Splitting as a Symptom of Internal Considering

[obyvatel]

One thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is Kohut's definitions of vertical versus horizontal splitting. It sounds like the only difference between the two is that vertical is utilized in interpretive denial, while horizontal splitting is used in implicatory denial?

My understanding of vertical splitting is that it is like two or more "I's" with largely incompatible attitudes existing side by side without being consciously aware of each other. An extreme form of vertical splitting would be a case of MPD (multiple personality disorder). Vertical splitting is like two or more windows open on the computer screen running different programs.

Horizontal splitting could indicate a repressed layer which activates a particular "I" having certain fixed attitudes and characteristics in response to certain situations. It is like the code that launches a program window in the computer screen. A more appropriate image could be that of an island which has mountains and rivers and lush green valleys on its surface (vertical split) while in the portion under the water, it could be a dormant volcano (horizontal split). This is my current understanding which may or may not be accurate.

Since splitting seems to be tied to the instinctive substratum, it is most likely connected with the neuroception process. The brain acts on the neural image provided to it by the 5 exterior sense organs and through the interoception process called the "6th" sense organ by Porges which provides information about the internal state of the body. When this neuroception process is faulty, it presents an image of the environment/situation to the brain which is incompatible with the real situation at hand. The brain starts running with this image creating narratives and generating responses inappropriate to the real situation. If this view of the process is accurate, then there should be a sensation arising out of the neuroception process in the background of all the emotions, narratives, and even what can appear as logical thinking but wrongly applied to a faulty premise.

In my case, I have observed that a certain sensation can sometimes be discerned momentarily when this splitting process starts. In words, it can be described as a pressure or weight coming down to destabilize a structure. This sensation is irrational and its perception is quickly lost in the storm of the response mounted to keep things under control. I have felt the glimpse of this sensation many times in the past under different circumstances but since this is deemed irrational by some part of my consciousness, it has been quickly suppressed. I do not know yet whether catching this sensation in the right time can consistently serve a useful purpose but I have started working with it with some encouraging initial results. The hope is that if I can catch (or become aware of) this sensation in time, I can have more control of the machine. This sensation appears to come from a deeper layer than the accompanying thoughts, rationalizations and emotions and through anchoring into the sensation, it may be possible to create the space needed to invoke the Stoic scripts which I am working on internalizing. OSIT

 

[SovereignDove]

Thanks for taking the time to post the above, Laura -- the tendency to split (see things in black and white) is something that I'd like to work on more, and this thread provides a fresh perspective to start from.

This too is something I feel I'll be working on for life.

This is something I will likey be working on for a long time also. Thanks for posting this Laura.

 

[whitecoast]

One thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is Kohut's definitions of vertical versus horizontal splitting. It sounds like the only difference between the two is that vertical is utilized in interpretive denial, while horizontal splitting is used in implicatory denial?

My understanding of vertical splitting is that it is like two or more "I's" with largely incompatible attitudes existing side by side without being consciously aware of each other. An extreme form of vertical splitting would be a case of MPD (multiple personality disorder). Vertical splitting is like two or more windows open on the computer screen running different programs.

Horizontal splitting could indicate a repressed layer which activates a particular "I" having certain fixed attitudes and characteristics in response to certain situations. It is like the code that launches a program window in the computer screen. A more appropriate image could be that of an island which has mountains and rivers and lush green valleys on its surface (vertical split) while in the portion under the water, it could be a dormant volcano (horizontal split). This is my current understanding which may or may not be accurate.

That seems to make sense. From that perspective vertical processing involves two composites of top-down and bottom-up (system 1 and 2) processing, while horizontal reflects a generally stable composite frequently interrupted by circuits and objects in system 1 that haven't integrated with the higher thinking functions due to trauma reverting to more primitive defensive strategies.

What you brought up about neuroceptipn of our internal state is quite interesting, because according to it by stimulating our vagus nerve with pipe breathing we are not actually eliminating the maladaptive horizontal splitting circuit but rather just removing the interoceptive 6th sense datum that contributes to its activation. If the vagal tone decreases, there doesn't seem to be much that can prevent the reactivation of the splitting. Or so I think.

In my case, I have observed that a certain sensation can sometimes be discerned momentarily when this splitting process starts. In words, it can be described as a pressure or weight coming down to destabilize a structure. This sensation is irrational and its perception is quickly lost in the storm of the response mounted to keep things under control. I have felt the glimpse of this sensation many times in the past under different circumstances but since this is deemed irrational by some part of my consciousness, it has been quickly suppressed. I do not know yet whether catching this sensation in the right time can consistently serve a useful purpose but I have started working with it with some encouraging initial results. The hope is that if I can catch (or become aware of) this sensation in time, I can have more control of the machine. This sensation appears to come from a deeper layer than the accompanying thoughts, rationalizations and emotions and through anchoring into the sensation, it may be possible to create the space needed to invoke the Stoic scripts which I am working on internalizing. OSIT

This reminds me of Peter Levine's dog, which would run after all the wildlife when it detected something and instantly switched to a hunting posture that signaled it to chase. When Peter could touch, signal or call the dog the instant it began to change gears, it wouldn't chase anything. It may be that some splitting is too primitive to be directly interfaced with without some kinesthetic intervention, such as bioenergetics, while some can be circumvented by self-remembering. This discussion has given me lots to think about. Thank you Laura and Obyvatel!

 

[kenlee]

In my case, I have observed that a certain sensation can sometimes be discerned momentarily when this splitting process starts. In words, it can be described as a pressure or weight coming down to destabilize a structure. This sensation is irrational and its perception is quickly lost in the storm of the response mounted to keep things under control. I have felt the glimpse of this sensation many times in the past under different circumstances but since this is deemed irrational by some part of my consciousness, it has been quickly suppressed. I do not know yet whether catching this sensation in the right time can consistently serve a useful purpose but I have started working with it with some encouraging initial results. The hope is that if I can catch (or become aware of) this sensation in time, I can have more control of the machine. This sensation appears to come from a deeper layer than the accompanying thoughts, rationalizations and emotions and through anchoring into the sensation, it may be possible to create the space needed to invoke the Stoic scripts which I am working on internalizing. OSIT

This observation is very accurate IMO and is very much in line with my own observations. I have noticed this "irrational sensation" as you mention but I viewed it more in terms of not so much as an actual sensation but more as a sense of a pending loss of sensation, that is, a loss of presence , a loss of my awareness of 'sensate', (that is, data coming in from the 5 senses) that also has its repercussions in my rational thinking that comes with this loss of presence.

In other words this 'splitting' leads me away from my objective senses resulting in the loss of awareness of my 'sense' of the present moment. As a result my thinking (negatively) dissociates from what's going on in the real world, which has a certain objective order to it, destabilizing the 'structure' that you mention above which I think has it's basis on what my senses are informing me.

The result is that my awareness of the present moment is lost and what's left is a negative, uncontrolled dissociative state that gets lost in a kind of dream. The dream state leads more into subjective thinking (via the mental narratives) and as a result I will try to put an 'order' to this subjective thinking which is literally out of touch with the reality of the present moment. The mind will put an ordered stability to this subjective structure to replace the loss of what was formally a more objective 'structure' (as you mentioned) that was based more on objective input coming in from the present moment (which includes the 5 senses). But this new structure, the basis of which is self justification, is literally out of touch with the reality of the present moment. So, for me, the "irrational" state is not so much disordered thinking. It is still 'rational' in a certain sense. It still has an 'order' to it, but the order is misplaced, it's in the wrong place. It's all subjective thinking that's 'ordered' or arranged to justify itself. It's out of touch, out of alignment, there is a loss of recognition of the natural order of things where data is coming in from the real external world, the world of the senses, the world of the present moment.

 

[Buddy]

Most awesome! Two of my top 3 Wave chapters (the other being Way of the Fool) involved in a single topic. Wonderful synthesis of several subjects that have fascinated me and compelled research in neurochemistry and experimental psychology for years!

Seems this topic has become my most revered thread, ever.

-----------------------------------------------

So is splitting a means of facilitating internal considering? Or are they literally the same thing? I'm not sure I'm really grokking the connection.

A way I'm understanding it relates to this statement:

One thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is Kohut's definitions of vertical versus horizontal splitting. It sounds like the only difference between the two is that vertical is utilized in interpretive denial, while horizontal splitting is used in implicatory denial?

I have a bit of trouble, too. I still don't quite get why one version has to be "Horizontal". It seems to make perfect sense for me to see both as two distinctly different forms of vertical splitting, or two vertical splits that serve two different purposes where one of them can be duplicated on a horizontal plane. But I'm not sure, which is probably why I keep editing that previous sentence.

 

[Joe]

So is splitting a means of facilitating internal considering? Or are they literally the same thing? I'm not sure I'm really grokking the connection.

Based on what Laura wrote, I think the idea is the conflict that arises from trying (or being forced) to consider two opposing ideas about ourselves in our conscious awareness at the same time. In a specific situation, one idea would be the 'internal' (or subjective) false idea that we are all good, while the other is an external (or objective) truth that we are not so all good, but not all bad either.

Splitting is basically rejecting the objective truth (that we are not as perfect as part of us needs to think we are) in favor of the lie or false image of perfection. It's "internal considering" in the sense that we go with a manufactured/programmed false self-image of (in this case) perfection that is "internal" to us rather than the objective "external" truth that we are being faced with, that we are a mixed bag.

Rather than accept that we are in that grey area, we internally consider i.e. we act upon the need to believe in our programmed self image, (which could be that we are all good or all bad) and fall into black and white thinking. It tends to play out in real life in the form of someone arguing against the 'mixed bag' truth about themselves that has been pointed out to them with an extreme black or white line of argumentation.

For example, I could be going around acting like a know it all and someone might point that out to me and also point out that I don't, in fact, know it all. Rather than dealing with that information and seeing that it is true, I could fall into a "woe is me! I'm useless, no good, I know NOTHING!" Or "how DARE that person say that to me, and who is he anyway to tell me what I know and don't know! I know for a fact that the specific point I was making at that time was 100% true, therefore, he is totally wrong in his assertion...yadda yadda yadda".

It's interesting from the perspective that the outward manifestation in the black and white arguments we come up with are a direct reflection of the internal dynamic of not being able to accept the nuanced truth about ourselves, that we are, nuanced. Or so I think. Correct me if I'm off here.

 

[Laura]

One of the easiest ways for some (most?) women to understand splitting/internal considering is just to look at PMS and what it does to you. All of a sudden, things that would not ordinarily bother you are like torture; people you love appear as demons intent on your destruction; the world is out to get you; you can't do anything right, so why bother?; life is so freaking hard and then you die, so why not just give up now? After all, you are so good and loving, and why is this happening again?

Now, just imagine that state not being due to hormonal fluctuations, but to something rather similar: brain chemistry changes. And brain chemistry changes occur in response to inputs that are read by the "pattern recognition software" as threatening or not threatening. For some people, the switches that turn these responses on or off are hair trigger and the off switch has bubble gum in it.

The thing that is important is to KNOW YOUR MACHINE. You have to learn your tolerances before you can even think about calibrating them.

 

[Buddy]

OK, I believe I have a better handle on it now. We are primarily concerned here with splitting that involves both intellect and emotion as they manifest together in a given context or situation, rather than other types of splitting for which a case could be made.

 

[Archaea]

I have problems with this stuff too, but I've always explained it using the concept of self-importance. So I think internal considering would be the method or the act someone uses or performs in order to maintain their self-importance, and splitting would be the person's self-importance protecting itself. I guess that would be like buffers, but I haven't read any of Gurdjieff's stuff.

My understanding is that self importance is notoriously difficult to come out from under, as it has a way of hiding itself in the psyche. So someone could learn about self-importance, see it in themselves, change that way of thinking, and then come to the conclusion that it's not a problem for them anymore, only to come into a situation where it flares up again. Only this time, because the person can recognise their self-importance, and they think that they have "defeated" their self-importance, which has become part of their image of their self, and therefore part of their self-importance, it's much worse.

Another thing that may occur, is that a person has recognised their self-importance in certain situations, and knowing that self-importance is bad, have decided to withdraw, i.e. change their environment so that their self-importance doesn't flare up. But it still stay's in their psyche, it doesn't go away, so when they leave their buffered environment, a situation occurs that flares it up again. And again this time, for the same reasons, it's much worse.

I haven't quite figured out the little tricks of how to dissolve self-importance yet, but I'm sure the answers are in front of my face. I've come to the conclusion, however, that what the person needs to do is align their will with the will of the spirit, i.e. they need to activate their higher emotional centre.

What is important to realize is all of this takes place between Wilson and Kahneman's "System 1 and System 2" with the controlling knobs being in the substratum that either amplifies or damps down different tendencies in different people based on their temperament. And what this further means is that this internal dialogue or dynamic between the two systems is at the root of Internal Considering.

I have, however, found some little tricks to stop the internal dialogue, I ran a search on the forum on the subject of silencing the mind, and am still reading the various threads that came up, so please forgive me if I'm repeating anything. I've talked to a few people who have had trouble silencing the mind using will alone, because the thought of not thinking is a thought itself...

Here's what I've found:

1) Listening to the sounds around you, stops the internal dialogue.
2) Concentrating on moving some part of your body, stops the internal dialogue.
3) concentrating on breathing, stops the internal dialogue.

I think the last one is a good one for people on this forum, because of their EE practices. However, if the person is counting in their head, 1... 2... 3..., then they haven't stoped their internal dialogue. I think it's best to just to go with the flow if the goal is to "concentrate on breathing."

Another thing I've found is that once you start to get used to switching off the internal dialogue, it's possible to just will it off. And as you do it more, deeper levels of silence seem to arise spontaneously.

Also, sorry for speaking in the second person, I didn't know how else to describe it, everything I pointed out were things I've found in regards to myself.

 

[H-KQGE]

I have problems with this stuff too, but I've always explained it using the concept of self-importance. So I think internal considering would be the method or the act someone uses or performs in order to maintain their self-importance, and splitting would be the person's self-importance protecting itself. I guess that would be like buffers, but I haven't read any of Gurdjieff's stuff.

My understanding is that self importance is notoriously difficult to come out from under, as it has a way of hiding itself in the psyche. So someone could learn about self-importance, see it in themselves, change that way of thinking, and then come to the conclusion that it's not a problem for them anymore, only to come into a situation where it flares up again. Only this time, because the person can recognise their self-importance, and they think that they have "defeated" their self-importance, which has become part of their image of their self, and therefore part of their self-importance, it's much worse.

Another thing that may occur, is that a person has recognised their self-importance in certain situations, and knowing that self-importance is bad, have decided to withdraw, i.e. change their environment so that their self-importance doesn't flare up. But it still stay's in their psyche, it doesn't go away, so when they leave their buffered environment, a situation occurs that flares it up again. And again this time, for the same reasons, it's much worse.

I haven't quite figured out the little tricks of how to dissolve self-importance yet, but I'm sure the answers are in front of my face. I've come to the conclusion, however, that what the person needs to do is align their will with the will of the spirit, i.e. they need to activate their higher emotional centre.

What is important to realize is all of this takes place between Wilson and Kahneman's "System 1 and System 2" with the controlling knobs being in the substratum that either amplifies or damps down different tendencies in different people based on their temperament. And what this further means is that this internal dialogue or dynamic between the two systems is at the root of Internal Considering.

I have, however, found some little tricks to stop the internal dialogue, I ran a search on the forum on the subject of silencing the mind, and am still reading the various threads that came up, so please forgive me if I'm repeating anything. I've talked to a few people who have had trouble silencing the mind using will alone, because the thought of not thinking is a thought itself...

Here's what I've found:

1) Listening to the sounds around you, stops the internal dialogue.
2) Concentrating on moving some part of your body, stops the internal dialogue.
3) concentrating on breathing, stops the internal dialogue.

I think the last one is a good one for people on this forum, because of their EE practices. However, if the person is counting in their head, 1... 2... 3..., then they haven't stoped their internal dialogue. I think it's best to just to go with the flow if the goal is to "concentrate on breathing."

Another thing I've found is that once you start to get used to switching off the internal dialogue, it's possible to just will it off. And as you do it more, deeper levels of silence seem to arise spontaneously.

Also, sorry for speaking in the second person, I didn't know how else to describe it, everything I pointed out were things I've found in regards to myself.

These have been more or less my thoughts too. I do think that a lot of people today might actually be self absorbed which they'll probably never get out of. I regularly employ points 1, 2 & 3, usually still surprised to find my mind silent even after practicing these for a few years. Also thanks to Perceval & Laura for their examples.

 

[Laura]

Well, the big problem, as every woman who has had PMS knows, is dealing with something that you KNOW is chemical but has you in an iron grip. Maybe I'm just different because I could SEE this PMS thing with a part of myself that just said "wow! that wouldn't bother you normally! something is going on!" So I could blubber something like: "Don't mind me, I'm just in a horrible state, I'll be okay tomorrow."

It was later that I realized that the same rules apply to transient emotional states, states triggered by something other than serious hormone fluctuations.

We all know the expression "rose colored glasses". I realized that it's not just rose colored glasses, they can be blue, green, purple, gray, whatever, and our system can put them on and take them off without our being aware of it. Or maybe its better to describe it that we are just wearing glasses all the time and System 1 has a way of changing the colors via projection from the inteiror/subconscious.

You can be going along happy with the rose colored ones, and then, seemingly without warning, the color of everything will change. If you pay attention, you can usually tell what triggers it: something in the environment that starts a program. And for most people, these programs are set when we are young. This something can be as simple as hearing a piece of music, or a smell, or reading something. But most often, it is due to the words or actions of someone else in the environment.

What I learned from PMS - which is kind of an extreme example and is also usually self-limiting - is that you can get out of it by going through it. A woman who has a sympathetic partner can say "The blues are here... " and that partner can become attentive and sympathetic. The woman can describe how things appear to her, cry about it, be comforted, reassured, allowed to get it out and so on. This really helped me restabilize. I realized that there is something about emotional chemicals: they need to be metabolized. That is, you have to surrender to them in a controlled way and "sweat it out" so to say. (Think of the sweating pigs.) Another way to think about it is that it is like having a bug or something, and you just raise the body temperature and fight it off with a fever of a sort. It's like a mini-recapitulation.

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.

 

[Psalehesost]

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.

 

[Laura]

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

The person prone to splitting, which can be part and parcel of Internal Considering, even if only episodic, is fundamentally a personality driven by System 1 programs of perfectionism, shame and control issues. These programs were probably created in situations of fear and threat to the infant/child. They may have served a survival purpose at the time, but usually they were formed under aberrant conditions and do not serve the adult. Additionally, a super-sensitive person could have only THOUGHT that these defensive maneuvers were effective when, in actuality, they weren't. This is because the brain protects itself from too much stress. If an individual has a sensitive/weakened/unstable psychological substratum, minimal threat is all it takes to produce maximum stress, at which point the survival mechanisms of the brain take over, split, or do other wonky things.

The overall life view of the person can be determined by the overall conditions of childhood OR can be created by just a few negative incidents at crucial points of imprint receptivity. This can block integration. "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."

So, one can say, in general, the person who falls into black and white thinking/splitting whenever things go wonky, is dominated by an infantile program no matter how intelligent they are or how superior their brain is in other respects. In fact, the smarter the person is, the more computing power they have to support their black and white thinking with dynamic narratives.

What is needed is for the individual to add to their Work Toolkit the knowledge of how the machine works and to know the signs of this "switch" and to be able to commit to working on it all the while realizing that their own perceptions will color what they think is or is not "working on it".

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.

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.

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.

Such a way of perceiving and judging reality greatly limits understanding, and an inner world defined by it

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.

 

[Zadius Sky]

Thanks for taking the time to post the above, Laura -- the tendency to split (see things in black and white) is something that I'd like to work on more, and this thread provides a fresh perspective to start from.

I would like to second this post and to give my thanks to others who have contributed to this thread. I took the time to absorb all of this. It's quite sobering.

To my "assumption" (or personal narrative), I had restricted the word "splitting" only to those with BPD because of my personal experience with one of them. I was all-good or all-bad to that person on a daily basis and I was in a constant state of fearful confusion (or being traumatized?). Since then, I was blocked to see the connection between splitting and internal consideration. It just wasn't in the realm of possibilities. I know what it's like being on one end of the stick, but not as the one who's doing the splitting and how it affected others. When I just recapitulated on my past by putting myself as the one who splits, I surprised myself at the fact that I did constantly split or fell into a black-and-white thinking to some form or degree during many instances in my life (depending on the level of stress/anxiety) and acted on them without so much a second thought since I had crafted a "belief" (block) that this doesn't apply to me ("this doesn't happen to me, only others" self-talk). I now noticed these instances to be overlapped with my PSC issues.

I do noticed, personally, how the EE program has helped a great deal with stress/anxiety, but there were, indeed, moments where I was caught off-guard and tend to resort to splitting as if on an instinct (as obyvatel mentioned splitting = instinctive substratum) and be completely unaware of it until after the fact.

Again, thanks for this thread as it has given me a great deal to ponder on and I'd surely be working on this for the remainder of my present incarnation.

 

[Laura]

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.

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.