Self help, and the Four worlds
-
Energy flows where attention goes.
Once you have focused attention..
Then you become emotionally invested.Thats what think, anyways. I liked you concept of the four worlds. Never thought of it that ways at all, but I think like our earth, or the atmosphere, there are layers in-between that are critically important, and it's not cut and dry.
Dear Brother, I will also share with you that the market influx of fluffy bunny new age media has a specific goal, and a specific market in mind.
I think that most men forget that most women, and people of colour have only been ALLOWED acess to books and parts of culture that men have held, until very recently. Our Sisters, who birth and clean and cook and nurture have only in the past hundred years or so enjoyed any free time, any time at all to do anything with their spirit, their soul work, they had been working, and working and working.
So, while you may not like the self help books, or the fluffy bunny, and you may question wether Drunvalo is an Initiate ( and he is I checked him out, that's what I do) I say,
If you know that this media is not for you, why are you expending your energy on them, doubting them and contemplating their purpose. Their purpose is obviously for someone else, to give other people. Hand up, a leg up, a light at the end of the tunnel.
And remember that the average. Human iq is 100, and the average human being is working so hard, so long, every day that they are not at a point of luxury to do any sort of demanding pathworking.
-
@Takamba said
"Regarding the Four Worlds and self-help I've always had this question; how does the qabalist reconcile his energy before emotion before thought before action with the cognitive behavioralist's attitude before thought before emotion before action model?"
I have a few thoughts on this, and on Frater Potater's model. First of all, I believe that cognitive behavioralism acknowledges the interplay of attitude and action - that actions and attitudes co-determine each other. Attitude does not necessarily (or only) precede action.
As to the model - the Four Worlds idea is really cool in this context, and I plan to play around with it for awhile and see if it is useful for me. However, I personally believe that the process is more complex and inter-related than this; for example, in my experience, the emotions and the thoughts have a lot of interaction on about the same level; assumptions affect the process quite a lot, and though they probably fall under "thoughts," I think that they enter (or at least can enter) the process earlier than the emotions, and result in the emotions being triggered.
Example: Let's say my theoretical girlfriend mentions to me that she has began talking to her ex again, an ex that she was deeply in love with once. I have an assumption that goes something like this: "If she starts talking to him again, she's goig to fall in love with him again and leave me." I have another assumption that goes "If she leaves me, that's bad for me."
These "trigger" without conscious awareness most of the time. In response to these assumptions-taken-as-facts, I feel fear, and in response to the fear (and another assumption that says "My girlfriend shouldn't scare me"), I get angry. The anger then seeks expression in various ways... etc.
There are lots of different areas that these energies pass through.
Just my humble view on the matter.
93, 93/93.
-
@Ash said
"93.
@Takamba said
"Regarding the Four Worlds and self-help I've always had this question; how does the qabalist reconcile his energy before emotion before thought before action with the cognitive behavioralist's attitude before thought before emotion before action model?"
I have a few thoughts on this, and on Frater Potater's model. First of all, I believe that cognitive behavioralism acknowledges the interplay of attitude and action - that actions and attitudes co-determine each other. Attitude does not necessarily (or only) precede action.
As to the model - the Four Worlds idea is really cool in this context, and I plan to play around with it for awhile and see if it is useful for me. However, I personally believe that the process is more complex and inter-related than this; for example, in my experience, the emotions and the thoughts have a lot of interaction on about the same level; assumptions affect the process quite a lot, and though they probably fall under "thoughts," I think that they enter (or at least can enter) the process earlier than the emotions, and result in the emotions being triggered.
Example: Let's say my theoretical girlfriend mentions to me that she has began talking to her ex again, an ex that she was deeply in love with once. I have an assumption that goes something like this: "If she starts talking to him again, she's goig to fall in love with him again and leave me." I have another assumption that goes "If she leaves me, that's bad for me."
These "trigger" without conscious awareness most of the time. In response to these assumptions-taken-as-facts, I feel fear, and in response to the fear (and another assumption that says "My girlfriend shouldn't scare me"), I get angry. The anger then seeks expression in various ways... etc.
There are lots of different areas that these energies pass through.
Just my humble view on the matter.
93, 93/93."
Actually that's a very valid (albeit "humble") view. Your use of the word "assumptions" is fair - they tend toward the category of "core beliefs" (which I've always allowed for as "attitudes"). What are your core beliefs about women? Apparently "they shouldn't scare me" is one of them. Perhaps even mixing in with "fidelity" issues. Then there are thought patterns that are so habitual they aren't even recognized without serious talk therapy. But again, this leads me to the thinking that the CBT model actually has validity. We have a belief structure about something, this tends to limit or color our thought processes which fuels our emotional responses, and fueled with emotion, we make certain decisions and act on them. Yes, thinking & feeling are very close in our linear examination that at times it may seem that feeling came without thought, but I'm not actually sure that that is the case as so far I've traced every feeling to a preceding thought ("She's leaving me!" "They're lying to me!"). Maybe the answer I'm looking for is that Briah isn't exactly "emotions" as we are describing them, maybe our "emotions" are more in line with Yetzirah (thus the thinking/feeling proximity issue). Briah is something beyond mere feeling (more like a kind of knowing really).
-
"Maybe the answer I'm looking for is that Briah isn't exactly "emotions" as we are describing them, maybe our "emotions" are more in line with Yetzirah (thus the thinking/feeling proximity issue). Briah is something beyond mere feeling (more like a kind of knowing really)."
So what would you think of the answer that emotions are physical/pyshiological responses to perceived senses, a biochemical response to stimulus that has in it's chemical composition certain secretions that will either promote life, an elixir of life, or it's contrary, one of destruction?
I think that the use of the word Know, and it's true meaning, one of intimate union, can help guide us when we get on the emotional roller coaster of life. How well a person understands why they are feeling, and the conditioning that may lay behind it, invites one to master their biochemical bodies.
-
@Takamba said
"Yes, thinking & feeling are very close in our linear examination that at times it may seem that feeling came without thought, but I'm not actually sure that that is the case as so far I've traced every feeling to a preceding thought ("She's leaving me!" "They're lying to me!")."
That's a good point. And yet Veronica makes a very good point too - if emotions are to be taken as chemical responses to perception, then it's not quite clear where "thought" begins, or where we can distinguish "thought" from "unconscious mental processing."
93, 93/93.
-
@Ash said
"93.
That's a good point. And yet Veronica makes a very good point too - if emotions are to be taken as chemical responses to perception, then it's not quite clear where "thought" begins, or where we can distinguish "thought" from "unconscious mental processing."93, 93/93."
I was vaguely under the impression that Veronica was stating what I stated but in the form of questions. Emotions are physical patterns. They are a collection of biochemical responses in our bodies, but they are also given definition by the words we use (that's not so tangible). I can best relate this by describing my young adulthood where having suffered post traumatic disorder I found it very difficult to express any but two basic emotions (fear and anger). Through a sort of atrophy I lost any awareness outside of a simple intellectual expression of other possible experiences. (It took quite some time in therapy to get back in touch with my other core human traits). Without those words, without the habit of experiencing happy or safe thoughts I couldn't understand them. There was no "knowing" these things. I was bored, I was apathetic, I was unmoved unless I was shocked with something frightening or threatening to me and only fight or flight would take place. Gradually even the ability to be shocked would wane. But through many many months of talk therapy (you can keep your pills to yourself thank you very much) I developed a relationship with my inner dialogue that allowed me to give labels to other conditions such as happy, sad, lonely, embarrassed (that was the first one that I was able to identify and I think of it as my milestone). And I was embarrassed because others in my group therapy had expressions of emotion and a richness to their patterns that I knew I was lacking. The key words that Veronica used are "responses to perceived senses" and it was the concept of "perception" that the therapy I was involved in dealt with. How do we perceive things? What attitudes (core beliefs) underlie our perceptions (perception is merely what we see, here, sense - not the definition of what we believe them to be; that definition is what our thoughts and beliefs are) and what are our thinking patterns after these perceived events? Thinking is a behavior (according to this model) and all behaviors are learned and can be relearned.
Breaking thinking down to mere synaptic firing of electricity along established routes and emotions down to mere biochemical reactions is no different than breaking down a karate chop to an electrical impulse fired through the muscles of the arm. That isn't it, that is merely the method of it. A karate chop is in the world of Atziluth until such time as the fighter has an inspiration to call on it (and that would be like Briah I guess) at which time the fighter than feels himself and thinks "Karate Chop" (Yetzirah) and then the biochemical-electrical impulses fire (Assiah). I mean, that's just another analogy for something I haven't found a very good working analogy for yet.
-
@Takamba said
"perception is merely what we see, here, sense - not the definition of what we believe them to be"
This isn't quite accurate; I would say that sensation is what we see, hear, sense.
The process of perception involves 4 steps:
- Sensation - a sensory organ picks up raw energy.
- Transduction - the raw energy is converted into a neural signal by special cells in the sense organ.
- Attention - concentrating mental energy on processing neural signal
- Perception - interpretation of the processed neural signal.
This process allows for lots of perceptual anomalies/artifacts/quirks, such as optical illusions and Gestalt laws of perception (such as the Law of Similarity which states that we tend to perceive like objects as being grouped together).
Perception has a lot to do with the way our bodies work and also a lot to do with how our brains process these signals. The way we experience the world is via processed and interpreted signals which may be distorted at any of several points in the chain.
@Takamba said
"[Thinking is a behavior (according to this model) and all behaviors are learned and can be relearned."
Not all behaviors are learned; look at instincts, which are, by definition, unlearned - they're "hardwired" responses.
@Takamba said
"Breaking thinking down to mere synaptic firing of electricity along established routes and emotions down to mere biochemical reactions is no different than breaking down a karate chop to an electrical impulse fired through the muscles of the arm. That isn't it, that is merely the method of it."
Excellent point. I'm just trying to point out that the word "thought" is not all that precise, and if we are to include "thought" and "emotion" on separate points in the model that Frater Potater has discussed here, I think we need to get more clear on what we mean by these terms, and where things like assumptions and instincts (it's an instinct to react to fear with anger, I think) fit into this model.
I'm really enjoying this thread by the way
93, 93/93.
-
@Ash said
"93.
This isn't quite accurate; I would say that sensation is what we see, hear, sense.
The process of perception involves 4 steps:
- Sensation - a sensory organ picks up raw energy.
- Transduction - the raw energy is converted into a neural signal by special cells in the sense organ.
- Attention - concentrating mental energy on processing neural signal
- Perception - interpretation of the processed neural signal.
This process allows for lots of perceptual anomalies/artifacts/quirks, such as optical illusions and Gestalt laws of perception (such as the Law of Similarity which states that we tend to perceive like objects as being grouped together).
Perception has a lot to do with the way our bodies work and also a lot to do with how our brains process these signals. The way we experience the world is via processed and interpreted signals which may be distorted at any of several points in the chain.
"I was telling you the model that was given us in therapy. "You perceive events, your interpretation is not what you perceived." Example: You perceived a loud noise, you interpreted it as a danger. It was a car horn one block away.
@Takamba said
"[Thinking is a behavior (according to this model) and all behaviors are learned and can be relearned."
@Ash said
"
Not all behaviors are learned; look at instincts, which are, by definition, unlearned - they're "hardwired" responses.
"Please define what you mean by "instincts." I can come up with one, suckling. It is an "instinct" but it can be unlearned - it is learned that it is a successful response and so remains one for the infant. Scratching an itch may be considered another "instinct" but as you learned in your practice of Raja, both the perception and the response can be retrained. So where does this definition of "instinct" actual negate the CBT model of learned behaviors?
@Takamba said
"Breaking thinking down to mere synaptic firing of electricity along established routes and emotions down to mere biochemical reactions is no different than breaking down a karate chop to an electrical impulse fired through the muscles of the arm. That isn't it, that is merely the method of it."
@Ash said
"
Excellent point. I'm just trying to point out that the word "thought" is not all that precise, and if we are to include "thought" and "emotion" on separate points in the model that Frater Potater has discussed here, I think we need to get more clear on what we mean by these terms, and where things like assumptions and instincts (it's an instinct to react to fear with anger, I think) fit into this model.I'm really enjoying this thread by the way
93, 93/93."I think I'll leave the thoughts now with what I've said above. As far as defining thoughts and feelings and emotions (three distinct things in my opinion) I'll say this: Thoughts are the dialogue we have with ourselves that provide definitions and instructions to our cognitive self. Feelings are the ethereal experiences we have within our bodies in reaction to perceived events around us. Emotions are the actions we use to express our feelings. If these are too vague, let me know.
-
@Takamba said
"I was telling you the model that was given us in therapy. "You perceive events, your interpretation is not what you perceived." Example: You perceived a loud noise, you interpreted it as a danger. It was a car horn one block away."
Okay, gotcha. I was going by the definition given to me in my cognitive psych class this semester.
@Takamba said
"Please define what you mean by "instincts." I can come up with one, suckling. It is an "instinct" but it can be unlearned - it is learned that it is a successful response and so remains one for the infant. Scratching an itch may be considered another "instinct" but as you learned in your practice of Raja, both the perception and the response can be retrained. So where does this definition of "instinct" actual negate the CBT model of learned behaviors?"
By "instincts" I mean responses that do not have to be learned, usually occurring without conscious involvement, and disappearing (normally) when the stimulus is removed.
For example: If a pitcher throws a baseball at me at 90 mph and it's clearly going to hit me, my instinct is to turn away from it and cover my head. No one taught me this, I did not consciously think about it when I did it (I had no time), and when the threat disappears I stop covering my head and cringing.
Going by what I learned in my child psych class last semester (and only on that), infant behaviors are not clearly instincts or consciously-chosen behaviors - they're something in between.
I'm not saying that this definition of instinct invalidates anything; I'm just saying that not all behaviors are learned, though social learning can certainly have its own effects on behavior.
Sure, my perceptions and responses can be retrained, but there are a lot of different levels at which this could take place in the process of perception and interpretation, and what exactly is changed is going to be different in each case. For example, I could take an antidepressant to treat depression, and it will affect the reuptake of serotonin (if it's an SSRI) in my brain. I could also go on a vacation, redecorate my room, sell my clothes and buy a new wardrobe, get new friends, etc, in order to work on the things that trigger and maintain my emotional states. Finally, I could engage in talk therapy or even solitary work to identify, analyze, and restructure my thought processes and methods of labeling the world. These are all things that I have used to cope with anxiety and depression in the past, and I happen to be doing all 3 right now.
@Takamba said
"I think I'll leave the thoughts now with what I've said above. As far as defining thoughts and feelings and emotions (three distinct things in my opinion) I'll say this: Thoughts are the dialogue we have with ourselves that provide definitions and instructions to our cognitive self. Feelings are the ethereal experiences we have within our bodies in reaction to perceived events around us. Emotions are the actions we use to express our feelings. If these are too vague, let me know."
So you would include assumptions under "thoughts" here, yes? This means that "thought" must include things that are beneath the threshold of conscious awareness.
I'm not sure I understand your definition of emotions as "actions" that express feelings; can you elaborate?
Other than that, I can work with these.
93, 93/93.
-
@Ash said
"
So you would include assumptions under "thoughts" here, yes? This means that "thought" must include things that are beneath the threshold of conscious awareness.I'm not sure I understand your definition of emotions as "actions" that express feelings; can you elaborate?
Other than that, I can work with these.
"As I said before, I put "assumptions" (your words) in with "Core beliefs" and what I define as "attitudes." These are thought patterns, or foundations of our thoughts, that we no longer give cognitive fuel to. In other words, these are the social and parental models you've "assumed." You "assume" women (for instance) have specific roles they play, you "believe" a woman does this or does that. You don't "Know" these things, yet you condition your entire perceptive model and response model on these things. If I were to ask you "what did your parents teach you about sex?" You might first respond with "well, they sat me down and told me..." and then I would interrupt you and say, "no, what I mean is, in their lives, how did they respond to the core topic of sex? For instance, where they free with the topic or restrictive? Did they teach you it was taboo or that it was sacred? Do you believe it is dirty or do you believe it is a natural and fluid human trait?" Your core beliefs about money, for instance (what some term a "lack versus abundance model") will influence your day to day thought processes regarding how you interpret events which you perceive around you. That's what I'm getting at. So what you call "beneath the threshold" I actually place "above the threshold" in the realm of beliefs. (Above and below not being important, what is important is that these types of thoughts aren't "thoughts" per se, but foundations of thought and I call them beliefs.) Core beliefs are beliefs that are not easily rationalized away, they are embedded within your personality (some argue that they cannot be changed, but this is not a belief I hold).
-
@Ash said
"93.
I understand now, and agree with your take.
Sorry if that's anticlimactic; I simply think you've won the exchange.
93, 93/93."
I won the Internet! Woohoo! (Just kidding. You know what they say about winning an Internet argument.... "you're still retarded.") I wasn't thinking about winning or losing, I'm just trying to reconcile or model the Qabalistic model on what I've agreed is an effective cognitive model and I think with your help in getting me to iron things out I've done so. I'm putting Core Beliefs/Attitudes in the Briahtic realm. Placing Feelings/Thoughts in the Yetziratic realm makes a lot of sense to me. This makes great sense to me since the Cognitive model has 5 layers and the Qabalistic only 4. I don't know why I never thought of it before tonight.
-
I am curious,
I don't think that life, people, things.... Learn. At all.
I think I am pretty solid with the idea that all actions, all movement, all life is simple habitual, which could be like instinct, and could explain why some instincts fade.
I have been working with the idea that even the so called laws of the worlds, of the universe, are just habits, and that eventually over time and spec. These laws will seace, stop being laws, become bendable and flexible, and that is why Magic can happen.
Some are good habits and enhance life, continuing life, and some habits are not life enhancing and destroy life.
If I sit in school and memorize my time tables, have a truly learned, or have I just made myself habitually respond in a. Certain manner to get a gold star?
I would speculate that really the only thing that would real be learning is when we change our habits, and force ourselves to almost take a leap of faith and just know that we need to do something different, cause what we are doing isn't working.
I don't go around writing imagine though, I could change my mind, but I haven't yet.
-
@Veronica said
"
I have been working with the idea that even the so called laws of the worlds, of the universe, are just habits, and that eventually over time and spec. These laws will seace, stop being laws, become bendable and flexible, and that is why Magic can happen............
I would speculate that really the only thing that would real be learning is when we change our habits, and force ourselves to almost take a leap of faith and just know that we need to do something different, cause what we are doing isn't working."
amen
That's a much more feminine perspective and one to which I strongly resonate.
I read a book recently by Joseph Chilton Pearce called 'The Biology of Transcendence', and in the preface to the book he describes an experience that was life changing for him. He discovered in himself a state he called the 'unconflicted mind' where the laws of the physcial world seemed to bend for him. He said that there was a brief moment that he learned to recognise in which he would understand that he was already dead (as in, death was inevitable), so physical law couldn't hold him. It was a state with no internal dialog, no conflict, and if he just moved on his impluses they would succeed (I think he covers it more in 'The Crack in the Cosmic Egg', which I haven't read yet). I think that would support the idea that we can transcend the normal laws by letting go of rules, laws, and habits. (he couldn't be burned, seemed to defy gravity while rock climbing etc.)
For myself I insist on refusing the idea that we can learn through lifes hardships, spartan discipline or self punishment. Instead I insist (to myself) that we learn through the beauty and love and makes us more whole and heals the damaged understanding. Things can grow and evolve under various conditions, but compare what grows in a dry rocky harsh environment and what grows in lush moist fertile environment... I would prefer to be in the second catagory. It's my way of trying to reprogram the patriarchal system out of my psyche and hopefully that will overflow into my reality.
-
@Ash said
"1. Sensation - a sensory organ picks up raw energy.
- Transduction - the raw energy is converted into a neural signal by special cells in the sense organ.
- Attention - concentrating mental energy on processing neural signal
- Perception - interpretation of the processed neural signal."
I tend to enjoy Four this way:
- Y - Electricity - Hadit(Sensation)
- H - Magnetism - Nuit(Transduction)
- V - Electromagnetic spectrum - Ra-Hoor-Khuit(Attention)
- H - Resonance - Ma'at(Perception)
Then comes THE ARROW, and things get fun.
Thoth, the Secret Beast, and his wily Five!A meditation upon the 5th Aethyr may be fruitful in times such as these.
-
Oh, and Veronica:
Keep up the nice work!
I know you don't need me to tell you that, though, haha.
The Feminine Knowing that seeds, for however interesting and amazing they are in their basic form, containing all possibility, MUST change and MUST grow for that possibility to manifest is a foundation that is missing from so many minds.Thank you for keeping the Feminine Faith alive for us here to behold.
-
Thank you very much for your kind words Diluvium,
I recall playground arguments between boys and girls..
Girls can't do this, or that
And the girls would say I can do anything you can do....And the boys would whip down their pants and pee on a tree, and say do that.
Which always pretty much ended it.
I married a man with two kids, a son and a daughter. One day I was in my bedroom, and looked down the hall to see this little three year old girl, go to the toilet. She dropped her pants, grabbed at her self, and peed into the folksy, standing up.
After that I knew their could no excuse for females not doing and being everything they are fully capable of.
-
@Veronica said
"After that I knew their could no excuse for females not doing and being everything they are fully capable of."
And being a boy faced with these unbelievably sexy Truths, I simply bow to the power and hope for my chance to play along.
