It’s a conclusion that comes from the work of Danis Bois.
I can’t find much info on Bois. You could present his argument in your own words.
If you have someone who had no conceptualization of what Gendlin calls the felt sense and starts having the related experience a lot of their self image might be open for adaptation.
I am not following Gendlin either but from what I am reading what he is describing as ‘felt sense’ is listening for emotions, moods and bodily sensations in general. I never had any issues to integrate all these without the ‘felt sense’ concept.
Beforehand they might have thought of themselves as their heads but that concept get’s challenged through the new way of being in relationship with the body.
I don’t doubt that people that have not given any thought or practice on what it is to be a human could benefit from using concepts to ease their transition (I explained in the previous post). I just think that after a certain amount of refinement of your belief system destabilisation is not an issue.
With advanced meditation, there’s usually the point of perceptions coming up that do require new conceptualization. In the absence, there are problems like what’s called “the dark night of the soul”.
I don’t doubt the importance of conceptualisation. I am just suggesting being careful about generalising into saying that it is always needed.
I don’t understand the ‘dark night of the soul’ problem.
I can’t find much info on Bois. You could present his argument in your own words.
Yes, there’s little information that’s published in English.
There are patterns that arise when teaching for decades and seeing different students develop different problems. There empiric experience that dealing in a certain way with those problems is helpful.
I am not following Gendlin either but from what I am reading what he is describing as ‘felt sense’ is listening for emotions, moods and bodily sensations in general. I never had any issues to integrate all these without the ‘felt sense’ concept.
It seems like you do have conceptualization as “listening for emotions”, “listenening for moods” and “listening for bodily sensations”.
The fact that you separate emotions from moods here shows that you do have more categories than a lot of people.
I don’t understand the ‘dark night of the soul’ problem.
That might well be true, that you don’t understand the problem or haven’t been exposed to people who suffer from it. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t an issue for many people who spent a lot of time meditating and making the experiences that come along with it.
It seems like you do have conceptualization as “listening for emotions”, “listening for moods” and “listening for bodily sensations”. The fact that you separate emotions from moods here shows that you do have more categories than a lot of people.
That is fair. I will have to ponder further if it is at all possible to have no conceptualisation. Thanks!
That might well be true, that you don’t understand the problem or haven’t been exposed to people who suffer from it. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t an issue for many people who spent a lot of time meditating and making the experiences that come along with it.
Yes, of course. I will tell you my thought process on reading about it in the interest of transparency. My first impression is that there seems to be truth in the writing. Since I have a belief, based on experience, in the existence of certain states it seems to me that the author is possibly genuine ( in contrast to being the product of a cult formation ). But the metaphors he is using do not resonate with me. Furthermore, I then refer to the teachings that warn of not following material that was intended for a different time and people. Exercises and formulations, they warn, are always presented in the forms of the current culture and prescribed according to the state of the student. Following exercises and old formulations without guidance can be, at best, just providing emotional and intellectual stimulation and at worst, as dangerous as trying different medicine based on personal preference.
Following exercises and old formulations without guidance can be, at best, just providing emotional and intellectual stimulation and at worst, as dangerous as trying different medicine based on personal preference.
When I talk about knowledge that comes from Danis Bois, I do have personal guidance from people who have their 10,000 hours.
As far as the term “the dark night of the soul” goes, it’s not a Bois term but a term used by people from quite different backgrounds.
It’s one thing not to take a medicine on personal preference. It’s another thing that when you take a nootropic for which there’s little academic research out there and you have the people who have empiric experience with the nootropics warning you of possible states that are associated with it.
When I talk about knowledge that comes from Danis Bois, I do have personal guidance from people who have their 10,000 hours.
I don’t believe that the 10,000 hours rule bears any relevance on judging the suitability of people in these areas. But I can not pretend to have the right or the ability to judge Danis Bois’ as I know nothing about him. The same goes when it comes to ‘the dark night of the soul’ concept and its author.
It’s one thing not to take a medicine on personal preference. It’s another thing that when you take a nootropic for which there’s little academic research out there and you have the people who have empiric experience with the nootropics warning you of possible states that are associated with it.
Yes of course. I guess it all depends on the quality of advice we get from people. Which depends on their level of attainment. For which our judgement depends on our assumptions on what constitutes ‘attainment’. Which is not necessarily what in reality constitutes attainment. Which only the people that have attained know. That is, If attainment is possible at all.
This is a really complex discussion that would require an extensive exposition of our belief systems and which would throw this comment thread completely off topic. Maybe another time :)
The same goes when it comes to ‘the dark night of the soul’ concept and its author.
It’s not a concept with a single author. It’s a concept that was first used in Christian medieval theology. In the context where I have seen it, it was repurposed for what happens to some people who practice a lot of Buddhist meditation and an LW comment from http://lesswrong.com/lw/5h9/meditation_insight_and_rationality_part_1_of_3/42b2 was likely the first time I came across it. I used it in the past to talk with other rationalists about meditation who don’t necessarily share a meditative tradition with me and the fact that people from different traditions can relate to it gives it substance in my mind.
Thank you for the link. That was a clearer definition of the dark night. I also skimmed Ingram’s book. I am following a different approach. Again here are my thoughts without trying to imply certainty.
Although I meditate I would never follow extensive exercises of the ones described in ingrams book. Instead I exercise patience and work on the more mundane fundamentals as indicated. There are clear warnings in traditional material not to choose exercises on what we think it is interesting or induce mystical experiences as the result is a type of spiritual vanity in which the experience is used for self inflation. In that light I would see the dark night of the soul not as something to push through but as a sign that I am following the wrong path. Unfortunately, people that reach this stage are probably too invested to admit that they have been following the wrong path for so many years. It is easier for the self to push through and avoid the pain of realising it’s true stage of development.
People can find plenty of material in the work of idries shah if they can deal with someone that tells them not to do all these things that are emotionally or intellectually exciting. It is at least easy to observe that starting a quest to be freed from the self by choosing exercises through the self could not possibly work.
I can’t find much info on Bois. You could present his argument in your own words.
I am not following Gendlin either but from what I am reading what he is describing as ‘felt sense’ is listening for emotions, moods and bodily sensations in general. I never had any issues to integrate all these without the ‘felt sense’ concept.
I don’t doubt that people that have not given any thought or practice on what it is to be a human could benefit from using concepts to ease their transition (I explained in the previous post). I just think that after a certain amount of refinement of your belief system destabilisation is not an issue.
I don’t doubt the importance of conceptualisation. I am just suggesting being careful about generalising into saying that it is always needed.
I don’t understand the ‘dark night of the soul’ problem.
Yes, there’s little information that’s published in English.
There are patterns that arise when teaching for decades and seeing different students develop different problems. There empiric experience that dealing in a certain way with those problems is helpful.
It seems like you do have conceptualization as “listening for emotions”, “listenening for moods” and “listening for bodily sensations”. The fact that you separate emotions from moods here shows that you do have more categories than a lot of people.
That might well be true, that you don’t understand the problem or haven’t been exposed to people who suffer from it. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t an issue for many people who spent a lot of time meditating and making the experiences that come along with it.
That is fair. I will have to ponder further if it is at all possible to have no conceptualisation. Thanks!
Yes, of course. I will tell you my thought process on reading about it in the interest of transparency. My first impression is that there seems to be truth in the writing. Since I have a belief, based on experience, in the existence of certain states it seems to me that the author is possibly genuine ( in contrast to being the product of a cult formation ). But the metaphors he is using do not resonate with me. Furthermore, I then refer to the teachings that warn of not following material that was intended for a different time and people. Exercises and formulations, they warn, are always presented in the forms of the current culture and prescribed according to the state of the student. Following exercises and old formulations without guidance can be, at best, just providing emotional and intellectual stimulation and at worst, as dangerous as trying different medicine based on personal preference.
These are some of my thoughts.
When I talk about knowledge that comes from Danis Bois, I do have personal guidance from people who have their 10,000 hours.
As far as the term “the dark night of the soul” goes, it’s not a Bois term but a term used by people from quite different backgrounds.
It’s one thing not to take a medicine on personal preference. It’s another thing that when you take a nootropic for which there’s little academic research out there and you have the people who have empiric experience with the nootropics warning you of possible states that are associated with it.
I don’t believe that the 10,000 hours rule bears any relevance on judging the suitability of people in these areas. But I can not pretend to have the right or the ability to judge Danis Bois’ as I know nothing about him. The same goes when it comes to ‘the dark night of the soul’ concept and its author.
Yes of course. I guess it all depends on the quality of advice we get from people. Which depends on their level of attainment. For which our judgement depends on our assumptions on what constitutes ‘attainment’. Which is not necessarily what in reality constitutes attainment. Which only the people that have attained know. That is, If attainment is possible at all.
This is a really complex discussion that would require an extensive exposition of our belief systems and which would throw this comment thread completely off topic. Maybe another time :)
It’s not a concept with a single author. It’s a concept that was first used in Christian medieval theology. In the context where I have seen it, it was repurposed for what happens to some people who practice a lot of Buddhist meditation and an LW comment from http://lesswrong.com/lw/5h9/meditation_insight_and_rationality_part_1_of_3/42b2 was likely the first time I came across it. I used it in the past to talk with other rationalists about meditation who don’t necessarily share a meditative tradition with me and the fact that people from different traditions can relate to it gives it substance in my mind.
Thank you for the link. That was a clearer definition of the dark night. I also skimmed Ingram’s book. I am following a different approach. Again here are my thoughts without trying to imply certainty.
Although I meditate I would never follow extensive exercises of the ones described in ingrams book. Instead I exercise patience and work on the more mundane fundamentals as indicated. There are clear warnings in traditional material not to choose exercises on what we think it is interesting or induce mystical experiences as the result is a type of spiritual vanity in which the experience is used for self inflation. In that light I would see the dark night of the soul not as something to push through but as a sign that I am following the wrong path. Unfortunately, people that reach this stage are probably too invested to admit that they have been following the wrong path for so many years. It is easier for the self to push through and avoid the pain of realising it’s true stage of development.
People can find plenty of material in the work of idries shah if they can deal with someone that tells them not to do all these things that are emotionally or intellectually exciting. It is at least easy to observe that starting a quest to be freed from the self by choosing exercises through the self could not possibly work.