equilibrium.roi at gmail.com
Sat Apr 15 14:55:05 PDT 2017
When I wrote: "For me armchair talk therapy (solo) has its limitations," I
was referring to myself (not Byron Katie).
I agree with your insights that reflective self-exploration of the "The
Work" questions may require meta-level reasoning (not easy for the average
dude like me).
I am an student (size of an infant) of psychodrama. My interest in
psychodrama stems from the belief that "I can act my way into a new way of
thinking" (experiential learning is superior to "thinking your way into a
new way of acting").
equilibrium.roi at gmail.com
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Adam Blatner <adam at blatner.com> wrote:
> Dear Ramu Iyer, please let me know if you get this.
> You write that "The Work" by Byron Katie http://thework.com uses the
> following reflective questions for self-exploration during the "who am I?"
> 1. Is it true?
> 2. Can I absolutely know that it's true?
> 3. How do I react when you believe that thought?
> 4. Who would you be without the thought?
> 5. Turn the thought around
> While I have been journaling without discipline, I've had had
> challenges in really "turning the thought around" beyond (proverbially)
> expressing the aspiration on a printed / handwritten page. In other words,
> the "turnaround" (of a particular thought) didn't get installed, if you
> in the operating system of my overworked brain (using head more than
> heart). For me, armchair talk therapy (solo) perhaps has its limitations.
> (AB: so is this you, Ramu? Or Ms Katie?
> I wondered how Moreno would reframe "the work" (questions above) in
> psychodrama whereby the desired turnaround does happen experientially.
> Sharing this perspective might be useful for "The Work" practitioners
> and expanding the curiosity and reach of psychodrama. I maintain an
> interest in psychodrama. (I'm guessing this is you, Ramu)
> I don't know what to say, because the questions imply that answers are
> indeed possible. My world-view is that what's true at one level is
> surpassed easily at a higher level, but it requires concepts that don't
> operate at that level.
> Truth is especially vulnerable this way. For me: Nothing about me or
> my beliefs are ultimately true at higher levels of contemplation!
> 1. Is it true? 2. Can I absolutely know that it's true? AB you see,
> there's the rub, because all "truths" are surpassed as you go "higher" in
> thinking about thinking about thinking.
> Language, words, definitions, and much else become relativized.
> 3. How do I react when you believe that thought? AB: this is difficult
> since I've had thoughts that this whole stream of thinking---trying to find
> ultimate answers within a single dimension, thinking about thinking---and
> it won't be found there.
> 4. Who would you be without the thought? I'd be...
> 5. Turn the thought around. Yes, indeed, the thought can be turned...
> Moreno sensed the sheer creativity-potential of thought, I imagine, but he
> couldn't bring himself to challenge basic paradigms---if he could imagine
> that word.
> I've moved from Texas to the mid-California coastal town of San Luis
> Obispo. (This is also for the other readers of Grouptalk.)
> What is your interest in Moreno and his philosophy? Where are you
> It's good that Ms Katie is inviting us to examine our thinking, but this
> is at the limits. We are hypnotized by the omnipresence of the 3-D world,
> and it's all we can do to remain aware that phenomena are temporary (4-D).
> That they're mind-constructions (5-D) is bad enough, but that there other
> perspectives about mind (6-D) is mind-boggling. That these in turn are
> conditioned by perspectives that go beyond the capacity of ordinary mind,
> a but mystical mind can be barely comprehend what's going on in terms of
> ordinary language.
> What do you think of what I'm saying? I'm still trying to figure this out
> myself and am using the metaphors of dimensionality to do it.
> Warmly, Adam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the List