BLOG

One of my students wrote the following email after a session of the Mindsight Intensive, in which I talked about the power of impermanence to cultivate presence:

“Your talk last Monday has had a profound effect in me (on me?). Specifically, when you said that if we reminded ourselves of the impermanence of everything, every time that our loved ones left the house, instead of taking for granted that we *will* see them later, we actually looked them in the eye and lived/cherished/embraced that moment with a sense of gratitude and love.

You didn’t use exactly those words, but these are the words that describe the feelings this awareness has brought to me.

Each time that I hold my son when he is being fussy before his naps or bedtime, I hug him a little bit longer without any feelings of tiredness, frustration or wanting to put him down quickly so that I can have a few minutes of alone time. I feel only the deepest senses of love, gratitude, happiness and calmness. In return, he has fallen asleep much more quickly and peacefully this week. Coincidence? Perhaps. A shift in my energy flow affecting his energy flow? More likely

Experiencing these moments in this new way brings tears to my eyes, every time. I’m not entirely sure what the tears are saying, probably many different things, but I feel that my connection with my son has deepened this week.

Thank you for dedicating your life to this work so that I have the opportunity to learn from you. I am so grateful to be in your presence each week and never take our time together for granted.”

Copyright © 2017 by Dr. Stéphane Treyvaud. All rights reserved.

Particularly in psychiatry, patients often complain that they are immediately handed out a prescription the moment they see their doctor for psychological and emotional issues. Despite the discomfort associated with it, they frequently do not not know what else could have been done and they are not aware of alternatives. They resign themselves to taking the medication because they are in emotional pain and don’t know how to get better. They often end up taking these medications for years to come, because they are told that they have a chemical imbalance like the diabetic has an insulin deficiency requiring medication. They are told the medications are harmless and they might as well take them as a prophylactic measure to prevent a relapse. When they try to get off the medications, they experience a return of symptoms and don’t know any other interpretation than that they are obviously dependent on them for proper functioning. The problem is that medications have side effects, including for some a sense of moving through life like a zombie without much passion or sense of meaning. Medications also sometimes lose their effect over time and they prevent the person from engaging in the necessary brain wiring changes they need to grow into health. The result is nothing short of a social scourge creating a whole generation of people who have lost the capacity to develop resilience. There are undoubtedly people who need medication, sometimes for a short period of time, sometimes for a lifetime, but by far not as many as are actually taking medications. The number of people on unnecessary psychiatric medications is staggering and the symptom of a far deeper problem: namely the fact that as a society we do not foster education in the human mind. We raise our children, educate, teach and live our lives as if we had no minds, and that applies no less to the medical and even psychiatric community.

Living as if you had no mind means to be in the dark about the fact that the brain is not like a camera, providing a faithful reflection of captured reality. Instead, it is a mapping organ that constructs a reality from ‘raw’ data from the senses. However, the senses have an anatomical and physiological architecture that limits the spectrum of information they capture and pass on to the central nervous system. In short, we only see what we construct, and what we don’t construct is experienced through the restricted dimension of neural architecture. For better or for worse, in living life we largely create our own reality, and if we don’t know that, we either feel victimized by what happens to us or miss out on the opportunity to change our lives by changing the way we use our mind.

To give you access to the narrative and imaginative difference between an inquiry that assumes no mind and one that does, let me give you two very different examples of how patients can be approached. This is taken from a patient I have followed for many years. For obvious reasons of confidentiality I changed the name and certain biographical details. I will use the psychiatric assessment as the tool with which to show you this glaring difference and the wide-ranging consequences in treatment that flow from it.

This patient I will call Belinda saw a psychiatrist and a CBT (cognitive-behavioral therapy) therapist starting about two years prior to her coming to see me. CBT is a form of psychotherapy that can be very effective in depression and that focuses on changing destructive and distorted thought patterns. It typically focuses on current thought patterns, issues and even problem-solving strategies, but does not delve into making sense of a patient’s history. She had seen her psychiatrist 1x/month to monitor the medication, which had to be changed or adjusted a few times because of side effects. She had also seen the CBT therapist 1x every other week at first, then 1x/month during the two years before she came to see me for a second opinion. The treatment results were unsatisfactory to her and her family physician thought that coming to see me and be exposed to a different approach might be helpful. In my chart I have a copy of the psychiatric assessment performed by my predecessor, the text of which I will use to compare the two approaches. The way the assessment is written gives clues as to the method and process used to get to know and understand the patient. To make this accessible for a short essay, I will condense the information in both my colleague’s and my assessments. Here is the gist of how my predecessor saw Belinda:

Belinda, 40 years old, has been anxious and depressed for about one year, although these symptoms have existed in a mild form for many years before that. She does not sleep properly – can fall asleep, but wakes up after a few hours and cannot get back to sleep. She ruminates incessantly, worried about the future and feeling guilty about past decisions she made. Her mood is low, she lacks motivation, finds it hard to concentrate, cries sometimes for no reason but mostly feels numb, can barely get out of bed in the morning and even fantasizes about dying. At times she is overtaken by dizziness, light-headedness, racing heart palpitations, a feeling of not getting enough air and fear of fainting. It feels like she is going to have a heart attack. In her family history her father was a depressed, abusive alcoholic and her mother had an anxiety disorder. A paternal grandmother also suffered from depression. Belinda’s marriage is ‘normal’ apart from a few challenges she figures everyone has. She has a good job and the family is financially secure. She cannot find any reason to feel this way. Diagnostically the psychiatrist concludes that she meets the criteria for a major depressive disorder and a panic disorder. She is told that her illness is genetic, given that there is a family history of depression, anxiety and alcoholism, that she has a chemical imbalance, and that the recommended treatment is a combination of an antidepressant with an anti-anxiety medication and a sleeping pill to rebalance the brain chemicals. A course of CBT is also recommended as an adjunct to treatment, so that she can learn to substitute destructive thought patterns with more constructive ones.

My colleague’s assessment note reads pretty much the way this last paragraph sounds, and I am sure that in reading this you probably find the story and the psychiatrist’s view of the patient reasonable – and it is to a limited extent. What is not visible in this assessment is what is left out due to the fact that my colleague’s approach assumes that Belinda’s mind is not shaped by history, experience and relationships, and that therefore Belinda has nothing to do with her illness. Her psychological symptoms are treated like physical symptoms, in that it is assumed they have no psychological meaning, but only a physical reason. Because her mind is assumed to exist independent of her history and relationships, it is also not part of the approach to understand Belinda’s autobiographical narrative. If you cough and have a fever for example, there is no meaning to the symptoms other than to say that they are the effect of a physical dysfunction, the reason for which can be found through medical tests. How you tell your physician that you cough and have fever is of no relevance – the physical findings speak for themselves and upon further investigation they reveal the nature of the illness. When it comes to the psyche and the mind, however, reducing emotional symptoms to physical processes in the brain and the body (chemical imbalance, genes) does not do justice to the fact that the mind functions according to its own laws that are different from the laws of physiology, and that the mind is storied and deeply relational. The mind cannot be reduced to the brain and the body, even though brain and mind interact.

How did the same patient look like through my assessment, which assumes that we all have a storied mind that has been shaped by our history and our relationships? The story Belinda initially tells would sound exactly the same, but the therapist’s assumptions and interventions would be very different and lead not only to a very different assessment process and relationship with the patient, but also to a very different understanding of Belinda’s situation and to different treatment conclusions. I will insert in italics thought processes, assumptions and questions I introduced into the conversation, and which Belinda often felt nobody had ever asked her before. You will see how much longer the story will be than the biologically oriented assessment of my predecessor.

Belinda, 40 years old, has been anxious and depressed for about one year, although these symptoms have existed in a mild form for many years before that. “How long before that?” Belinda adds that she probably has felt sad since at least adolescence. She does not sleep properly – can fall asleep, but wakes up after a few hours and cannot get back to sleep. She ruminates incessantly, worried about the future. Her mood is low, she lacks motivation, finds it hard to concentrate, cries a lot for no reason, can barely get out of bed in the morning and even fantasizes about dying. At times she is overtaken by dizziness, light-headedness, racing heart palpitations, a feeling of not getting enough air and fear of fainting. It feels like she is going to have a heart attack. “Why do you feel so depressed and anxious?” She first says that she feels depressed and anxious because she can’t sleep, her mood is low, she has palpitations etc. Now notice how her mind tricks her into not answering the question – it is as if when asked why the river flows into the ocean you would answer that it is because more and more water keeps flowing into the ocean. She does not notice at first that she is not able to penetrate deeper into the reason for her symptoms. When I point that out to her, she first notices that the previous therapists never asked her that question and at first she says she does not know, and that there is no reason for her to feel that way, given that her life is otherwise pretty normal. Again, what was quite clear to me at this point is that the reasons for her suffering were so deeply repressed by her mind that she had no access to them. She then ended up repeating what her previous therapist told her, that it must be a genetic chemical imbalance.

“What were your parents and your relationship to them like?” She now starts crying and describes not only an abusive father, but also a short-tempered, constantly stressed, overly critical mother who never had time for the children and was emotionally quite cold and angry. In her family history her father was a depressed, abusive alcoholic and her mother had an anxiety disorder. A paternal grandmother also suffered from depression. “It must have been very painful to have been raised in those kinds of family circumstances!” She agrees. “And how do you think that affected you growing up?” Now she remembers having been a bed wetter for many years and having had trouble concentrating at school because she was so preoccupied with what was going on at home. She therefore failed high school and had to finish it through correspondence classes later on while working for money. She felt so lonely and unhappy at home with her parents that she married her husband to escape her family of origin. “So what is your marriage like?” Although her husband has a good job, he is like her mother, emotionally absent, critical and putting her down a lot, but she has gotten used to it and finds that ‘normal’ like other of her friends’ marriages. This is what she meant before when she said that her marriage is ‘normal’ apart from a few challenges she figures everyone has. In short, her marriage is a major source of sadness, depletion and stress. Thanks to her intelligence she has a good job, and the family is financially secure, but the family atmosphere is everything but secure.

She now admitted that there are likely many reasons for her to feel this way. Although she diagnostically meets the criteria for a major depressive disorder and a panic disorder, it has now become clear that in the course of her childhood the dysfunctional family atmosphere wired her brain to develop a dysfunctional mind that causes a lot of suffering. As an adult she perpetuates the mind habits that cause her to be depressed and anxious without knowing that she is creating her own suffering.

The genetic theory is very much in question, first because there are no genes that without fail cause these dysfunctions. A lot hinges on gene expression, which is dependent on environmental influences. Humans not only evolve through gene mutations that propel natural evolution, but also through the way we pass on our minds (emotional and thought patterns) to our offspring through cultural evolution. Generally speaking, natural evolution moves at a snail’s pace as genes mutate very slowly over thousands of years, which is why our brains (hardware) are likely very much the same as the brains of our ancestors living 30,000 years ago. On the contrary, cultural evolution is fast and the dominant factor in human evolution, which is why compared to our ancestors our brains are wired differently (different software). When it comes to psychiatry, I have come to understand that the same applies; I am rarely impressed by genes in understanding my patients’ suffering, but over and over again do I see how generations after generations pass on dysfunctional mind habits to their offspring, thus perpetuating suffering against their often good intentions to make it better for their children. It is crucial to reiterate that because our mind is embodied, when we use our mind in unhealthy ways, we miswire our brain and the brain of those we interact with, and end up developing ‘chemical imbalances’ in ourselves and our loved ones. Fortunately, this cycle of suffering can be stopped. I see it all the time in people who have gone through the process of learning to use their minds to rewire their brains, allowing them to stop passing on their parents’ sufferings and miseries to their own children. They have learned to use their minds to correct chemical imbalances in themselves.

In Belinda’s case there is certainly enough evidence of disturbances in her parental attunements to explain why her brain was shaped by these psychological influences to provide her with a deeply conflicted mind. She clearly has a chemical imbalance, but in this view it is due to the way she has learned to perpetuate faulty thought and feeling patterns and behaviors to cause her own suffering. Given her capacity for insight, her motivation to look at herself, the fact that she was able to cope and the human mind’s embodiment, the recommended treatment was primarily a combination of psychological tools to help her get to know and use her mind to rewire the brain. Medication was very much optional and in the long run not needed. As she engaged in a longterm (3-5 years) combination of psychotherapy and mindfulness training, she ended up divorcing her husband who categorically refused to see his part in the marital misery and therefore refused help. She eventually worked through all the issues from her childhood and found a new partner, with whom she was able to engage in a healthy marriage. She now lives happily, her ‘chemical imbalance’ rebalanced through the healthy use of her mind. Her symptoms have disappeared and she has no need for medication.

Continuing to do what we did in the past and hope for different results in the future is one of the definitions of insanity. For all those patients who unnecessarily take medication (and there are far too many of them), the corollary is that ignoring the mind and taking medication instead allows them to maintain insanity and feel better. This is how people for example stay in unhealthy marriages despite their toxicity, masking the pain these relationships create with medication that allows them to function and keep the status quo. Learning to use the mind to rewire the brain is not for the faint-hearted and implies being prepared to make profound life changes, some of which can be very difficult to implement. The advantage of this path lies in the solidity of the result and the frequent liberation from medication dependence.

Copyright © 2017 by Dr. Stéphane Treyvaud. All rights reserved.

Let me first warn you, dear reader, or perhaps excite you: This is a longer piece, one to read with leisure and time to reflect. Don’t try to start between two bites of a hamburger – we will lose each other. Have a seat, join me for a cup of tea, if possible next to a fireplace with a crackling fire, and let’s begin together a fascinating, hopefully for you, as it is for me, deeply meaningful journey.

Chances are that you have sought both medical and psychological help of one sort or another in your lifetime. You may have dealt with doctors trying to help you with chronic pain, seen human resources professionals, guidance counselors, personal coaches, counselors, social workers, psychotherapists, psychologists or psychiatrists, visited medicine men or women, gurus, Reiki masters, clairvoyants, psychics, Tarot readers, astrologists and more, and you have likely downloaded meditation recordings, work books and other self-help materials of all sorts. Have you ever asked yourself what you were actually doing by reaching out like that? To put the question differently, what do all these professionals have in common? What and who are you actually trying to understand when you are dealing with a disease? My thesis is that in all these cases, and without knowing it, you were curious about your mind, and seeking help and guidance in how to best deal with it. As you may have noticed however, doing so efficiently is easier said than done, and the mind is vexingly complex and difficult to get a grasp on.

Imagine I asked you as part of a group of people to assemble 4-word sentences from sets of 5 scrambled words, and half the scrambled sentences contained words like forgetful, bald, RRSP, Florida, gray, wrinkle, bald, healthcare, golfing, cane, etc., and then I would ask you to walk down a hall to another examination room to do another task. In a similar fashion I would also ask someone else as part of another group of people to do the same, except that the list of words would be seedling, forest, sunshine, computer, hockey, rocket etc., and they, too, would walk down the same hall to the same examination room. Do you know that you and your group would walk down the hall at a significantly slower pace than the other group? This was an actual piece of research at New York University by John Bargh, showing how we are constantly influenced by forces in the mind we do not have the faintest idea exist. In this case, the first set of words your group was exposed to all have a relationship to old age, while the second set doesn’t. The simple unconscious suggestion of old age influences your thinking and actions in what you can see is a significant and measurable way. This is called priming. The moral of the story?

You cannot approach your mind as if you knew much about it, and as for your senses, don’t trust them unless you are trained to properly work with them. As pretentious as this may sound, the mind as this most personal, private and intimate of phenomena you seem to own, is more foreign than the most distant of galaxies. What makes it so treacherous is that the mind is brilliant in its ways of making you believe that you are in charge, that it belongs to you and that therefore you know it well. Based on this assumption it can become your worst enemy and you don’t even notice it. It is like having a mole in your midst, getting repeatedly betrayed by life and not having the faintest clue that your worst enemy is the one you see in the mirror each morning. Like the drunk who at night searches for his lost key under a streetlamp, because that is where he can see, we believe that what we consciously see is reality, when in fact it is deeply constructed, molded and manipulated, and the reality we don’t see is so much vaster than the one we see.

What we are conscious of is a fraction of what determines our lives, our behaviors, decisions, actions and aspirations. Most processes that influence who we are and how we act in life are not conscious in one form or another: Either they once were conscious and went underground, they did not yet surface into consciousness or they never will. The brain has a way of filling the blanks of ignorance with made-up content so that we don’t even realize what we don’t know and we can blissfully rest in our ignorance, believing we know it all or best. After all, are you not the boss of you? No, you are not, by a very long stretch not. The clue that this is so can be found in the universal human complaint when, barring unexpected external events, despite all our efforts life does not unfold the way we wanted, hoped for or planned. We thought we paddled south and end up at the north pole – how can that be? Easily – there are other much more powerful bosses in your mind than who you believe is you. Without serious study and exploration you will not have the faintest chance to release yourself from the Kafkaesque conundrum of being ruled by invisible masters like in Kafka’s novel ‘The Castle’.

In keeping with a long tradition until Daniel Siegel came along about 10 years ago, notice how I have been talking about the mind without defining what it is. Because we believe to be so familiar with this most intimate of ‘things’ we call the mind, we don’t even bother defining it, assuming that we all must instinctively know what it is. At the same time, if we start trying to define it, we are likely to get embroiled like the builders of the tower of Babel in messy arguments without commonalities to ground ourselves in, and we will begin to argue about minds, intellects, souls, spirits, psyches, consciousnesses, true selves, true natures, and more. I am thus grateful to Daniel Siegel for his attempt at a definition of mind, which he based on a consilient view of the human condition that takes into account what commonalities there are in the energy and information flow (EIF) of being human across different ways of knowing reality. As grateful as I am to Dan for teaching me how to think about the mind, to mention the definition here would make no real embodied sense to anyone who has not explored these realms in depth, and besides, someone will for sure argue with me about the definition and want to define it differently. Now, that’s OK, and the exploration of the mind is exactly about inviting such questioning and dissent. Not only that, but as you will see the mind is not ‘a thing’, an object, but rather a process, a moment-to-moment unfolding that is always in flux, changing itself as it arises in a recursive way. Don’t shudder at the word ‘recursive’, as I will explain it to you in due course. In order for me to define the mind, more a verb than a noun, in a way that makes sense to you, I first have to take you on a tour of discovery into energy and information flow (EIF). Follow me please in this unfolding story, the purpose of which is to not only tell you a story you can receptively enjoy, but also change your thinking about the mind in the process. You will change your mind about the mind forever, and never again underestimate its far-reaching tentacles that can ultimately reveal to us the vast unfathomable mystery of unknowable reality.

The work to get to know your mind is not only huge and lasts a life time, but also the most difficult task you will ever take on. Count a good 10 years and 10 thousand hours of training and practice to begin to feel some sort of consistent mastery in your acquainting the mind and its nature. To study the mind you need to study both science and sentience, what science tells you about the objectively knowable, externally observable and quantifiable world, as well as what your private subjective experience tells you about the personally knowable, externally non-observable, unquantifiable inner world. So on we now go to energy and information flow.

The universe can be seen to fundamentally consist of change. Look around and as far as you can see, everything changes. Even the apparently most rock solid mountains change and there will not be anything you will ever find that does not change. If you examine more deeply what ‘everything’ is that changes, you will find that it comes down to energy. According to Einstein’s famous equation E=mc², all the ‘stuff’ or matter you see is energy. So energy in a constant state of change is fundamental to reality.

The brain is a mapping device. With its immensely complex neurocircuitry, energy that flows from the outside world through our external senses and from inside the body through our internal senses into the brain, gets spun around many brain cell networks (both neurons and glia). This spinning of energy through successive layers of increasing complexity is a process akin to mapping. One spin cycle leads to a map of the original energy flow. An additional spin cycle creates a map of that first map, called a first-level meta-map. And so it goes on through levels and levels of meta-mapping until the original energy flow has changed so much and has become so complex that it turns into a new phenomenon, a new kind of energy flow with a new quality that the original energy flow did not have. In the brain’s case this new quality is the fact that the original energy flow now points beyond its own flow. It has suddenly acquired a content, a meaning, and such transformed energy flow we call thoughts, which flow like energy, but also mean something else than what they are. Nobody has any idea how that occurs, and how physical firing patterns in the neurons, consisting of electrical currents and neurotransmitter releases within and between neurons, become thoughts, even conscious thoughts, and the whole world of subjective experience. Coming back to our energy flow, both the sensations of heat in your palms and a thought about your grandmother are energy flow, only that the heat in your palm is just what it is, heat, while your thought, also energy flow of a new sort, points to something other than itself, your grandmother. It has a meaning, a content, and energy flow with content we call information. To lovingly complicate things for you a bit, I should mention here that scientists have quite generally differing opinions on what is more fundamental in the universe, energy or information. Some consider energy the carrier of information, others say information is fundamental and energy results from that. Be this as it may, to satisfy our need for precision (and my obsessive nature), I will be talking about energy and information, always keeping in mind that information is a form of energy, and possibly vice versa. Since energy and information as mentioned above are always subject to change, we will be talking about energy and information flow, or short EIF, as a fundamental aspect of reality.

One way to define energy is to say that it is the potential to do something. It moves and combines in many different patterns and forms, such as particles, light, sounds, molecules, organisms, galaxies, mind and consciousness. Energy waves arise in patterns or changes of energy flow that emerge moment-by-moment. When I say ’emerge’ I mean more than just ‘arise’. What I mean is that some EIF patterns have a way to combine into larger wholes, such as the human organism. In other words, individual energy patterns get linked together, forming a certain balance between keeping their individual uniqueness, yet linking with other patterns to form a pattern network. The pattern network that is created from the coming together of all these smaller patterns emerges as a whole that is larger than the sum of its parts. Because it is larger than the sum of its parts, it has characteristics that the individual parts don’t have, and those characteristics are called emergent properties. This means that to study this grater whole, we have to use laws and principles that govern such greater wholes, and we cannot use the same laws and principles we used to study its parts. Moreover, this greater whole with its emergent properties recursively regulates its own emergence. In other words, as the greater whole emerges, it immediately has an effect backward down into the dance between its individual parts and regulates this dance in accordance with what it requires on the level of the greater whole. Of course, this greater whole is also in relationship with its environment, exchanging energy flows with it. The word we use to define this whole shebang, greater wholes that function like that, is ‘open complex system‘ (OCS). The human organism, the brain, the mind, our relationships, all are open complex systems. The state of an OCS depends on how balanced the linkage is between its parts. If its parts retain too much of their uniqueness and are not linked enough to each other, which means they are too differentiated (cancer cells), chaos ensues and the whole system becomes dysfunctional (illness). If on the other hand its parts lose their uniqueness and become too much linked (arteriosclerosis), rigidity ensues and the whole system again becomes dysfunctional (disease). If however there is a nice balance between differentiation and linkage, the system is optimally functional and integrated (health), meaning that it becomes flexible, adaptive, coherent, freely emergent and stable.

Coming back to our beloved EIF, just keep in mind that OCS are EIF combined in many layered patterns. We said earlier that energy is the potential to do something. Of course, it follows that as OCS emerge, they follow the law of energy being the potential to do something. The question arises, whether we can measure or even experience this potential, and how we would do that? Here it is: Say your energy flow in this moment is to watch TV and be engrossed in a fascinating movie. The potential for a change of your energy flow towards standing up and going to take the garbage out is very low, maybe 2%. In fact, because the thought of garbage is not in your consciousness at all, the probability that you are going to empty the garbage at that moment is even 0%. However, imagine that while you watch the movie you suddenly hear the garbage truck arriving and you remember that you have forgotten to take out the garbage. Immediately you think of the garbage and the fact that you could possibly take it out for it to be taken away by the garbage truck, and the probability for you to do that jumps to say 50%. The possibility that you might do other things, including watching the movie, is still there, but the probability of staying to watch the movie has now decreased from 100% to 50%. You then realize that you haven’t taken the garbage out in a long time and you really have to get it out. Suddenly the probability that you will interrupt what you are doing to take out the garbage may skyrocket and you quickly get up to do that. In this case the probability of the take-out-the-garbage EIF has risen from 0% to 50% at first, and now to 95%. Why only 95%? Because between the moment you decide to take the garbage out and the moment you actually get up and do it you may die of a heart attack. So now the open possibility to do anything else is still there, but its probability has decreased to almost zero. The moment you actually get up, the probability of the EIF to take out the garbage is 100%, and the possibility for other things has now morphed into the actuality of taking out the garbage. This long story tries to explain to you how we measure the EIF’s potential to actualize: The potential of any EIF to move into a particular direction is measured as its movement between possibility and actuality along a spectrum of probabilities. As I am writing these lines the probability of me getting up and driving to the airport is almost 0%, meaning that the EIF of getting to the airport remains only an open possibility, since I just came back from vacation. If however I get tired of the winter and while writing these lines I intend to call my travel agent tomorrow to book a southern vacation, the probability of me getting to the airport has now increased to say 30%. If I then write my last lines before the taxi picks me up to go to the airport, the probability has jumped to 95% and within a few minutes will be 100% as the ‘getting-to-the-airport’ energy flow becomes actuality.

Since our organism is EIF like anything else in the universe, we can make a few statements about how energy and information flow in the form of our human organism. First of all, the energy flows in the form of organs, including a brain, an extended nervous system throughout the body and a body. So the energy flows within the organism and we can say that the physical body is the mechanism by which energy and information flow. The EIF of our bodies is also in EIF exchanges with other human organisms, our environment and the universe at large. In other words, the EIF of our organism is also in relationship with the world around it and thus between organisms. Finally, these two forms of EIF that we are as human organisms, a mechanism within in the form of a body and relationships between organisms, combine to give rise to a third form of EIF, a third OCS that defines who we are, and this is called the mind.

Since everything is energy and information flow, there is thus no reason to exclude the mind from also being based in energy and information flow. I will now just repeat what I have already said above, but in this new context of mind. The mind is based on a system of energy and information flow that happens to be very curious about itself and the world, and capable of examining itself. We call this kind of EIF system an open complex system. What that means among other things is that the interactions of the different parts of the system of the mind, such as the organs, the body and our relationships as we saw above, give rise to a new level of EIF, a new OCS called mind. This mind is not reducible to its parts, meaning that the whole (in this case the mind) is larger than the sum of its parts and has to be understood on its own terms, the same way that you cannot study traffic by examining how its components, the cars and drivers, are built. This phenomenon is called emergence. The whole then (in this case the mind), recursively influences and modifies the processes by which its parts interact to give rise to the mind, and that is called self-regulation. In other words, self-regulation refers to a process whereby the mind changes the very processes that lead to its own becoming.

We have now shown how the mind is self-regulating as it emerges from the interactions of its parts and recursively influences the very way it emerges. Its main parts, the body and relationships, are also open complex systems in themselves, the body being the mechanism by which energy and information flows, and relationships the way we share energy and information flow. So the mind emerges from a mechanism of EIF being shared in relationships as the regulator of EIF. Arisen from both within the body and between bodies in relationships, the mind is both within and between. Within it gives rise to our  internal mindscapes (inner subjective experiences with thoughts, emotions, memories, dreams etc.), between to our social mindspheres (shared cultural contents). However, mindscapes and mindspheres are not really separate, because unlike the body, which is bounded by the skin, the mind is both internal and relational at the same time, thus marking a space that is the one location of mind. Siegel calls that location ‘withinbetween’.

EIF has one more peculiar characteristic. Being at the foundation of the universe, energy and information changes within 4 dimensions known as width, length, height and time. In this 4-dimensional space-time continuum, energy and information can flow in the form of microstates on the level of the tiniest particle dimension that follow the laws of quantum mechanics, or it can flow in the form of macrostates such as all the ‘things’ we can see, following the laws of classical or relativity physics. Here comes what’s peculiar: On the quantum level, the fourth dimension, time, is bidirectional and reversible, which means that the notion of time as we know it is not applicable and we may well be able to replace it by the experiential notion of timelessness. On the level of classical physics, however, time is unidirectional and irreversible as it follows the second law of thermodynamic that says that the universe evolves to ever greater levels of disorder and chaos (entropy). Now even that is strictly speaking not quite correct: The business with entropy is correct, but even in our macrostate world time is a brain/mind construction to deal with change. You can say that the sense of time is the way the mind makes sense of change across probability patterns, or the way it makes sense of probability patterns of occurrence across change. Yesterday has a 100% probability as it has happened and is actualized. Tomorrow, and the further you go into the future, has almost 0% to 0% probability as it is wide open as infinite possibility. Today, now, is always emerging as we  speak and has a very high probability on its way to being actualized. So that was a bit of an aside, but if we want to stick to our familiar experience of flowing time, entropy is one of the reasons why we as our bodies are mortal, folks, and how we experience our embodied time-bound existence! It stands to reason that given the mind’s essence as regulator of EIF, and EIF having both feet in different worlds so to speak, the timeless micro-world and the time-bound macro-world, the mind has both qualities of time-bound and timeless EIF. Therefore, we might not be as mortal as we think, and able to partake in a timeless mystery of existence beyond our views that are limited by the time-bound nature of our embodiment.

We have now enough background on the mind to venture into defining it. This definition as you will see encapsulates all the facets of its elements as we have explored them above. So here it is: The mind can be defined as a process of EIF that is embodied and relational, emergent and self-organizing, and that regulates (meaning monitors and modifies) EIF both within and between in a world that spans the time-bound limitation of an embodied existence and the unimaginable spaciousness of timeless vastness. This process of mind can be seen as having four aspects we can detect through direct experience and we use in our work with the mind: (1) Self-organization: There is no director inside us that controls the workings of the mind. (2) Information processing in the form of subjectively felt, therefore conscious experience that is both personal/internal and relational/external, such as conscious thoughts, memories, emotions, sensations, perceptions, beliefs, hopes, dreams, longings, attitudes, intentions, and relations. (3) Consciousness, i.e. the fact that we are aware, including the knower and the knowing. (4) General non-conscious information processing in the form of non-conscious thoughts, memories, emotions, sensations, perceptions, beliefs, hopes, dreams, longings, attitudes, intentions, and relations.

To summarize and circumambulate the mind again, here is what we can say: (1) The first aspect of mind is that mind emerges from energy and information flow. (2) This EIF in the form of mind not only correlates with EIF in the form of neurofirings in the brain, but also EIF in the form of energy and information exchanges between people in our relationships and with the world and the universe at large. This means that mind is not limited by either skull or skin, but is both fully embodied inside you and relational between you, others and the world around you. Keeping this embodied and relational nature of mind in mind, always remember that when I mention the mind, it is not just about an intellectual faculty, but a whole organismic human experience that includes all levels of neuroprocessing, the body, emotions, thoughts and relationships. Your mind is in your head, in your heart, in your guts, in your toes, in your children’s neurofirings, in everyone you ever met, in your cat and your dog, in everyone you never met, and likely even farther than that. (3) Most of the EIF of mind arises as non-conscious information processing, a fact we are largely unaware of because we quite literally never know what we don’t know. This means that the brain and the mind have sophisticated ways of filling cracks, gaps and ignorance with internal constructions that have nothing to do with reality – illusions and delusions so to speak, which we then mistake as reality. (4) In ways we do not yet understand, the arising EIF becomes known as subjectively felt, therefore conscious experience that is both personal/internal and relational/external. These are the contents of the mind, such as perceptions, sensations, imaginations, feelings and thoughts. (5) EIF in the form of the actual knower, as different from the known content of subjectively felt experience, is an integral aspect of mind that can be explored separately, and the combination of the knower with the known is the knowing we call consciousness, also an aspect of mind in its own right. (6) This whole energy and information unfolds in an orderly way through successive stages of complexity to constitute what we call mind, which means that the mind is a regulated and regulating EIF that ensures at least the survival, if not the wellbeing of the human organism. From complexity theory we know that this regulation is not somehow imposed by an external factor, but that the mind, like the whole human organism, is a self-regulating open complex system. What that means is that the EIF that arises as mind directly regulates in a recurrent feedback loop the very processes of EIF that give rise to mind. (7) Last but not least, given the roots of EIF in both the timeless world of microstates and the time-bound world of macrostates, we can use our mind’s regulating function to help us navigate our painful mortality by accessing our timeless and immortal essence that transcends not only our embodiment, but also our time-bound left-brain imaginative capacity. This we do through our practices of integration, which include mindfulness meditation and mindfulness-based psychotherapies.

Did I say ‘integration‘? You may wonder what that is – or not after having read so far. Seemingly redundant perhaps, I will go over this aspect one more time in a different way. Self-regulation is typical of an open complex system such as the mind. Its characteristic is that its overall state depends on the way its individual parts relate to each other. Like all open complex systems, the mind has many components that all have their own individual characteristics, but are also meaningfully linked with each other. In other words, the components of mind are like the players in an orchestra simultaneously differentiated from and linked to each other. If there is a balance between differentiation, the part’s ability to maintain its own uniqueness, and linkage, the part’s ability to collaborate with other parts, we have what is called integration, and when the mind experiences integration, we subjectively experience that as health and wellbeing. If some parts are not able to collaborate well, holding on too fast to their own uniqueness, such as you could imagine in an orchestra the first violins wanting to play what they want without considering what the rest of the orchestra plays, then we have too much differentiation, which manifests as chaos within the system. On the other hand, if the parts lose their identity and connect too much with other parts, such as in an orchestra you could imagine the first violins, the flutes and the cellos deciding to play the same notes, then you have too much linkage, which results in rigidity. Both chaos and rigidity are subjectively experienced as painful, and all the diseases you find in medicine and psychology can be assigned to one of those states of the open complex system that we all are, chaotic, rigid or a combination of both.

The point of all this is that we can actually learn to use our mind to rewire and integrate the brain, harmonize and integrate our relationships, and contextualize and integrate our existence. That is what mindsight is all about, which we can for example develop through both meditation and psychotherapy, keeping in mind that meditation and psychotherapy integrate different aspects of our minds. Mindsight is the ability to have (1) insight into our own internal subjective experience, (2) insight into other people’s inner subjective experience, called empathy, and (3) the ability to consciously regulate EIF away from chaos and rigidity towards integration and harmony. The way we regulate is by first learning to monitor the EIF of mind, which includes monitoring (1) the five main categories of subjective experience (external perceptions, internal sensations, emotions, thoughts and relationships), (2) awareness itself and (3) the way self-regulation unfolds; then we modify the monitored EIF towards integration, and there are many ways to do that I cannot get into right now. Both processes of monitoring and modifying are complex and require training and skill, but when earnestly pursued with patience and perseverance, lead to the most unexpected and unimaginable insights into this wonderful reality that keeps eluding us as long as we do not mind our minds. I would like to finish with Buddha’s words, or at least paraphrasing him: The unexamined and untrained mind is your worst enemy, the examined and trained mind your best friend.

I wish, dear reader, that you may now have become curious about the mind, your mind, our mind, no mind, and hopefully meet me again on the journey of minds into timelessness.

Copyright © 2019 by Dr. Stéphane Treyvaud. All rights reserved.

Even learning demands our mindful attention, without which the learning process gets laced with implicitly encoded conditionings from our painful past. These unconscious conditionings then sour our process of learning the same way they sour everything else in our lives, a process that should be like play: Pleasurable, passionate and fun. In this essay I would like to address this issue in more detail, spurred on by learning impasses some participants in the Mindsight Intensive encounter.

Both God and the devil dwell in the details, as you all know. The devilish details need to be smoked out from their burrows and forced into the light, which is exactly what one of the Mindsight Intensive participants recently did (I don’t mention his name, because I did not ask his consent). He wrote the following in an email to me:
“Hi Dr T – Me again!! In one of your previous e mails that I can’t locate you mentioned if you don’t understand something then ask or something along those lines? Do you recall that e mail? Anyway, I don’t know if it’s just me or others are experiencing the same issue? I find it very hard to follow that last session; quite frankly you lost me!! I was rather discouraged after “thinking is it just me that’s not getting it”!! Is this common? I did discuss this with one of our classmates and she felt the same way. She said that maybe others were experiencing the same, but hesitant to share it. Is this Intensive to deep for me??”
Another student wrote the following shortly after:
“Thank you for the ‘light reading’ over the holidays. Took a quick look … and boy do I feel stupid… At first glance, it would appear I’m in way over my head….. You’re killing me (figuratively)…. If I am still clueless by the 2nd, please consider a refund?”
Incidentally, several participants had so far only given me positive feedback about the new course, saying that they all seemed to really enjoy it. This is in itself interesting, because it is quite obviously much easier to tell your teacher that you really like what he or she is doing, much more difficult though to communicate that you don’t understand.

In my role as mindfulness teacher these emails from struggling students are pure gold, because through the courage of these folks to say it as it is, we get all served on a silver platter the most mouth-watering menu of mind creations we all have or will encounter one way or another. What these two participants express is universal and deserves a closer look. Incidentally, in my experience students who openly explore this interesting energy and information flow of the mind feeling stuck, end up doing exceptionally well.

Let me start with some research findings regarding the common traits of highly intelligent people as compiled by Shana Lebowicz:
1. They are highly adaptable, meaning that they are able to admit when they are not familiar with a particular concept.
2. They understand how much they don’t know: They are not afraid to say ‘I don’t know’, because if they don’t, they can learn it.
3. They have insatiable curiosity: This means being open to experience, which includes intellectual curiosity. Einstein apparently said: “I have no special talents, I am only passionately curious.”
4. They are open-minded: This includes a willingness to accept and consider other views with value and broad-mindedness and be open to alternative solutions, while also being careful about which ideas and perspectives we adopt.
5. They like their own company: This is the ability to love one’s own mind and embrace what we don’t like about it.
6. They have high self-control: Impulsiveness is replaced by planning, clarifying goals, exploring alternative strategies and considering consequences. Remember the marshmallow experiment from one of our last sessions?
7. They are really funny: Having a great sense of humor is essential, because it also allows us to humor our own foibles and limitations and not be too identified with them.
8. They are sensitive to other people’s experiences: This refers to emotional intelligence, and as you know, the resonance circuitry in the brain responsible for a harmonious relationship with others is the same that is responsible for our relationship with ourselves. To deal with learning challenges we need to apply a lot of gentleness and self-respect, which we summarize with Daniel Siegel’s acronym COAL, curiosity, openness, acceptance and love.
9. They can connect seemingly unrelated concepts: This is the process of linkage that is part of integration, and a hallmark of creativity.
10. They procrastinate a lot: This refers to completing daily tasks, because the mind is busy with more important things. It also speaks to an important brain function for health: The ability to daydream, meandering and noodling around, aimlessly indulge free associative thinking just because there is nothing else we can do at that moment.
11. They contemplate the big questions: This means spending time musing about the meaning of life, about the universe, life and death, and the point of everything we encounter or do.

To address these unpleasant feelings that can arise during learning we can start very simply. Like any other experiences, learning experiences are either pleasant or unpleasant. The unpleasantness of a learning experience is part of the inevitable pain we routinely encounter in our lives. Unpleasantness immediately creates a sense of aversion, which means that our organism activates processes by which it can eventually eliminate the pain. As this occurs, old conditionings, unresolved implicit memories and other learned behaviors get mixed into the process of finding a solution, thereby complicating the original experience of unpleasantness manyfold, turning the inevitable pain (” … I find it very hard to follow that last session …”, or “… At first glance, it would appear I’m in way over my head.”) into optional suffering (“… I was rather discouraged…”, or “…. boy do I feel stupid”). Since the first instinct is to ‘get rid’ of this pain and suffering, thereby activating the fight/flight or even the freeze system in the brain, the aversion, which is now so amplified that it is experienced as intolerable, sets in motion powerful identification mechanisms (“… is this Intensive to deep for me?” or “… I am just too stupid for this …”). Such identifications suggest that we are the problem, rather than that we unwittingly create a problem and therefore end up having a problem. We then mistakenly believe we are incompetent for the challenge reality confronts us with, and escape actions we call ‘avoidance’ are immediately put in place (“I have to leave the course” or “Please refund me the money”). Without having had the chance to examine these complexities, we identify with our wish to flee and … voila – we have just wrecked our lives with yet another automatic reaction that really does not solve anything except for providing us with the illusion of temporary relief.

One fundamental aspect of mindfulness and mindsight is the ability to see clearly, and when such cascades of automaticity occur (which tends to happen more often than not), what we need most is to STOP: Stop, Take a breath, Observe and Plan. This is our cherished YODA (You Observe and Decouple Automaticity), without which we cannot interrupt the automatic and destructive cascade from aversion to avoidance, from craving to grasping, or from indifference to ignoring. Unable to bring spaciousness into the gaps between the inevitable original arisings (aversion, craving and indifference) and the following evitable reactions (avoiding, grasping and ignoring), life becomes hell and the mind our worst enemy; conversely, if we can stop in the gaps and take our time to look around, observe and reflect, life becomes liberating and the mind our best friend.

Remember that you participate in a mindsight course, which means that everything that arises during the course, absolutely everything, all your experiences without exception, including experiences of feeling incompetent, stupid, in the wrong place, overwhelmed, in over your head and more, all these experiences are worthy of examination. When you do examine them, a whole world of freedom offers itself to you, where learning challenges become fun rather than drudgery, interesting rather than insurmountable, growth-promoting rather than stifling, and reassuring rather than unsettling.

How can you go about turning such adversity into an advantage?

1. You need the courage to publicly feel stupid. This courage is not just necessarily given to you; you may have to practice it by throwing yourself into the perceived jaws of judgments. A course such as the Mindsight Intensive lends itself beautifully for that, because we are in the company of like-minded people who all practice being comfortable with ignorance. You are in good company when you embrace ignorance – didn’t Socrates already over 2000 years ago say that the only thing he knew was that he didn’t know anything? Didn’t we examine in the first 3 sessions how peripheral our consciousness is, and how dominant, unfathomably vast and eternally inscrutable the non-conscious is? Haven’t we seen again and again how our left-brain compulsion to know limits what we can see, and that the art of unknowing is at the centre of our training and our ability to embrace complexity and health? So be my guest: Cultivate comfort with stupidity!

2. As you listen to the lectures or read the material, separate in your mind what you do understand from what you don’t (differentiation), then flag what you don’t understand and reach out by asking questions, both in the sessions and via email, asking both me and your classmates about what you don’t understand. Ask and ask and ask until it becomes a full-time job and people get sick of your asking (at which point you can with good conscience relish your role of questioning nuisance). In my own experience as a child I quickly discovered that classmates of mine seemed to get things so much faster than me. By the time the teacher had finished explaining something they all seemed to get it, while I didn’t. So I started to ask and pester my teachers, requesting them to slow down and take it step by step. At first, I developed a reputation of being a slow poke, at times even dense. My saving grace was that I not only did not care about my reputation, but secretly relished it, because it always yielded great results, and the knowledge I acquired became rock solid. With time however, as my classmates waited patiently and not so patiently until I got it (some of them very happy that I asked because they didn’t get it either, but were afraid of asking), we all also started to discover that my ‘not getting it’, slowing down and repeating the process of explaining, yielded new, unexpected and deeper insights into the material that would have never surfaced otherwise. It became a running joke that certain classmates of mine tried very hard to become more dense like me.
What we can learn from this is that ‘not getting it’ for the most part has nothing to do with being dense, stupid, incapable or any of those nasty things (although it has everything to do with wrongly perceiving yourself as being all those nasty things). On the contrary, it can be the expression of a different learning style, maybe even a learning disability, or simply an unconscious intuitive knowledge that fast and superficial skimming through the material will not satisfy, and that a slower, more reflective, even contemplative approach is required to understand more deeply than on the readers digest level. Even if it is a learning disability, the very process of asking and slowing down, parsing the knowledge into digestible bits, turns what may seem like a disadvantage into a strength.
Asking is the mind correlate to the neural formation of new associations in the brain. By asking you expand the wiring in your brain, you open your mind to infinite possibilities, and you deepen your relationships towards greater depth and mutual understanding. By answering you limit your brain wiring to the conditioned, you close your mind into the prison of beliefs and preconceived ideas, and you restrict relationships to the superficiality of inauthenticity. You may be aware of how difficult asking is for you. Your mind may be constricted by implicit memories of parents and caregivers discouraging you or even scolding and rejecting you for asking questions, causing you to feel stupid for not knowing. Socially in the group your relationships may be restricted by a constant fear of judgment, projecting on others that they all know while you are inadequate. These entanglements beg to be recognized, not acted upon, and healed, so that we can get back to the business of integration, not staying stuck in rigidity or chaos. Stupid questions don’t exist, only suffering students who think they are stupid, or suffering teachers who think they either know or have to know everything. Remember, the main goal of finding answers is not to become smart, but to find better questions!

3. Accumulating knowledge that remains at our finger tips and can be used in the field of the present moment whenever we need it, requires that we study far more than we will ever need. This principle forces us to embrace the wide context within which we act and live our little lives, thereby ensuring wiser decision making. So yes, sweat, curse, work hard, and if necessary kick me figuratively in the shin. As they originally said in the hockey world, when the going gets tough, the tough get going! And then, ladies and gentlemen, then comes the prize of all this intelligent struggle: You are furiously rewiring your brain towards integration and health – not bad isn’t it?

4. When initially you are not an expert in this field of mindsight, it will naturally take a bit longer to get into it. You might for example be reassured to know that I have had the privilege to work with Linda MacDonald whom most of you know in our course, a family doctor who has trained with me and others for many years, and who now teaches the MBSRPs at our Mindfulness Centre, and see her sweat buckets for a long time as she was racking her brain trying to understand the details of these things. She reminded me of myself, when as a full-fledged psychiatrist with already many years experience I started to study the brain and quickly realized how utterly ignorant I was on the subject. It took me 2 intensive years and a few thousand dollars of courses and training to start feeling a certain mastery of the field. Don’t even mention to me spirituality: I seem to talk a lot about it, and people seem to find inspiration from what I have to say, yet I really know nothing about it, because there is nothing to be known. Such are some of the paradoxes we encounter in this fascinating field of free and easy living. So don’t be too hard on yourself. It will just take time, like anything else that is worthwhile.

5. You don’t have to become experts on the brain, but I hope to provide you with an opportunity to become experts on mindful living. So what I lecture on may seem a bit complex at times, but I always try to boil it down to the essential idea that will help us on our journey of mindfulness. Apply this to the handouts you receive, too. Some of those handouts are detailed and complex, and the idea is not to memorize that, but to use it as reference when you need to go into more detail. In order to aid sifting through all that I have created the slides, which distill what’s most salient. As a means to collectively engage in always keeping the big picture alive, we will regularly have review and consolidation sessions such as the one coming up on January 2nd, 2017, exactly for the purpose of distilling relevance from complexity without ignoring or be afraid of complexity and context. Remember, what we study conceptually needs to be experienced in an embodied way, otherwise, for the purpose of this course that is focused on actual transformation and personal growth, this knowledge remains superficial and useless.

6. The place of not understanding or following is in fact a wonderful place of opportunity. It is the place of our limitation, where growth and expansion beckon. Regard any feelings of inadequacy, incompetence, ‘its too hard’, ‘I can’t do this’, etc. as old conditionings or implicit memories that have outlived their usefulness. When these destructive emotions and thoughts arise, remember the principles of mindful learning: Stay open to novelty, make new distinctions where everything seemed incomprehensible at first, remain sensitive to different contexts, practice developing an awareness of multiple perspectives, and always orient yourself towards the embodied present moment. This encourages the mind to disentangle itself from premature conclusions, categorizations and routinized ways of perceiving and thinking. Certainty eliminates the need to pay attention. Given that the world around us is always in flux, our certainty is an illusion.

7. Mindful learning involves concepts such as intelligent ignorance, flexible thinking, avoidance of premature cognitive commitments and creative uncertainty. It is neither conceptual and conditioned, nor formlessly creative; neither left-brain linguistic, linear and logical, nor right-brain non-verbal and holistic; it is rather a sideways stance of learning, an ‘orthogonal shift’ (Jon Kabat-Zinn) in awareness, where left- and right-brain styles, conceptual and creative processing are intertwined, where learners are conditional in how they take in information, and uncertainty is a friend. Creative uncertainty strengthens our learning and makes the learning experience more enjoyable. The process of learning is the essence of being, not doing.

8. As Leslie Kaminoff points out, Yoga is not about doing the poses; its about undoing what’s in the way of the poses. I see meditation and mindsight in exactly the same way. Meditation is not about doing concentration training; it is about undoing what’s in the way of concentration. Dynamic Mindfulness as I have come to call the approach I developed, does exactly that – by focusing on undoing through surrender to gravity and closure of the doors of avoidance, concentration naturally arises. In this sense the feeling of being stuck, not understanding and wanting to flee the course is simply a gift, the expression of what’s in the way of awareness. By simply embracing it as useful and interesting information about ourselves, we can learn to transcend it and discover the treasures it hides, treasures that have always been there, but we lost touch with them. So I don’t refund; I provide opportunities to refind instead.

So … let’s go! Lets play with what we know, what we don’t know, and what we think we know! Lets experiment with ignorance, stupidity and incompetence, and above all, lets have a lot of fun together learning to unknow!

Copyright © 2016 by Dr. Stéphane Treyvaud. All rights reserved.

I recently talked to a lady who was inquiring about the Mindsight Intensive she wanted to join. A comment she made in the course of the conversation piqued my interest and gave me food for reflection. She noticed that in my blogs and other writings I occasionally refer to Jesus, and she concluded that I must have some kind of Christian affiliation she could not relate to. She was very interested in my courses, but would not be interested in sessions about Jesus, because she is agnostic and does not believe in religion, God, a creator or a higher power. Her interest is in consciousness, she said.

What struck me was a subtle, yet pervasive fallacy I encounter frequently with my students. A fallacy is an incorrect argument from either a logical or a rhetorical perspective. Nowhere are fallacies more frequently used than in politics for example, where distortions and outright lies are packaged in a way as to sound logical for the sole purpose of achieving results through communication. Fallacies are also frequent in everyday thinking, as in the case of the lady I talked to, unconsciously created by the complex workings of the brain.

Fallacies lead to misunderstandings and confusions that cause students to get stuck on their journey of self-discovery. As part of our inquiry in mindfulness, they have to be recognized and corrected. In this case, if one is interested in consciousness, then one must be interested in all phenomena and manifestations of consciousness, in all constructions of reality that shape consciousness and can be apprehended by it. The student of consciousness is a student of knowing itself, examining all the ways we claim to come to an awareness of reality, and all the ways we construct views of reality.

By virtue of excluding religion from the purview of her inquiry, this lady may be unwittingly caught in exactly the same kind of dogma and belief she thought she wanted to distance herself from. Instead of the Christian or the religious dogma, she subscribes to the agnostic dogma. Referring to agnosticism as dogma may seem strange if we accept that the agnostic believes it is impossible to know anything about God or the creation of the universe and therefore simply refrains from having any opinion about it. The reason I use the word dogma in this context lies in the fact that this lady wasn’t just saying she has no opinion about Jesus, but that religion was of no interest to her, thus excluding an important facet of consciousness from inquiry. It is an inescapable fact that human consciousness creates stories and beliefs around a protagonist called Jesus, and that these phenomena need to be explored if we want to get to know human consciousness. As students of consciousness, which mindfulness practitioners are, we need to be interested in all phenomena of consciousness, including the rational, the irrational, the logical, the illogical, the dogmatic, the open-minded, the provable and those experiences that are beyond what can be proven, explained or even described. Coming back to my conversation, it may also be that what this lady meant to say is that she was not interested in belief and dogma, but in direct experience. If so, there is still a potential issue to be addressed, because the proper reading of sacred texts such as the Bible has to my mind nothing to do with dogma or belief, and everything to do with the exploration of consciousness and the direct experience it affords us. The challenge consists in how to read sacred texts and properly differentiating their content from the cultural context they arose from. To this aim we need to deal with language modes as expressions of different levels of consciousness as you will see below.

Dogma is a set of beliefs accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. This set of beliefs forms the basis for the construction of an ideology or belief system, and cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the ideology itself. This is the reason why within a particular dogma questioning is frowned upon and gets you to be burned at the stake. Implied in every dogma is also a tyrannical authority that legislates what is right and wrong. Dogma rests on beliefs, and beliefs are states of mind, in which a person thinks something to be the case, whether there is empirical evidence to prove it or not. You may wonder why beliefs are so rigidly held despite their often flagrant absurdity, and why dialogue with people who hold strong beliefs is virtually impossible. There are likely many ways of answering this question. I will highlight three mechanisms that are relevant within this context.

The first mechanism pertains to how the brain processes beliefs in its main sensory areas, the very same areas where we perceive pain. As surprising as this might seem, belief centers are not located in the flexible intellectual thought-based areas of the frontal cortex. Instead, they are located in the sensory areas that we rely so heavily on to keep us safe. It is through our perception of pain sensation, touch, pressure, position, motion, vibration, temperature, sight, sound, smell and taste that we test reality and decide how to change and adapt for survival. Our beliefs, deeply embedded and embodied in these brain areas that define our concrete reality, define who we are in a very fixed and defined way, and are therefore not easily amenable to exploration and questioning.

The second mechanism already discussed elsewhere, by which rigid belief structures arise, is the objectification of reality into a collection of interacting nouns, coupled with a loss of awareness of the deep dynamic nature of reality as verb. To make a long story short, the problem-solving left brain is for most of us unfortunately not properly integrated into right-brain functioning and therefore quite literally a lose tyrant without checks and balances controlling our lives. Its mode of functioning is to parse reality into bits without noticing context, and then crystallize these bits as conceptual things or objects in our awareness. In addition, contrary to the way the right brain presents reality to our awareness in the form of direct experience, the left brain gone rogue only represents it to us conceptually. Locked into such a controlled, objectifying construction of reality as a virtual world of interacting things or objects, we are incapable of seeing the deeper truth, namely the fact that the perception of things as objects is but a rough, imprecise, disembodied and limited view of reality (although under certain circumstances useful in its own right) that misses the deeper truth of reality as a limitless dynamic field. This comes with a hefty price, the price of a very bad habit, the habit of unnecessary, optional suffering.

The third mechanism is deeply embedded in our childhood development. As we grow from a young child into preadolscence and adolescence, our capacity for abstraction evolves. Young children are not capable of complex abstract thought differentiation, which is the reason why there is no logical conflict in their minds when they envision Santa Claus fly on a sleigh and descend through the chimney to bring gifts. As we grow older our capacity for abstraction and differentiation of complex thought processes increases, and what seemed conflict-free and logical in the past suddenly poses serious logical problems. In other words, our ability to differentiate complex mind processes from one another and realize different facets of consciousness changes and grows as we age. For different complex reasons I cannot possibly elaborate on here, many people remain stuck in preadolescent ways of thought processing and remain incapable of sophisticated reasoning. The result is an overly concrete, rigid, dissociated view of the world full of conflicting parts, coupled with an unawareness of inconsistencies. Its hallmark is belief and dogma. An example of that is the creationist belief in how the physical universe came into being, which is essentially a version of the Santa Claus story. I am not saying that the physical universe cannot possibly have come into existence through an act of divine creation. I am simply identifying creationism as a rigid dogmatic structure, when it manifests socially in the form of schools that forbid the study of evolution in their curriculum, thus expressing more the anxieties of their proponents than anything worthwhile about truth or reality.

Belief and dogma are therefore always a closed system with an inherently strong feel of being embodied and therefore ‘real’. As such it is by definition rigid and unquestionable. Whether we like it or not, this dogmatic aspect of how we construct reality is an aspect of consciousness we always have to take into consideration when we explore consciousness and our way of using it to live our lives. Belief and its flexible sibling called thought are not easy to distinguish, and they relate to each other as form and formlessness. A tree requires a measure of harmony between form (rigidity) that allows it not to collapse and formlessness (chaos, flexibility) that allows it not to break in the wind. Our consciousness is similar, having to navigate certainty and uncertainty in a healthy balance, otherwise we fall into extremism, the extremes of sloppy ‘anything goes’ thinking or rigidly held beliefs. Nobody can escape beliefs, but when one thinks one can and is not aware of the inherent existence of belief in consciousness, unconscious dissociations occur. In the case of this lady, she thought being agnostic is different from being religious, when in fact she is just as ‘religious’ as believers in religion, just that her ‘religion’ has an abstract tyrant called agnosticism. The way out of this conundrum is to recognize the ubiquitousness of belief, and cultivate an attitude of flexibility and openness towards them that allows one to examine, explore and question them. The moment that is achieved, one is free. In her case, she would be able to explore agnosticism and Jesus as forms of consciousness with the same rigor and intensity.

We have four different direct experience modes and four different language modes. Each experience mode has a preferred language mode. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the four different experience modes are the physical, the psychological, the existential and the spiritual. Physical experience consists of physical sensations and is nonverbal. Psychological experience is verbal and pertains to the coherence of autobiographical narratives. Existential experiences pertain to the arising and vanishing of our sense of self, and spiritual experiences transcend the sense of self to include the nameless nature of spaceless and timeless nondual reality.

We express these different levels of experience through action, a special form of action being language. Both action and language manifest different facets of consciousness in different experience modes. The four different language modes allowing us to access different facets of consciousness and different experience modes are:
1. Unstructured everyday language: It re-presents and expresses a running commentary on life experience. The criterion of truth is unexamined subjective experience.
2. Left-brain descriptive language: It re-presents external reality as being separate from the speaking subject, and gives us objective knowledge into the physical world. The criterion of truth is out there in the physical world – if it corresponds to something physical and concrete in the world, it must be true. The speaking subject is minimally involved. It emphasizes aboutness. Examples are history, biography and science.
3. Left-brain conceptual or dialectic language: It re-presents internal reality as being separate from the speaking subject, but less separate than in description, and gives us knowledge into the psychological world. The criterion of truth is in its internal consistency or coherence – if it sounds logical and well thought out, it must be true. The speaking subject is more intensely involved. It emphasizes aboutness. Examples are psychology, meditation, philosophy.
4. Right-brain metaphorical language: It presents the whole (internal and external) reality as lived by the speaking subject (no subject-object separation) and gives us knowledge about how to live. The criterion of truth is in its efficacy when lived and compelling sense of wisdom. The speaking subject and the objective world he/she lives in manifest as a whole in the here and now. It emphasizes direct experience and wholeness. Examples are myths and metaphors, sacred stories.

The challenge is to become aware which level of experience is being accessed with what language mode. They all express different facets of consciousness that give us clues about the nature of reality. No level of experience is better or worthier of inquiry than any other. They all need to be investigated in an integrated fashion. When we master that, we are not in danger of confusing facets of consciousness, language modes and levels of experience, and we will gain the freedom to access reality in its complex entirety without dissociating any part of it. We will get a glimpse of the whole elephant.

Copyright © 2016 by Dr. Stéphane Treyvaud. All rights reserved.

I am next to a swimming pool in my home and both a fish and a little bear swim very fast in it. In my bedroom, a brown rabbit hops around and a mouse tries to find her way into the folds of a crumpled blanket lying on me. I try to get rid of the mouse, who keeps escaping me. But finally I can catch her by the tail and put her outside. The rabbit is obviously my pet and does not bother me. In the kitchen the cook rehearses a play. He is cross-dressed as a female cook and ends up above the ceiling rafters erupting into a belting sound while grimacing and being filmed. A black gentleman on a majestic black horse enters the scene and lifts the cook onto the horse. The horse stares into my eyes.

This is what I dreamt the night after I lost all the work I had done on this blog, because I made the ‘bad decision’ of not re-saving the work I had done after the computer did something funny. The blog was finished. I lost it all and had to start from scratch. It was 11:45 at night.

For a moment I was furious, but then soon forced to heed my own pronouncement I explain later in this blog, that there is no such thing as a bad decision unless it is taken carelessly, in haste or with a disturbed mind. Mind you, maybe I had a disturbed mind this late at night, but I thought I had done a very good job with my blog. So I went to bed stressed and did not have a restful night’s sleep. On my way to sleep I asked for guidance during the night to find the inspiration to tackle the business of rewriting my blog the next morning.

We are often afraid of taking bad decisions and strive to take good ones. Barbara as I will call a patient of mine, recently brought this problem to light in a dramatic fashion, when she displayed a panic-size fear of taking bad decisions.

Apart from exploring some of the psychodynamic reasons for her anxiety, which included being raised by rather controlling and overanxious parents, I also asked her to define what a bad or good decision is. Her answer seemed obvious, as we all would probably define it in the same way. A good decision turns out to yield good results, a bad one bad results. In other words, attributing a valence (whether it is good or bad) to a decision as we usually do is always a judgment after the fact, since at the time of making the decision we cannot possibly know the future, even less our decision’s outcome. Such a judgment after the fact presupposes that we impute to the moment of decision-making a knowledge that was not available at the time. Our brain being an associative organ, when untrained it very easily and readily connects experience contents together that have nothing to do with each other, and then makes it appear as if they belonged together. This leads to an impossible quagmire: At the time of decision-making we can become extremely anxious because we impute the capacity of attributing a valence to our decision at the time of decision-making, when this is in fact impossible, and when the result of our decision turns out to be less than desirable, we beat ourselves up for not having the power of foresight and being able to foretell the future. Very exhausting!

We therefore have to begin to tease out the different elements of decision-making in order to understand what is really going on and put an end to our suffering.

There are immediately three problems with the definition Barbara gave. One is that the decision is defined in terms of future results nobody can ever predict, since the future is unknowable. One cannot include unknowable future information in the definition of a good or bad decision just before or at the time of decision-making. The second problem is that attributing a valence to a decision such as good or bad is very arbitrary. Good means that the outcome pleases or meets our expectations, bad is what disappoints or doesn’t meet expectations. Does that really make sense? Cannot a disappointing outcome sometimes be very good and vice versa? Thirdly, unforeseen events, so called outliers, routinely occur after we have taken our decision, that completely change the landscape of our lives. Such events are prone to create a distortion in our thinking, causing us to retrospectively construct a sense of badness and weave it into our perception of the decision-making process, even though we were fairly certain at the time of decision-making that we had taken a good one.

The first problem has to be addressed by using available information at the present moment of decision-making. We can only make decisions considering the circumstances of the moment. Present circumstance has two aspects: an external and an internal one. External circumstance we mostly cannot control. It is what reality presents to us in the moment, including the physical location we find ourselves in, the historical and local events of the time and the time available to make the decision. Internal circumstance is a different story. It means the psychological state we are in at the time of decision-making, particularly to what degree we are attuned to and integrated within ourselves, have a clear view of the situation and have access to information and knowledge that is important for decision-making. How much access to information and knowledge we have can only be partially controlled through diligent fact-finding and reaching out to people who can be helpful to us.

Human knowledge is finite and the unknown or unknowable far vaster than our knowledge will ever be. As long as we do our homework of finding out as much as we can at the moment of decision-making, we need to develop the necessary humility to know that our decision-making will always be tentative and limited in its power to put in motion the future we envision for ourselves. Clear view has to be trained. The ability to think clearly and sift through the complex entanglement of our physical sensations, feelings, thoughts and intuitions, is not just given to us. If we haven’t learned it in our childhoods through intelligent and attuned parenting, we have to acquire it through our own work of self-discovery. Attunement and integration is also the result of good parenting or later self-exploration.

The likelihood of making ‘good’ decisions thus increases with increasing capacity for humility, clear view and attunement to ourselves. However, it would be foolish to think that we will always be optimally humble, clear and attuned every time we make a decision. And even if we are, or think we are, the human capacity for self-deception is limitless. We can therefore never make the perfect decision, but only the best possible one considering the circumstances of the moment. We can only make perfectly imperfect decisions.

The second problem is our attribution of valence to decisions. Can a decision ever be good or bad, unless it is taken carelessly or in a mentally disturbed state? We can certainly feel more or less on top of things in the moment of decision-making, but given that we have presumably done what we can to make the best possible decision, our sense of comfort or discomfort cannot possibly be a measure for the valence of the decision itself. The decision is always just what it is, a decision, neither a good or a bad one.

Moreover, decisions that turn out to lead to less than desirable outcomes are opportunities for looking at the circumstances of the decision-making moment with fresh eyes, looking at old unskillful patterns we repeat even though they lead to undesirable results, and engaging in new creative actions in the moment. Take the invention of sticky notes for example. The researcher involved was working on trying to synthesize a super-strong glue for airplane wings I believe. Unbeknownst to him his team made a calculation mistake, and when they went to manufacture it, the glue turned out to be super-weak. While working on correcting the problem he had this flash of insight that his super-weak glue could be used for other purposes, thus the sticky notes. Take Roosevelt, who became president of the United States despite having his brilliant career as a congressman cut short by polio, which paralyzed him and subsequently caused a state of deep depression. How about Karlfried Graf Dürckheim, my former Zen teacher, who had his major enlightenment experiences while on death row for a year after the second world war, then went on to become the first Westerner to bring Zen to the West? And what about the person who misses a flight to attend an important meeting because they tried to squeeze in a task before leaving, and later hears on the news that the plane they would have taken crashed? History abounds with such examples, making it clear to my mind that it is nothing but hybris to judge decisions we make as either good or bad. They are simply the best possible ones considering our circumstances at the time of decision-making, just good-enough – no more is possible. Once the decision is made, the rest is but further fodder for the inquiring mind to grow and learn, to stretch known boundaries and walk towards the sunset of wisdom.

After these reflections Barbara’s anxiety had all but disappeared. She now felt empowered that she could make a necessary decision knowing, that right from the outset she only had limited information, and that she was not in a position to feel confident about her decision, because she did not know exactly what she really wanted. Her decision was going to be a tentative one, which could lead her to a place she does not presently feel she wants to be in. However, she was now free to embrace the imperfection of her decision, open to tackling the possibility of a less than desirable outcome with openness, curiosity, flexibility and creativity, learning from the process in the meantime. All her life her overanxious parents had raised her to obey and follow their decisions without making her own. This ended up causing her untold anxiety and stress. In this situation she pleaded with me to make a decision for her. What was entirely new for her was my guidance in simply teasing out the intricacies of her situation in detail, thus freeing her to see clearly and come to make her own perfectly imperfect decision, without me ever telling her what would have been the right or wrong one. Her relief was palpable.

This version of my blog is more complete than the original one I lost the previous day. I ended up doing a better job the next day than I had done the day before. Losing it all led me to have a disturbed night in between the two versions, and the question is whether my dream answered my prayers for inspiration. It is quite chaotic, partly expressing my stressed state, but also giving me the gift of having to hold this seemingly incomprehensible chaos under the one umbrella of my awareness. My blog last night was more left-brain logically constructed at the expense of creativity, thus not doing as much justice to the complexity of this topic. My writing today was more fluent, weaving left-brain logic to a much larger extent into right-brain contextual complexity than yesterday. This allowed me, I believe, to capture the topic in a more complete way without losing its logical threads.

The number of animals in the dream is significant. They were the center theme weaving through it all. It felt to me as if I was invaded by animals, suddenly finding myself in a richly animated world of creatures that all have very different forms of consciousness and therefore ways of constructing reality. These other forms of consciousness, which feel more ‘animalistic’, body-centered and incomprehensible to the rational mind, enriched my work today as I was writing this blog. The human drama occurring in the dream felt like a Shakespearean play around animal forms of consciousness that wanted to be integrated into the hyper-rationality of my left-brain thought patterns. The dream felt both disturbing and hilariously bizarre like a farce, weaving different characters into a complex web of interactions and explorations that disturb the familiar order of things. Of course there is much more one could read into the dream, but I clearly needed to be disturbed, to be shown different types of awarenesses and greater freedom of creativity, in order to be more open to and inclusive of all that I myself don’t know, thus hopefully doing the topic of decision-making better justice.

Copyright © 2016 by Dr. Stéphane Treyvaud. All rights reserved.