--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > Me: > I am trying to figure out > > > why they made such a big deal out of something that > > > seems obvious to me. > > > Judy > > Maybe it's because what seems obvious to you isn't at > > all what it's about. > > OK, straighten me out on how people can be identified with the objects > of perceptions if they don't have the type of awareness provided by TM. > > > > > > Every hang out with a woman from a country who does > > > not educate women? Education makes a huge difference > > > in mental development. > > > > Sure, but lack of education doesn't equate to "severe > > mental deficiency" in the sense you were using the > > phrase. I think if you have to suggest that most people > > long ago would be considered severely mentally deficient > > today to explain the notion of identification, it's a > > sign you're on the wrong track. I think you need to bag > > that particular approach! > > Again I'm all ears for your POV on this area of why people are so > identified with the objects of perception that they need lots of TM > (decades) to become...what exactly? > > > > > From another post: > > > > > My identity is biased towards my mind and emotions. > > > My body is getting older but my mind and capacity > > > to feel is getting better. I think only very > > > superficial people identify with their bodies. > > > > Again, you're understanding it too literally, or > > too concretely. > > And again you are saying I don't get it while providing no information > on what getting it might mean. I've had the experiences lots of TM > brings and I don't see it that way now. How do you see it? > > > > > If what you experience is "my body" as opposed to > > "this body," that's identification with the body; > > doesn't mean some kind of intense focus on or > > preoccupation with the body, but simply that one's > > body is something that "belongs" to one. > > > > Interestingly, professional opera singers tend to > > refer to their voice as "the voice" rather than > > "my voice," as if it has to be regarded as > > something apart from themselves, like a musical > > instrument--but instrumentalists don't refer to > > "the trumpet" or "the violin" when they're talking > > about their own instruments. I suspect that's > > because to a singer, their voice is so *extremely* > > personal and intimate to themselves that they > > have to use that odd construction to avoid > > overly identifying with it; they must feel they > > have more control over it that way. > > > > Come to think of it, don't athletes tend to do > > this as well with reference to parts of their > > bodies that are crucial to their performance? > > "The arm is a little sore today..." > > I think the movement phrase "the body" indicates dissociation. It is > my body. The voice thing in opera you nailed down I think. It is > because they do think of it as a separate instrument. What they sing > with is not their voice that they use for speech. I haven't heard > athletes talk about their bodies that way but it wouldn't surprise me > for high level athletes since they function in a lot of pain with > their injuries and training and dissociate to survive. I felt that > way when I was in Jiu-jitsu and was always injured for practices. > > I am inviting someone to explain what this concept (identifying with > the object of perception) means to them. It may be that once you step > out of the mindset there is no bridge of understanding. I am just > playing with the idea that there might be more than: > > "If you are with us you understand, if you are not, you don't." > > > > > > My thought, based upon what Curtis has said, is that he has already cultivated enough of a sense of detachment so as to not be overly wound up with negative emotions or bad behaviors. Who needs more? I think living in accordance with your values cultivates a certain sense of detachment--you are not all wound up by living in conflict.
I could not care for cancer patients without some detachment. You cultivate it by doing the best you can, in accordance with your values. It is about maturity, and often increases by simply growing older and more experienced. You cultivate it by putting troubles away in a little box to open later if you feel the need. I might shed a tear but never in the presence of a patient. So I agree some detachment is required, while maintaining empathy. If you have no empathy to start with there isn't a need to cultivate detachment. I am far less detached regarding family. I think that is fine. If my son was ill, I would not care for him as I am not detached enough. I do not want to be detached from my family and friends. I want to shed the tear when they suffer as their suffering is my suffering. As far as functioning at your highest and best level, or being "in the zone," I have a few thoughts. I am a runner. I can be in the zone when running. It occurs when I am well trained, well rested, with the repetitive motion of running. Theta brains waves increase. My mind is quiet. It isn't mystical. I can be in another kind of zone when working, where I am functioning at my best and just buzzing along. Gamma brainwaves may predominate as I problem solve. My perceptions are enhanced. It is state of mental lucidity. It comes from having the ability to concentrate without distraction. It comes from knowing the subject matter, being motivated, and being very interested in what I am doing. It also is not mystical. A similar kind of zone can be found when under acute stress or fear. Maybe you even would dissociate and witness yourself take action in the face of emergency. When the emergency is over, the experience ends. Again, nothing mystical about it. I think of these as experiences most everyone has and people can facilitate in a number of ways. If anything,
