are actually feeling, can't handle this sort of dynamic. They still have the same emotions, still think the same dark thoughts, but they repress, suppress, and project and usually don't have very happy or rich relationships with others. As it says in the song "The Rose":

It's the heart afraid of breaking
That never learns to dance.
It's the dream afraid of waking
That never takes the chance.
It's the one who won't be taken,
Who cannot seem to give,
And the soul afraid of dyin'
That never learns to live.
 

obyvatel

The Living Force
The material presented in Pat Ogden's "Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy" ( thread ) is also relevant to this context.

From Levine, Porges and Ogden's works, it is apparent that varying degrees of the "freeze" response is elicited by traumatic experiences. This freeze response which may last a split second or longer is discernible when we encounter any trigger that eventually lead to splitting. After that time, all the considerable cognitive, emotional and motor responses that are at our disposal as adults are mobilized as coping mechanisms and the train starts picking up speed . I think it is very difficult to detect this freeze on one's own in real time. What seems more promising is to catch the fleeting dissociative image/sensation evoked as an immediate after-effect of the freeze. This image/sensation evoked when splitting begins is different in different people and is influenced by both inherited tendencies and early environment and experiences as well as the current trigger. Such an image/sensation is irrational and we often tend to suppress it - osit. (Incidentally, such delusional images are actually studied in detail for case taking by homeopathic physicians who use this irrational and peculiar information as a key to select the right remedy for acute or chronic physical/emotional ailments. Those who have gone to a classical homeopath for the first time to seek a cure for a migraine headache would likely be vexed at the questions they ask).

One general image in this context is of "being attacked" when confronted by an emotional shock. The specific way the "attack" is imagined/experienced could vary - like "being punched in the gut", "slapped in the face", "choked at the throat", "bound by hands and feet", "pinned to a hard surface", "stabbed in the back", "being chased but unable to outrun the attacker" etc.

Another general theme is that of "loss of structure" but no personified "attacker". This may take various forms like "a crushing weight", "lost in the dark", "drowning", "chaos or disintegration", "legs made of wood" etc. These themes often turn up in dreams as well.

The question is whether there is value in going down this path of identifying the specific sensation/delusion(s). My current thinking is that this approach has value since it is likely that an individual can identify a habitual pattern here which lies at a deeper level than the emotions and thoughts generated from it. Once identified, it can perhaps serve as the proverbial "Ariadne's thread" that helps the individual come back to his observing, remembering self and recover faster from the split?

In my case, a predominant pattern is a sensation of carrying a heavy load that I realize I have had with me since as long as I can remember. Physically, it led to a somewhat collapsed posture, tension in the shoulders, and a very slight scoliosis of the spine. The coping mechanism is to work frenetically to maintain the integrity of the structure in order to not be crushed by the load - by being a martyr. The cognitive component of this "load" is related to the "abyss" which Psalehesost mentioned in his post. The load is the perceived expectation from others regarding my duties which is my version of perfectionism. I do not usually perceive people as attacking me but rather feel more of anguish and resentment - "how come they do not realize my predicament?" So a more detailed image is that of a martyr groaning and moaning under an imaginary load. This image is funny and has been helping me reorient quicker when I can catch the switch towards splitting. Perhaps Epictetus and Stoicism deeply touched me because the very idea of "what is in my control and what is not in my control" reveals the imaginary nature of the burden I tend to carry around when splitting.
 

Ennio

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
Buddy said:
Laura said:
The thing is, to control it. You don't want to go into it and have it take you over. Some part of you has to maintain a sense of humor and perspective, to not take things too seriously. And you have to remember that the point is to get in there, get through it, and get out. The best way to do this that I've found (and it may be different for others) is to use drama and exaggeration. If you can allow yourself to "play it up" to the point that it is ridiculous, you can't help but end up laughing at yourself.

My wife and I use a technique we call "making the fantasy fantastic" that works the way you mean. As a result, we've been able to blow off some initial upset, have some laughs, and then talk about what was bugging us.

We do a similar thing here. And sometimes it can include ranting and being outrageous in a variety of ways. Usually, after half an hour (at most), you have safely vented everything, you now see it as funny, and you follow the part of yourself that is bigger than the bodily emotions. This is another way of "throwing the wolf a piece of meat." You know your machine, you know how to relieve the pressures, you do it consciously and nothing builds up. Not only that, in some instances, if you get into your "drama", you can let off past steam build-up little by little.

The main prerequisite for doing this is to be willing to "play the fool" for a bit, but with the observer/master still in control. You can be angry and "sin not", so to say.

I think that this is a very important distinction - how we choose to vent. Sometimes venting or expressing anger about something can become a consuming emotion that not only colors nearly everything else we see but effects decision-making and what actions we take as a result There is no distance or safe space there that allows us to observe ourselves, validate what the machine is thinking and feeling, but choose to not act out of those feelings in detrimental ways.

In 'You Are Not So Smart' McRaney has a chapter called Catharsis where he examines studies on the effects of cathartic acts.

Bushman has been doing this research for a while, and it keeps turning up the same results. If you think catharsis is good, you are more likely to seek it out when you get pissed. When you vent, you stay angry and are more likely to keep doing aggressive things so you can keep venting. It’s druglike, because there are brain chemicals and other behavioral reinforcements at work. If you get accustomed to blowing off steam, you become dependent on it. The more effective approach is to just stop. Take your anger off of the stove.

Bushman’s work also debunks the idea of redirecting your anger into exercise or something similar. He says it will only maintain your state or increase your arousal level, and afterward you may be even more aggressive than if you had cooled off. Still, cooling off is not the same thing as not dealing with your anger at all. Bushman suggests you delay your response, relax or distract yourself with an activity totally incompatible with aggression.

If you get into an argument, or someone cuts you off in traffic, or you get called an awful name, venting will not dissipate the negative energy. It will, however, feel great. That’s the thing. Catharsis will make you feel good, but it’s an emotional hamster wheel. The emotion that led you to catharsis will still be there afterward, and if the catharsis made you feel good, you’ll seek that emotion out again in the future.

So I think that 'playing the fool' and not identifying with the emotions, while still acknowledging them and working through them - even outwardly - is great advice. It seems more creative and gives us the cognitive breathing room to look at ourselves. It also implies that while we are giving validation to what our machines are experiencing, we are not so identified with our emotions that we allow ourselves to split. Since situations vary, finding the right approach to dealing with something upsetting seems to be the key.
 

Buddy

The Living Force
Thanks for that post, obyvatel. While I'm less than fluent in Levine, Porges and Ogden's works as well as a few other vetted works mentioned on here, I have arrived at some of these same understandings from different paths. If you don't mind, I'll comment a little on sections of your post which, I hope, shows some synthesis of this understanding.


obyvatel said:
The material presented in Pat Ogden's "Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy" ( thread ) is also relevant to this context.

From Levine, Porges and Ogden's works, it is apparent that varying degrees of the "freeze" response is elicited by traumatic experiences. This freeze response which may last a split second or longer is discernible when we encounter any trigger that eventually lead to splitting.

I agree. In fact, the actual fundamental response is said to be freeze, flight or fight and in that order. During freeze, a limbic-level sorting and selecting algorithm determines what comes next: flight or fight. And this all happens so fast, it appears instantaneous. And the reactions are reliable enough to make a living from, as Joe Navarro attests in What Every BODY is Saying and as my own four years in law enforcement validates.


obyvatel said:
After that time, all the considerable cognitive, emotional and motor responses that are at our disposal as adults are mobilized as coping mechanisms and the train starts picking up speed .

fMRI studies show that blood leaves the neocortex during a limbic "interrupt" and pools around the limbic structures as if to mobilize biological resources for whatever reaction the organism proceeds with next. These same studies show that if you can kickstart your thinking by increasing your cognitive load at that time, blood starts moving back into the neocortex and you can effectively override a limbic "interrupt" in many cases. A key seems to be an act of preparing yourself for the possibility and just be ready.


obyvatel said:
I think it is very difficult to detect this freeze on one's own in real time. What seems more promising is to catch the fleeting dissociative image/sensation evoked as an immediate after-effect of the freeze.

This fleeting dissociative image/sensation is what Epstein calls a "construal" in his book, Constructive Thinking and he provides lots of examples a person can study and match up with his own personal patterns of construal. An initial construal is both a point of origin and an overlap of the narratives we create to help us, incorrectly most of the time, understand what's going on. Since the limbic system's pre-attentive awareness is involved, it can be difficult to detect in real time, but once I understood and believed the idea, it became easier, though it's still a WIP.


obyvatel said:
This image/sensation evoked when splitting begins is different in different people and is influenced by both inherited tendencies and early environment and experiences as well as the current trigger. Such an image/sensation is irrational and we often tend to suppress it - osit. (Incidentally, such delusional images are actually studied in detail for case taking by homeopathic physicians who use this irrational and peculiar information as a key to select the right remedy for acute or chronic physical/emotional ailments.

I agree, and if I were using this info to help a patient or client, I'd avoid words like "delusion" to prevent triggering even more splits. Instead, I'd say the limbic system records every painful and otherwise negative experience holistically - in its entirety. It's conscious recall that's problematic because the intellect seems to suppress or distort the conscious level cognitive bits of those memory components - like conscious sight of visible imagery in the memory, for example. Sort of like how a child will hide its eyes, believing that because he can't see anyone, no one can see him. ("You can't see me, therefore you can't "get" me!")


obyvatel said:
One general image in this context is of "being attacked" when confronted by an emotional shock. The specific way the "attack" is imagined/experienced could vary - like "being punched in the gut", "slapped in the face", "choked at the throat", "bound by hands and feet", "pinned to a hard surface", "stabbed in the back", "being chased but unable to outrun the attacker" etc.

Another general theme is that of "loss of structure" but no personified "attacker". This may take various forms like "a crushing weight", "lost in the dark", "drowning", "chaos or disintegration", "legs made of wood" etc. These themes often turn up in dreams as well.

I agree here too, as many people have had these kinds of experiences in reality and those memories are stored, ready to be reactivated via association with some cue or cues in the present.


obyvatel said:
The question is whether there is value in going down this path of identifying the specific sensation/delusion(s). My current thinking is that this approach has value since it is likely that an individual can identify a habitual pattern here which lies at a deeper level than the emotions and thoughts generated from it. Once identified, it can perhaps serve as the proverbial "Ariadne's thread" that helps the individual come back to his observing, remembering self and recover faster from the split?

I also believe there is value here. As one example, people have benefited from "focus" exercises Epstein provides in Constructive Thinking.


obyvatel said:
In my case, a predominant pattern is a sensation of carrying a heavy load that I realize I have had with me since as long as I can remember. Physically, it led to a somewhat collapsed posture, tension in the shoulders, and a very slight scoliosis of the spine. The coping mechanism is to work frenetically to maintain the integrity of the structure in order to not be crushed by the load - by being a martyr. The cognitive component of this "load" is related to the "abyss" which Psalehesost mentioned in his post. The load is the perceived expectation from others regarding my duties which is my version of perfectionism. I do not usually perceive people as attacking me but rather feel more of anguish and resentment - "how come they do not realize my predicament?" So a more detailed image is that of a martyr groaning and moaning under an imaginary load. This image is funny and has been helping me reorient quicker when I can catch the switch towards splitting. Perhaps Epictetus and Stoicism deeply touched me because the very idea of "what is in my control and what is not in my control" reveals the imaginary nature of the burden I tend to carry around when splitting.

Thanks for sharing this. I don't know if I have a predominant pattern. If I do, it probably relates more to a frustrated "why can't you tell I mean no harm, it's just that there are more ways to [blank] than that!" as I perceive it internally. But I'm still not completely sure.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
My own experiences with splitting are as follows:

Someone says or does something that triggers a defense program.

I may know that person only slightly or for a long time - doesn't seem to matter.

The next thing I know, I am seeing everything they ever did or said as threatening, unfair, mean, deceptive, you name the negative trait.

What I learned from working with Ark was that this, itself, is Internal Considering. It's all about me.

What happens is that the repressed/suppressed emotional energy goes straight to the head because I am afraid to express it for fear of being further criticized/condemned/seen as petty or selfish. That emotional energy in the head is what is making the theories about whoever/whatever, seeing everything in the dimmest, grimmest, most unfair light possible.

This kind of thinking can go in any number of directions. You can start plotting your revenge... which you don't want to express because it sounds so mean and petty. Or you just feel like crying... only you don't want anyone to know that you are that hurt because it makes you look like a wimp. You don't want to talk about it, you just want to sit there and stew in your misery/rage/thoughts of revenge.

When he was able to get me to finally unload some of this kind of thinking, Ark smiled at me and said "what a GREAT theorist you are!" Because, indeed, my plans for revenge were masterpieces of cunning. But the funny thing was, once I had been able to verbalize it, I saw how silly it was and how untrue it was, that I was just basically doing the PMS routine only slightly different. Being able to say it out loud, talk about it, risk making a fool of myself by revealing what I was feeling, as petty and mean-sounding as it was, just completely dissipated and defused it.

That's what gave me the clue that exaggerating it, dramatizing it, getting campy about it even, was a good way to get it in perspective.

But you can only do this with people who know the score, who understand what you are doing, why, and how it works. In short, only with people you can really trust.
 

Buddy

The Living Force
Laura said:
My own experiences with splitting are as follows:

Someone says or does something that triggers a defense program.

I may know that person only slightly or for a long time - doesn't seem to matter.

The next thing I know, I am seeing everything they ever did or said as threatening, unfair, mean, deceptive, you name the negative trait.

What I learned from working with Ark was that this, itself, is Internal Considering. It's all about me.

What happens is that the repressed/suppressed emotional energy goes straight to the head because I am afraid to express it for fear of being further criticized/condemned/seen as petty or selfish. That emotional energy in the head is what is making the theories about whoever/whatever, seeing everything in the dimmest, grimmest, most unfair light possible.

This kind of thinking can go in any number of directions. You can start plotting your revenge... which you don't want to express because it sounds so mean and petty. Or you just feel like crying... only you don't want anyone to know that you are that hurt because it makes you look like a wimp. You don't want to talk about it, you just want to sit there and stew in your misery/rage/thoughts of revenge.

Thanks for sharing that. I guess the same or similar applies to me, including acting as a theorist planning revenge.

And I guess maybe there could be a predominant pattern with me after all, now that I allow myself to freely think about it. I can probably come up with hundreds of example scenarios, starting in early childhood, of something I rarely like to talk about.

These experiences seem centered around people presuming to judge me as somehow deficient in one capacity or another. I would be instructed, explained to, corrected or otherwise "helped" because they didn't see me as fast enough on the uptake, I suppose. My internal experience was just the opposite. I comprehended, understood or otherwise "saw" the same things they did, and maybe more, but I was a little slow in showing, or otherwise demonstrating it. Or I had trouble expressing it correctly, or in a way that's consistent with some social norm at the time.

It got to a point where "gun-shy" is probably the best word for it. I cared a great deal about what people thought of me, but there seemed no way out of the dilemma other than splitting in a way that hurt but let me think of myself, and maybe appear to others, as "strong and silent type", knowledgeable about, or uninterested in, so-and-so. I would refuse to participate in certain activities or would be hesitant in taking on a job if I knew there would be people looking at me and judging me for whatever reason and I would project that "once again, I won't be seen as an equal or otherwise welcome member of the cliche or group and so what's the use?"

It seems there was always a part of me seeing what I was doing, though, and I was always unhappy with this state of affairs and always looking for reasons and explanations.

That is definitely internal considering, as I understand it, as my behavior is being determined by what I think about whatever, including what I think other people think instead of what might be the best response to the actual situation in the moment. Plus, it was a long time before I realized that people act from their previous experiences and their thoughts about me in preference to what's actually in front of them and what value it might hold (and rather than the me that I perceived myself to be).

So, today - especially after having experienced that Wave Series, I understand myself and others a lot more. Around other people I no longer feel I have anything to prove. I'm able to laugh at my perceived shortcomings and limitations and even have fun with them at times and most of the time I actually feel better helping others realize how smart and capable they are. At other times I feel like I should probably be ashamed for thinking that some people ought to just sit and stew in their misery until they've had enough. I guess that makes me a "nuanced" person as well. I dunno.
 

H-KQGE

Dagobah Resident
Buddy said:
Laura said:
My own experiences with splitting are as follows:

Someone says or does something that triggers a defense program.

I may know that person only slightly or for a long time - doesn't seem to matter.

The next thing I know, I am seeing everything they ever did or said as threatening, unfair, mean, deceptive, you name the negative trait.

What I learned from working with Ark was that this, itself, is Internal Considering. It's all about me.

What happens is that the repressed/suppressed emotional energy goes straight to the head because I am afraid to express it for fear of being further criticized/condemned/seen as petty or selfish. That emotional energy in the head is what is making the theories about whoever/whatever, seeing everything in the dimmest, grimmest, most unfair light possible.

This kind of thinking can go in any number of directions. You can start plotting your revenge... which you don't want to express because it sounds so mean and petty. Or you just feel like crying... only you don't want anyone to know that you are that hurt because it makes you look like a wimp. You don't want to talk about it, you just want to sit there and stew in your misery/rage/thoughts of revenge.

Thanks for sharing that. I guess the same or similar applies to me, including acting as a theorist planning revenge.

And I guess maybe there could be a predominant pattern with me after all, now that I allow myself to freely think about it. I can probably come up with hundreds of example scenarios, starting in early childhood, of something I rarely like to talk about.

These experiences seem centered around people presuming to judge me as somehow deficient in one capacity or another. I would be instructed, explained to, corrected or otherwise "helped" because they didn't see me as fast enough on the uptake, I suppose. My internal experience was just the opposite. I comprehended, understood or otherwise "saw" the same things they did, and maybe more, but I was a little slow in showing, or otherwise demonstrating it. Or I had trouble expressing it correctly, or in a way that's consistent with some social norm at the time.

It got to a point where "gun-shy" is probably the best word for it. I cared a great deal about what people thought of me, but there seemed no way out of the dilemma other than splitting in a way that hurt but let me think of myself, and maybe appear to others, as "strong and silent type", knowledgeable about, or uninterested in, so-and-so. I would refuse to participate in certain activities or would be hesitant in taking on a job if I knew there would be people looking at me and judging me for whatever reason and I would project that "once again, I won't be seen as an equal or otherwise welcome member of the cliche or group and so what's the use?"

It seems there was always a part of me seeing what I was doing, though, and I was always unhappy with this state of affairs and always looking for reasons and explanations.

That is definitely internal considering, as I understand it, as my behavior is being determined by what I think about whatever, including what I think other people think instead of what might be the best response to the actual situation in the moment. Plus, it was a long time before I realized that people act from their previous experiences and their thoughts about me in preference to what's actually in front of them and what value it might hold (and rather than the me that I perceived myself to be).

Wow! That sounds just like my experiences. I got this from my family, predominantly from my mother. That then tainted every relationship thereafter, though others would never know. (maybe forum members would perceive it if i met them)
I feel the info has always been there, bubbling away on the edges at the periphery of my awareness. Here's to "the mirror in all things", thanks Laura & Buddy.
 

obyvatel

The Living Force
Buddy said:
obyvatel said:
This image/sensation evoked when splitting begins is different in different people and is influenced by both inherited tendencies and early environment and experiences as well as the current trigger. Such an image/sensation is irrational and we often tend to suppress it - osit. (Incidentally, such delusional images are actually studied in detail for case taking by homeopathic physicians who use this irrational and peculiar information as a key to select the right remedy for acute or chronic physical/emotional ailments.

I agree, and if I were using this info to help a patient or client, I'd avoid words like "delusion" to prevent triggering even more splits. Instead, I'd say the limbic system records every painful and otherwise negative experience holistically - in its entirety. It's conscious recall that's problematic because the intellect seems to suppress or distort the conscious level cognitive bits of those memory components - like conscious sight of visible imagery in the memory, for example.

The homeopathic interview process is quite interesting in the hands of a practitioner with clear perception and insight. The practitioner asks for the facts and the story but lays more emphasis on "how" the information is presented - like words used and hand gestures made. It is based on the principle of treating the person , not the disease. It starts off like the redirect exercise in the form of an interview but the redirection involves going deeper into the irrational aspects of the story while maintaining safety. The homeopath does not judge the story, nor does he try to find explanations as to why something is experienced in a particular way. In other words he focuses on "what" is experienced and "how" it is experienced rather than getting into the "why" part of it. Clients fight tooth and nail to maintain the coherence of the narratives and keep it all logical. If the narrative faculty can be exhausted through gentle, patient but focused awareness of the healer, then the client enters into a zone where he is using words which includes more imagery and gets somewhat nonsensical with a concomitant increase in body language expressions especially hand gestures. This is what provides most relevant information for the purpose of homeopathic selection of remedy.

All this is somewhat off-topic; if anyone is interested in understanding the above process (I believe it could be useful for knowledge and awareness purpose even if someone never actually considers homeopathy as a therapeutic option), I would suggest Dr Rajan Sankaran's book "Homeopathy for Today's World". I can post some excerpts in the homeopathy thread of the forum.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Thanks Buddy and H-KQGE for sharing.

Yup, that's the deal and "gun shy" describes it pretty well. It's the "keep your damn jack" syndrome expanded into other contexts.

What is funny is that when Ark told me what a great "theorist" I was, I realized exactly what was happening. I started laughing at myself.

The thing is, just because you know what is happening in such cases, doesn't mean that you can stop what the programs are set to do - at least not right away. This is the reason for the "thrown the wolf a piece of meat" process. You find that, over time, if you allow yourself to express the emotions safely, not only do they dissipate in the moment, the same things stop bothering you. Oh, there's always something new that comes along now and then, but it has much less impact and usually can be run out in half an hour or so at most. It's also useful to practice "stopping on a dime". By that I mean, being able to SEE yourself and stop and say something like: "I'm just venting here, don't mind me... I'll be over it in a minute." Or even to laugh at yourself in mid-stream of your rant.

The thing is, you have to know that when you are in this state, you are not "in your right mind" and you can't be making decisions and carrying stuff out until you regain your stability, your cool head.

Unfortunately, when a person doesn't acknowledge this dark stuff that comes from old programs in the subconscious, it can take hold of their mind and NOT LET GO. They think that is really them, what they really think and feel, that now they have "seen the light" and that's that.

Not acknowledging that such feelings and perceptions are programmed, that they have been triggered, that it is not the AUTHENTIC SELF, but rather a dynamic played out between System 1 and System 2 where System 2 is driven to make narratives that make System 1 feel better, is fatal. That is the process of lying to the self. And once a person believes that lie, it's only downhill from there. As Lobaczewski points out, it's the process of Selection and Substitution, and it becomes habitual. Mouravieff talks about it in his discussion on the different kinds of lying, the worst being lying to the self. And, as we know from the various psychological and neurochemical studies, lying to the self is the default, not the exception, and lying to the self loosens the tone of the mind. We also know from one study I found that is somewhere on the forum here, that believing lies rots the brain, so to say. As Lobaczewski says, the person begins to appear as a half-wit.

I was thinking about this last night in relation to Julius Caesar and his assassins. Apparently, they were completely under the influence of a very paramoralistic ideology and lied to themselves about it. This lie then led them to think that if they murdered Caesar, everything would somehow magically "get back to normal" (never mind that "normal" was a totally evil and unfair situation) and everyone would praise them for "saving the Republic." The reality was exactly the opposite. The terrible situation that resulted was due to them believing lies and, most of all, lying to the self.

On his side, Caesar seemed to be relying on his enemies being able to see the reality of what would happen clearly, which they did not. They couldn't because, believing the lies about the much vaunted "Republic" that was nothing other than a cruel and ineffective oligarchy, caused them to lose their common sense. They literally became half-wits as was evidenced by the events that followed the assassination. Brutus, with his dream of being hailed as a hero for "saving the Republic" became the cause for its total destruction and a byword for betrayal.

So, it is useful to keep in mind that "internal considering" is usually just lying to the self and when you believe it, you've started down that path to disintegration.
 

Buddy

The Living Force
obyvatel said:
The homeopathic interview process is quite interesting in the hands of a practitioner with clear perception and insight. The practitioner asks for the facts and the story but lays more emphasis on "how" the information is presented - like words used and hand gestures made. It is based on the principle of treating the person , not the disease. It starts off like the redirect exercise in the form of an interview but the redirection involves going deeper into the irrational aspects of the story while maintaining safety. The homeopath does not judge the story, nor does he try to find explanations as to why something is experienced in a particular way. In other words he focuses on "what" is experienced and "how" it is experienced rather than getting into the "why" part of it. Clients fight tooth and nail to maintain the coherence of the narratives and keep it all logical. If the narrative faculty can be exhausted through gentle, patient but focused awareness of the healer, then the client enters into a zone where he is using words which includes more imagery and gets somewhat nonsensical with a concomitant increase in body language expressions especially hand gestures. This is what provides most relevant information for the purpose of homeopathic selection of remedy.

Interesting. Sounds remarkably similar to Clean Language Therapy with maybe a couple of exceptions. At any rate, if it helps and doesn't harm, then I suppose it's worth knowing about and placing on a list of available therapy options. Thanks for bringing it up.
 

Buddy

The Living Force
Laura said:
The thing is, you have to know that when you are in this state, you are not "in your right mind" and you can't be making decisions and carrying stuff out until you regain your stability, your cool head.

I've looked but not found a way to recognize, or rather exercise control over, "not being in my right mind" that works reliably and preemptively every time. I do have a subtle sense of 'feeling' when I'm diverging or about to diverge from being real, but it's so easy to allow stronger sensations and feelings to overshadow this sense - especially when I'm in that mood of: "why do I have to always be the one who has to control himself? Why can't others put out a little effort?", kind of internal considering. Even then I don't necessarily go 'whole hog' into an identification, but I look forward to the day when I can perceive enough of a time lag to prevent it altogether. I've become quite sure it's possible.


Laura said:
We also know from one study I found that is somewhere on the forum here, that believing lies rots the brain, so to say. As Lobaczewski says, the person begins to appear as a half-wit.

Can anyone link me to that study? I'd like to read it.

--------

This may seem like an off-topic aside, but for some reason I'm happy to say that Robert McKee, a person in screenwriting who I respect for his knowledge of human psychology (STORY - Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting) agrees that the basic emotions (what I think Gurdjieff calls 'rudiments') are fundamentally two: just pain and pleasure. He uses the word 'joy', as in Pain and Joy, but the spectral nature of these things allows me to simply see a synonymous usage here.

The important thing though, and he demonstrates it quite vividly in the book, is that it is context that determines what "feeling" or what "emotion" this basic pain or pleasure will turn into in the moment. And context means the whole thing - from cues in your surroundings as well as past experiences - just like what is described in the Wave and other works. Everything that I have read and studied so far - all of this taken together - has quite convinced me that self-mastery is actually possible and not just theory.

I'm just thrilled to find so many confirmations of everything important to me almost everywhere I look.
 

lilies

Dagobah Resident
Laura said:
[..]I have to realize that no matter how much information I collect and put at the disposal of others, it always depends on the person and many circumstances, as to whether or not they can really utilize it. [..]

Well did you do collecting much information, because it seems people need multiple versions of explanations (of what their problems are and how to get out of their pit) from different authors saying essentially same thing, but those different colors & flavors are very much needed. I'm very happy for the redundancy.

It turns out I needed the specific flavoring of David McRaney. On a number of occasions I didn't agree with him finding his bases/sources not real, but one thing he got in rock solid: the concept and explanation of
Excitation Burst.
Grokking that finally flipped the switch and got me out of the darkness. So now I don't lose force for that cardinal issue anymore, have more energy thinking more clearly, can proceed to the next step and enjoying a new freedom I never experienced before!
 

Buddy

The Living Force
lilies said:
Grokking that finally flipped the switch and got me out of the darkness.

Thank you for saying that! Experimenting to find what will "flip the switch" is a wonderful way to put it, I think! :flowers:
 
Top Bottom