<Rocky> You wrote: "no, it's me doing as if" who is the 'me' that you are referencing?
<Wolfgang> It's my non-identity "I", my functional "I" and that is subordinated to essential value. E.V. is the son of god in the Christian trilogy. It's me, nothing, becoming someone. Dead in a way, and yet alive, functioning and having the gift of joyous expression of e.v.
<Rocky> (This looks like logical levels?) Oh...This is somewhat difficult to understand.... So, this "I" that you are is umm… Just a functional robot in a way?
<Wolfgang> Yes, in a way. It's the "slave" of e.v.
<Rocky> And what is the e.v.? Who invented it? Where does it come from?
<Wolfgang> It comes out of nothingness. Incarnation of what could be called the "highest" or the "ultimate" value that exists in every human being from birth on. It's like the imprint, god's imprint in everyone. It does never suffer.
<Rocky> Oh... Okay... I comes out of nothing as does everything else?
<Wolfgang> Yes, everything else comes also out of nothing, but e.v. can be lived and expressed. It's kind of a direct link to nothingness. It can be felt.
<Rocky> Like an umbilical cord to the source?
<Wolfgang> Yes, that's a great way of saying it.
<Rocky> So everything comes out of nothing... Is this direct all the time? Do some things come out of nothing and then other things come from that or is everything that exists as it is right now directly from nothing?
<Wolfgang> If you want to understand nothingness, then you have to be 100% subjective. Your perceptions are the starting point, not your thinking. Now, all that you perceive comes out of nothing. It pops up. Then your mind has learned how to code, decode etc. but in the very source perception everything comes out of nothing. There is no hierarchy.
<Rocky> Okay, so everything everywhere is right now and always stemming out of nothing... So, now how do I work on my perception of this?
<Wolfgang> One more tool: reject all generalizations. In perceptions there are only concrete items to be perceived. No things like universe, earth, people; only concrete, observable things right now. You can do that whenever you think of it.
<Rocky> What do you mean, "reject"? Do I yell at people if they mention those words? Hahaha
<Wolfgang> Rejecting inside yourself when you start believing that the universe exists for example, or when you think of anything that is not present and perceivable right now. It's a mental gesture. Not believe in the real existence of generalizations whenever your mind produces something like this. Kill these thoughts when they come up. They have no reality.
<Rocky> Okay... Starting now... Am I to deal with these words on the computer screen in front of me and no longer think that there is a person at the other end?
<Wolfgang> No, that would be too much to begin with. It should be done in a relaxed state of being also. Just kill all the thoughts that come up right now and that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.
<Rocky> So kill all the "filler" thoughts...?
<Wolfgang> Right. In a way, there should be no questions anymore right now as long as you do this.
<Rocky> …
<Wolfgang> Right?
<Rocky> Okay... ... :)
<Wolfgang> Got it...hahaha
<Rocky> hahaha
<Wolfgang> Hey, bye for now, okay?
<Rocky> Yes... That's good. See you soon.... bye...
<Rocky> Hello, I'm back.
<W.> Yes.
<Rocky> Would you like to continue our discussion from last night?
<W.> Yes.
<Rocky> Okay we talked about the vocation of the essential value. I think is that right?
<W.> Yes. Did you do the "core transformation process" developed by Connie Rae and Steve Andreas?
<Rocky> I read the book. I did the exercise many times. Sometimes it worked pretty well, sometimes it was just words in my head.
<Rocky> Is what one discovers through the exercise the understanding of one's purpose?
<W.> Yes, that's it.
<Rocky> Can this purpose be verbalized?
<W.> Yes, it has to be verbalized in the exercise. But then, when it unfolds during the months and years, it cannot be verbalized anymore (too complex). But it is clear what it is.
<Rocky> Can you give me an example?
<W.> I remember "being". Mine was: wait I cannot remember...something like being present for the other.
<Rocky> Oh. That is very nice. Can you give me another example of one of your friends?
<W.> I'll check up in my book. Most of it has not been translated into English. Hang on.
Love, peace, being one with the whole.
<Rocky> That is a purpose?
<W.> Well, it has to be lived. Not experienced. But it cannot be lived as long as beliefs are there. And when it is lived, it is no more these words.
<Rocky> Ah... That makes sense. It is also not achievable. Is that true?
<W.> Well, the breakthrough is achievable, and then it unfolds by itself if you do correct work on yourself. This is nearly impossible without guidance of someone who lives it. There are so many traps and shadows and one doesn't see them, but someone else can point to them.
<Rocky> Yes. On one hand that makes sense. On the other hand I am reminded of the words of Krishnamurti who said that a teacher is not necessary. Funny that (Jiddhu) should say that after the many teachers he had. What is your opinion on this?
<W.> On Jiddhu?
<Rocky> On the un-necessity of a teacher.
<W.> Jiddhu said that but he's not (to me) someone who I consider to really having "made it". Did U.G. also say this?
<Rocky> Kind of. I remember reading something like there is nothing you can do to get "it." Don't bother learning from any Guru's or anything. You are wasting your time. He said something like that.
<W.> That's also true. You cannot get "it" because you are with someone who "knows". There's another paradox: U.G. says this to persons who come to see him. It depends on what they want. It's correct that most of the people interested in liberation expect much more from their teacher than what is realistic. I'm not into doing public conferences, I'm choosing the ones that are talented enough to be able to do what has to be done. These "chosen" ones know already that my help is very little compared to the work they have to do on their own.
<Rocky> Yes. Thanks. That clears things up. I think that the work that needs to be done is so tremendous that I can only focus on the small pieces one at a time. Wait a sec...
<Rocky> Did U.G. have a teacher(s) as far as you know?
<W.> Yes, but he rarely talks about it. My guess is that his essential value is expressing itself in a way that people who read or hear him get a kind of "healthy" shock. In a way, and there is a Zen saying also, you have to kill your teachers at some time to be completely free.
<Rocky> Oh. Okay. So when one uncovers one's essential value I guess one would pursue that direction. Has that been your observation?
<W.> No. I did it with "normal" people and most of them just either resisted or - if not - they forgot a few hours later.
<Rocky> How is that possible?
<W.> I have the same question but no answer.
<Rocky> I can't imagine me uncovering something so personally significant and not pursuing it to the best of my abilities.
<W.> You, yes. But most of humans have other things to do in their lives. It's a question of priority. But maybe it's like putting seeds and much later they remember. Maybe. This happened to a friend of mine. He got into contact (by other means) with his essential value many years ago. Then he forgot. Then he became an alcoholic and when things were really bad, he had lost everything and was on the road, he remembered and he did everything to get back to the message. Then one day he got sick and he went to a hospital so as not to die on the road. He felt that it was over. But instead of dying, he woke up the next day, and he realized that his essential value was present and that he was liberated. Some years later we met and he told me this story.
<Rocky> Oh wow. What does he do today?
<W.> He died some weeks ago.
<Rocky> I'm sorry to hear that. How long did you know him?
<W.> I think we met for the first time three years ago. Then we met several times, and the last time we met three months ago, and I knew that he was going to die soon. He knew it, too.
<Rocky> How old was he?
<W.> My age, I never asked him, but he was my age.
<Rocky> Oh. I guess being an alcoholic will age the body much faster.
<W.> It wasn't that. Unfortunately he had been diagnosed a cancer and had accepted the hard chemical treatment. But to me, he wasn't in a bad state, it's the therapy that killed him.
<Rocky> Yes. That is probably true. Even if he survived, the chemotherapy that is so common has been know to cause cancer in as little as ten years later. The cure is worse than the disease!
<W.> Yes, I agree completely. Chemotherapy kills people, not cancer. Also radiation does the same thing. When I was doing therapy, and there were people who had accepted being irradiated, I told them to take a trip to Chernobyl instead, it would give the same results.
<Rocky> I remember when we were talking about self-remembering. I said that it
was making me go nutty and you said that it is more emotional than mental. Two days later it finally made sense what you meant.
<W.> Okay.
<Rocky> I'm slow to catching onto things here. I looked through the Ouspensky book and it hasn't cleared things up. Is it a constant attention/emotion that I want to cultivate? If so, what would one feel if one was to do it correctly?
<W.> I'd rather say that self-remembering tends to retrieve a very subtle, not really seize-able kind of refined emotion.
<Rocky> How do you know when it is there?
<W.> To "know" it is hardly possible. It cannot be "known" by mind and it probably needs someone who "knows" to tell you: "you're 'into it' right now".
<Rocky> And how do you get it back when you forget yourself?
<W.> Remembering… the same thing you do when you've forgotten where you've put your keys.
<Rocky > If not, how would one know what it is at all? You did mention a degree of uncertainty, but to be totally uncertain would just leave me wondering all the time if I was doing anything at all.
<W.> remain with the wondering part of it.
_____________________________________________________________________
<Rocky > Hello. Well, this has been an interesting few days. I have been on a kind of "high." A grounded high. I remember when we were chatting and you pointed out the belief that has been operating full time. It was amazing. I can't believe that I accepted the statement, "There should be harmony" so fully. I can't even say that was a core belief, it was more pervasive than what I think of as "core." It was always there. I can't think of when it wasn't. It was kind of mind-blowing when I was made aware of it. Thank you.
<W>Very good.
<Rocky The last few days have been different than most of the days that I am used to. There is more uptime. But not the uptime of what I think of as being the 'peak awareness' uptime. More like playing and forgetting myself. At work today, for example, time passes without me being aware of it, I remember looking at my watch and it meant nothing to "me". I knew what it meant but it was external understanding. There isn't ecstasy or anything like that but I keep "loosing" myself. The internal dialogue is there but it less believable, it is more in the background.
<W.> That's very good.
<Rocky > The other night I read something that made things fall into place... it was from a Zen book. I hope you don't mind it I share it here... "Centering.. Center is where there is experience but no identification with an aspect of the self who is having the experience......Open. Present. Aware. Awake. Not controlling. Not resisting. Not believing. Holding onto nothing. Pushing nothing away. No 'better ideas' about how it should be…"
<W.> Very nice.
<Rocky > That struck me deeply. I have been taking time to let my new awareness settle in. The gap wants to be filled. Things like "There is no need for harmony.." try to fit in. But that statement makes no sense either. It is a careful practice to keep the space open. What is the phrase?... oh yes.. "Nature abhors a vacuum."
<W.> The nature of mind is that it abhors vacuum. To keep the space open is the best thing to do when such a revelation happens.
<Rocky > I want to ask you a question... Is it helpful to listen to tapes of Zen lectures and that type of stuff? I have been listening to the audio book of "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind." It is very good. My question is, is it good to pour into one's mind this kind of knowledge?
<W.> Yes, listening without the project to remember what has been said.
<Rocky > You told me that you used to listen to Richard Bandler's tapes again and again in order to embed the information into yourself. Is that learning strategy okay in this body of "non-knowledge" as well? I don't see that it would be bad. At first I thought that one wouldn't want to start to believe what was being taught, but I have listened to some tapes maybe 20 or more times and none of it is in me at this point. It helped me get to here and I left it there.
<W.> That's a good way of listening to "non-knowledge" tapes.
<Rocky> The other day we were chatting and you mentioned that one does not need to feel resourceful. That to be effective one doesn't need to feel resourceful.. oops I typed the same sentence twice! But how is this? Usually when I am in a "good" state, I can perform activities much better. I would like to be just as good even when I am not so "happy" but how to go about this?
<W.> Whatever state is there, first one has to accept it. If it's a good state, then all is okay. If it's not such a good state, then act as if you were in a good state. It's not that you felt better, but the results of what you do would be the same. This is possible only when you know that "intentional suffering" (Gurdjieff) is necessary sometimes. Doing a good job when not in a good state is part of "intentional suffering". By and by you get habituated to "transcend" the importance of inner states when doing this.
<Rocky> Oh.. yes… that would totally sabotage any secondary gains that one may have had in "feeling bad". Can that cause any problems?
<W.> Absolutely right.
<Rocky> But, what about the problems that can arise from that?
<W.> What problems?
<Rocky> Well, I don't know. I guess there is no way to know until it happens. But I bet that this "intentional suffering" would cause irritability later on.
<W.> No, not if you do it and you know that you do it. The only "problems" that can arise are physical. Of course, one should not exaggerate, especially in the beginning.
<Rocky> Oh... okay, I understand more now. So there is no using physiology to produce "feeling changes", but to use one's body in a way that one is habituated to be effective in when the "good feelings" are not there is okay. Is this right?
<W.> The body does its job whatever is the feeling, yes. But it's harder for the body if the good state is not there.
<Rocky> Yes. That is my experience. What if one were to "act as if" and after a few minutes one started to feel good again. (This usually happens.) What then?
<W.> When you feel good it's fine. But usually this is not always the case, especially when you "work on yourself". And the periods where you "do as if" might get longer without getting to a good state.
Motivation tends to go. And then you act as if motivation were still there. It's the same kind of thing: intentional suffering.
<Rocky> Oh... Then motivation is gone. But we already discussed that this type of work is beyond motivation. Okay. Well, what does this lead to?
<W.> This is necessary so that you can crystallize the non-ego. It habituates to being able to survive physically when identity is no more present.
<Rocky> Oh... but about the suffering, I read somewhere that the "big mind" or who I really am does not suffer. Do you agree?
<W.> Yes, the "big mind" does not suffer any more FROM SUFFERING. Basically this kind of suffering is the suffering from no more allowing oneself secondary gains from "psychological" suffering. Psychological suffering is completely useless and most of the time self-pity. When you cut yourself from this, then only you know what "intentional suffering" means. By and by you get other "gains" that validate that this is okay. The "intentional suffering" leads to no more suffering from suffering, the psychological suffering leads to more or less psychological suffering, but not to not suffering anymore.
<Rocky> Okay, that makes sense… but I get hung up on this: what if I am in a situation were I used to suffer psychologically, but now I accept it and it is not really suffering anymore. Then what?
<W.> That's fine. No need to go back. There are always enough other situations where you can practice "intentional suffering"
<Rocky> And also, it is fine to bite off only what I feel I can chew... Yes?
<W.> Yes, of course. Be careful and use ecology. That is very important.
<Rocky> So then the suffering is only as bad as I allow for and as I get used to it, it isn't really suffering anymore.
<W.> It's still suffering, but it's chunked down to what you can handle. Not more than is possible to remain functional.
<Rocky> Oh, and in between this suffering, it is okay to feel good states?
<W.> Yes, of course. But know that whatever good states there may be, it cannot be eternal. States change, so whenever you feel good it's perfectly okay but be aware that it can not last forever.
<Rocky> Right. Okay, and partly to learn how to act appropriately when not feeling so good. I am now confused on two ideas that are very opposite looking...
1) self-remembering
2) forgetting yourself
How can you do both!
<W.> Let's assume that you use "self" in the same way. Then whenever you forget yourself you do not remember yourself, and reverse. They alternate.
<Rocky> Yes it is also called vice versa. But are you saying that the word 'self' means something different in each?
<W.> no.
<Rocky> But I thought the practice was to do both 'self remembering' and to lose or 'forget oneself'. Is this incorrect?
<W.> Yes, if you give the same meaning to 'self' then what you usually and automatically do is forgetting your 'self'. And work on yourself means to remember your 'self'. No need to practice 'forget oneself'. This already happens anyway.
<Rocky> Oh... So forgetting oneself is automatic. Yes?
<W.> Yes.
<Rocky> Okay. But self-remembering is not automatic. This is the practice. Yes?
<W.> Yes.
_______________________________________________________________
<Rocky> I got your last e-mail, thanks. We (through e-mail) were discussing suffering and stuff. So this suffering is quite different than 'regular' suffering. So then it is good to avoid 'regular' suffering?
<W> Yes, once you know what "conscious suffering" means you may try to avoid "useless suffering".
<Rocky> Ah.. This is very pleasing to read. This useless suffering is the pits. hahaha.. Yes, useless suffering is such a waste. Umm...
So when one learns how to distinguish the difference and one learns how to do "conscious suffering" it does not have to be done all the time.
<W> No, it should be done when necessary. When all is fine, no need. But when there are tendencies to complain, to self-pity, to blame the other or the circumstances etc. then conscious suffering = acceptance is the solution.
<Rocky> Oh. Strange... Acceptance, when one really accepts what is happening seems to make the pain less painful. But not always, I mean if there is pain and I accept it (fully) there is a sense that all is okay and that is much better than being in a "good state". Is that similar to what you are getting at?
<W.> accepting does not mean that one doesn't do what can be done to make it better. But that is a second step. First, take the situation as it is. Accepting the situation as it is means also to take responsibility, completely, for the given situation. No blame on others or circumstances. I wouldn't say it's "better" than being in a good state. It's part of life (difficult situations) as well as "good states". Basically, on the existential level, there is no difference between good states and conscious suffering.
<Rocky> What I should have said that this "acceptance" is better than fighting oneself to get into a good state. okay.. I used to do that and that is not a healthy pursuit. But when you say conscious suffering that sound so painful. Like being crucified like Jesus or something. So conscious suffering is to be done when those things that you mentioned come up and only then?
<W.> Let me think...it is to be done whenever there is a negative reaction coming up in oneself; a negative reaction against someone else or the circumstances.
<Rocky> Ah.. This can be very tricky. To accept fully and at the same time function appropriately for one's own needs. If a salesman "rips me off" and my initial reaction is to get very angry and stuff. That also serves a functional purpose to get my money back. Do you agree?
<W.> To accept fully and to declare to oneself to act with full responsibility. And to take full responsibility for the situation. Then, of course, it's easier on the functional level to sue him because you are not "clouded" by negative emotions.
<Rocky> How do you separate the self that is being threatened from the purely functional purpose to be treated fairly?
<W.> If you go into "conscious suffering" then the self is not threatened anymore.
<Rocky> Right. It would already have been wounded and so, from this level you could choose how to respond. Wow, I imagine that "conscious suffering" to be walking the tightrope inside of oneself. Not to fall one way or the other.
<W.> Yes. Right, and from now on you may refer to your own situations in daily life and observe and practice it. Did you start already?
<Rocky> I have done this in the past. Sometimes I do. To me this is what "managing one's state" was. It also means to do what is "right." (This is what I have thought since I have been into NLP.) But this "walking the tightrope" takes a lot of attention and self- awareness. I think it will help me to know that it doesn't have to be done all the time.
<W.> Yes, a lot of vigilance. And the aim is not to become an expert in this but to "produce" consciously a certain amount of energy to be able to become even more vigilant. Each time you do it you "grow" more and more and next time you're able to do even more or better. So, conscious suffering enhances the vigilance that is necessary to be really present.
<Rocky> Yes..
<W.> A very different way of saying the same thing would be: it opens your heart.
<Rocky> Oh.. Okay. let me think.. Ah.. yes. Okay, here is my question: Sometimes I am aware of the thin line that I must walk and it is not that I am successful but to keep myself from straying less and less each time I notice myself going to one side or another.... That is okay for when I can "see" it. What about times when I am so lost and confused that I couldn't even pretend to know how to walk it?
<W.> The first thing to do is to be as much vigilant as to not allow yourself anymore to be lost to that degree. This is a major objective because when you're in this "lost-ness", there is nothing you can do but wait.
<Rocky> Yes. That is what I was hoping you wouldn't say. hahaha
Okay. This is very good to understand this because this is what I thought managing one's state was. To stay on the line. This is not what you meant by state management?
<W.> Are you still referring to "lost-ness"?
<Rocky> No. I mean the term "state management" in general NLP use. This isn't what is meant by it?
<W.> Yes, the way I teach "state management" is like this. But I doubt that other NLP trainers would teach it this way.
<Rocky> This is very funny!!! I first learned NLP by listening to Tony Robbins tapes. And the way you teach S.M. is the way I taught it to myself listening to his tapes.
<W.> That's really funny. So you understood it according to your understanding that you had had already?
<Rocky> Yes. I never even considered just a "feeling" state I naturally assumed a deeper level to it. But now that I have some of your understandings, this will make it even clearer.
_______________________________________________________
<W> You're going to work tomorrow?
<Rocky> Yes. I usually get to work around 8:30 am..
<W> Make sure that you're getting enough sleep these times.
<Rocky> I don't think I am because my eyes have redness to them. But I will catch up on the upcoming weekend. I have already made your copy of the U.G. interview. I like it very much. He is a nice fellow. And he is clear on what "it" is not.
<W> Yes. Very good. Thank you. Anything else? Maybe it's a good idea to have some sleep now.
<Rocky> Yeah, that's a good idea but also, sometimes, (for me) learning something new makes me feel like I have had plenty of sleep already. So, may I ask a question.
<W> Yes.
<Rocky> Thanks... Can you explain to me the difference between necessary and unnecessary suffering. Actually, just explain what suffering is unnecessary.
<W> Okay. Unnecessary suffering is all what can be called "psychological" suffering. Basically it comes out of an interpretation of "what is". Instead of accepting completely the actual situation as being like it is, there's all kinds of: maybe it could be better, or maybe I could feel better, or have more money or have a nicer girlfriend etc.
The moment you always just state what is, completely, then useful suffering is there. Unnecessary suffering refers to past or future, Necessary suffering accepts the situation as it is.
<Rocky> Okay. But, sometimes, for me it is not so easy to distinguish the difference. Maybe something starts off as unnecessary suffering. Then if I stay with it, I can't tell what it is anymore.
<W> Necessary suffering is more physical and neurological. You feel it in your muscles. No dreams of better times.
<Rocky> Oh... Okay, that is a great indicator. What is the difference between neurological and psychological?
<W> Psychological is all the different aspects of identity. Neurological is purely physical and hormonal. There are no images or sounds, just kinesthetics and no interpretation of it. No models of explaining things, just stating what is.
<Rocky> Do you remember the other week when I was feeling like I was into…
<W> No
<Rocky> I wrote you about it? Well, I forget exactly when and the details but I think I was into it a little and that I wanted it to come back when the feeling left, then you said that was fantastic, anyway, is any of this familiar?
<W> Familiar to me?
<Rocky> Yes
<W> Yes, of course. It's a very important aspect of good work on oneself. Difficult to stand up to in the beginning, as there's nothingness. No meaning, no sense, but very good, basically, you can't go back to it once it's gone. But it will come back if you continue to do good work.
<Rocky> Good. There are some things I want to mention about that. One is that I can't remember it. Just bits and pieces when I was very surprised at what I was seeing and made a mental note. But also, in a way, I remember the feeling to be somewhat umm.. comforting. Is that unusual?
<W> It can even be very blissful, very, very blissful. The thing is not to become attached to it, because if you become attached to it, then it might fade right away.
<Rocky> Yes... But now we have maybe hit a point where the word "suffering" is also used to describe "bliss" ... wait. How does this suffering also feel blissful?
<W> Once you've generated a certain amount of intentional suffering, then you're ready to stand up to nothingness. To remain with nothingness is the ultimate freedom. In this freedom you're ready to accept suffering on the same logical level as bliss, and you have to have the same attitude to both of them. Bliss and suffering are temporary phenomena, nothingness is a permanent one.
<Rocky> This nothingness, is that what you would call the spirit? or spiritual?
<W> No, It is literally nothingness. No spirit or anything like this.
<Rocky> Yes, so the word spirit has never had any meaning to me because I don't know what a spirit is. But do you have any meaning for the word spirit?
<W> No.
<Rocky> Oh, this is why you say that your approach is towards the existential and not the spiritual?
<W> Yes. That's correct. It's not spiritual in the way the word is used these days. It's not new age. It's out of age.
<Rocky> I was thinking about this today. When you say that this nothingness or 'liberation' is "out of time", do you say that because time is a concept and "it" is outside of any concept?
<W> Yes, and if you want to go further, it's more no-time than out of time. Time IS a concept; purely functional.
<Rocky> This is something that I just kind of noticed today... I forgot that time is equivalent to a kilometer or something like that. But it is so believed to be a part of reality.
<W> Yes, and it needs a lot of self-remembering not to forget that time is a concept. But you will get it.
<Rocky> I think that also what makes it so convincing is that EVERYONE AGREES ON IT. TIME IS EVERWHERE (so to speak)
<W> Right, no duality.
<Rocky> Hmmm...You once mentioned that to understand what self-remembering is, it helps to have someone point it out to you. And to in a sense "mark" it. So, to someone who has a trained eye, it is something that can be calibrated?
<W> No, it doesn't function like this. Actually, I do not detect anything. It comes out of nothingness. Hints. Did you read Castaneda? If yes, there are some passages in which Don Juan explains this to Castaneda.
<Rocky> Oh... Okay. Hey, when I was reading Ouspensky, he was writing about G. speaking to him without talking. You aren't going to be doing that are you?
<W> Oh, this is my overall way of communicating. But it's more hidden as I also speak with my voice :)
<Rocky> hahaha
<W> I have to leave now, maybe we'll continue tomorrow?
<Rocky> Oh, I don't know.. I will try.
______________________________________________________
<W> Hello, what's going on?
<Rocky> Hello. Nothing that I can pinpoint. How should I start
<W> Just 3 words
<Rocky> Three words?
<W> Yes, say it in three words …one more word left.
<Rocky> Oh, okay. hahaha
Oh, okay... I feel clinical and lost. Normally I don't mind this but I have a bad feeling this time. Kind of like I should clear it up before I end up in the shits.
<W> What is your meaning of "clinical?"
<Rocky> It means dry and disconnected.
<W> All the time since when?
<Rocky> More or less since a month.
<W> Oh. Just like there's no life, just dullness?
<Rocky> Not so much that. The dullness is fine it is that there, oh okay I got it. It is like I am sometimes catching myself being identified with some thoughts and beliefs and it is happening a little more and the only thing that worries me this time is that I am not able to dis-identify sometimes. A few times I acted out some anger and the acting out was simultaneous with the awareness that I was angry.
<W> Acting out anger is dangerous. It can be the cause of all this. I mean acting out anger without considering that the cause of the anger is within yourself. Did you consider this?
<Rocky> Yes, that is it. A few weeks ago my girlfriend was being very hormonal (as women tend to get) and I raised my voice a little. From that I can see it snowballed into my requesting a chat.
<W> How would you have had to react in this situation to not to become re-identified?
<Rocky> Good question. I don't know. It is so difficult because when someone is giving me shit I sometimes get caught up in checking myself and forget to respond appropriately. Then I think I flip flopped this last time. When someone is giving you
shit (i.e. complaining about how you act, etc) how might you handle it?
<W> I'll answer this later. You didn't reply to my question.
<Rocky> Okay. I "should" have tried to take charge of where the dialogue was going and if that didn't work, give an ultimatum. Something like, "Either you act like an adult or I'll have to go home." Yes, that would have been the way to go.
<W> I agree. I think that's it. Anything else?
<Rocky> Well, what about the way sometimes she might try to ... No, no, it is all clear. It is clear what to do. Thank you.
<W> I have nothing to add.
<Rocky> Me too.
