I'm still reading Mindsight by Dr. Daniel Siegel who incorporates various forms of mindfulness into his therapy practice. Funnily enough I'm just reading the chapter in which he distinguishes between implicit and explicit memory. He points out that even with PTSD there may be little or no explicit memory. But implicit memories can surface as vivid flashbacks even decades after a traumatic event. During the original event certain memory blocking chemicals flood the brain. And even though the hippocampus is disabled, implicit memories of the traumatic experience will nonetheless be encoded into the nervous system. These are what can influence behavior in some problematic ways. Of course such understanding is not pertinent and or useful to everyone. But it may be a relief to some to know that there might be physiological reasons for certain circumstances of their current life that have little to do with their ability to get over the past and just be in the present. I believe in the power of intention. But sometimes that is not enough. IMO.
________________________________ From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 2:02 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,"really stupid" or "reeely stooopid" --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > My feeling about "living in the moment" is that it's not > > > all that it's cracked up to be. It is a New Age cliche > > > and refers to something for which human beings are not > > > designed. We live simultaneously in past, present, and > > > future. That's our nature. It is a quintessential human > > > act to think back to the past, and constantly interpret > > > and reinterpret it for ourselves, and we also are wired > > > to spend a lot of time envisaging the future, for better > > > or worse. My cat can do neither of those things. He is > > > pretty good at living in the moment, but I have no desire > > > to emulate him. > > > > Well said, but the issue to me seems to revolve more > > around which species have the ability to *not* submit > > to the pressures of past, present, and future when > > dealing with present events, not the tendency to do so. > > > > That issue brings up the issue of free will, and of > > being capable of influencing one's passage through > > time and space. Is one a "prisoner" of one's previous > > passages through time and space, or merely influenced > > by them? > > > > I'm going to go for the latter. The samskaras are > > present, *in* the present. The compulsion to submit > > to them and keep doing the same old same old is not. > > > > Not for human beings, anyway. I can't speak for your > > cat. :-) > > I would like to think you are right, but I can't say that > I feel free of those old ghosts that loiter in the psyche. > I tend to agree with Faulkner, "The past is never dead. It > is not even past." That said, it need not ever become the present. Only obeisance to the past creates that. Having a greater allegiance to the present creates the possibility of new timelines. IMO, of course.
