The Loop of Resistance and the Sense of Self
El bucle de la resistencia y el sentido del yo
A wide-ranging conversation about how we create suffering through resistance to present experience, the self-reinforcing loop of narrative and emotion, and the question of what we truly are beyond thoughts and body.
The Loop of Resistance and the Sense of Self
A wide-ranging conversation about how we create suffering through resistance to present experience, the self-reinforcing loop of narrative and emotion, and the question of what we truly are beyond thoughts and body.
I don't have anything particular to share, but what you were all talking about really resonated with me. I connected with the idea of choosing. For me, it's like a confirmation bias in the mind. We're always looking for evidence to support the stories we tell ourselves. If we have an idea of who we are or what other people see us as, it's almost like we're constantly trying to defend it: "You're saying this because you think that," or "What you're saying doesn't line up with how I see myself." Most of the time, what's happening isn't really about us, but we always think it is.
Exactly. It's made about us, by ourselves, because at root it's a very subtle "no" to what is happening now. Even if it concerns something from the past, it's always now, because what's present is the memory of what happened. That memory is being invoked now because there is something being experienced that we're saying no to. Ultimately, in the felt sense, it's going to be a discomfort.
The lamp and the "no"
To put it simply: right now I have a lamp here. I could have a subtle "no" to that light, and that "no" is going to turn into a story. It's going to require a story about why what's happening now shouldn't be happening. It could be a sound, an image, a discomfort in the body. Within that "no," there's going to be a narrative that involves me, but it's the conceptual me. "That shouldn't be happening, because I am the narrative of me." This creates an emotion, and the link between the story and the emotion is not going to be seen as a self-chosen fabrication.
Thus the victim.
Exactly. There's going to be a "no" to something that's happening. That "no" takes the form of a narrative about why and how things should be different. The narrative creates an emotion, and we won't see that we are actually producing that by choice. We are invoking the story, energizing the story. The story produces an emotion, and because the link isn't seen, the emotion then validates the story. For example, the inner dialogue might go: "Obviously I'm uncomfortable because of the light, because I have this emotion, this discomfort, because of the light." The emotional discomfort validates the story that the light should not be happening in that certain way. But actually, the emotional discomfort is created by the narrative.
Internally, subjectively, the victim position sees that emotion as a direct byproduct of the lamp. It's experienced as an inevitable consequence of the lamp shining its light in that particular way. Or there's a sound on the street that I want to stop, and I feel a discomfort emotionally. I experience this as an inevitable consequence of that sound, as if it's completely linked to the sound. But it's actually linked to my resistance to that sound, which creates a narrative about why it shouldn't be happening, which creates an emotion that then validates the narrative.
We do this constantly. I'm obviously constructing a simplified narrative to describe the process, but each of us will have our own very complex, constantly shifting stories and narratives and emotions. What I'm pointing to as ultimate responsibility is seeing that you are choosing all of that, energizing it, and creating it.
So how we engage with our experience, how we turn something into black and white, good and bad, is a form of self-victimization?
Yes. And that simultaneously disempowers you from actual creativity. The clarity that is needed arises once all of that resistance to the now is seen as a choice. Then you will have the clarity to see what is actually happening, so that you can co-create with it. By co-create, I mean: dance with, manifest, work with the movement of the universe, which is in constant motion. Whatever you see that truly needs change, that you can be part of, you flow and act and move toward it. It's an act of creativity.
It seems like the first step is just to neutralize our experience before one could co-create with something.
You're always co-creating. But because of this resistance to what is actually happening, the co-creation is suboptimal. We end up co-creating something that keeps validating and reinforcing the narrative, the contraction.
Letting difficult emotions be
(A second student joins in.) Regarding what was said about neutralization, I had a simple example from yesterday. For whatever reason, I was emotionally very dysregulated because of something that happened, something that stems from a childhood wound I'm aware of and have been working with. It got activated yesterday. On top of the emotional dysregulation, my mind, as my adult self within my current experience, was saying, "This emotional outburst is meaningless." So the mind started trying to fight that feeling. Once I realized it was almost impossible to fight it, I said, "Something got activated. It's bodily, it's very deep, and I cannot solve this at this very moment. I'm just going to let it stay there. Let it hang out on its own. Give it space." My adult self didn't necessarily agree with it, because in my present circumstances I'm fine, there's no problem, while my inner child says otherwise. I couldn't silence it, so I decided to let the space be as it is, because I knew this was a story I'd been telling myself. It affects everything, affects the present moment, but I couldn't fight it or neutralize it. I just let it sit there, gave it space, and stepped back to see how it would unfold. I was able to do that, but it took me all day. It was not easy.
Thank you for sharing. Neutralizing is just another map. Neutralizing can become a strategy to change what's happening now, and again it's like looking at the lamp, wanting the lamp not to shine, and then getting mentally and emotionally aroused about that. It's something that's already happening, already being experienced. This could be emotions, thoughts, or something perceived directly, like sound.
The fist and the addiction to self
(A third student.) Quick question about suffering as well. Suffering is also something already happening, as you were saying. And the resistance to that is also self-referential, loopy in some way. Something seemed strange about it, so I wanted to point that out.
One way I've pointed to this in the past is the example of creating a fist. When you make a fist and squeeze, it creates sensation. That sensation can become something you feel intimately attached to, because there's a sense of a "me" there. It has a stability in time. Subjectively, the experience is that there isn't anything you can actually refer to as "me" that is stable. Experience is always an infinite motion of coming and going sensations, thoughts, images, sounds. There isn't a stable something that can be referred to as "me."
One of the things we do is anchor that sense of self in sensations in the body, because the body has some form of stability. But if you really pay attention, the body is a constant flow of coming and going sensations. There isn't anything truly stable in the body either. However, if you create a fist, if you contract, that can start to feel somewhat stable and permanent. After a while, since you've been doing this since you were two years old, it starts to feel uncomfortable. But the minute you release the fist, the intense sensation you were identifying with starts to go away.
When that happens, it feels like we dissolve, and it's very scary. So the reaction of the body-mind, as soon as things feel a little too dissolved, is to contract again.
Suffering is a word that points to a process that is actually quite dynamic and constantly changing. It doesn't have one flavor. At its root, you could say it's a resistance to what's happening. But the way that resistance takes shape is a constant flow of discomforts, desires, needs, worries, and emotions. It all has to do with creating something that can be stabilized as "me."
Then you're between a rock and a hard place: if I release, I face fear; if I keep contracting, I face more discomfort, pressure, and distress. So we live our lives trying to find the limit of how much we can contract and for how long before coming back to release. That whole process is addictive. The addiction is ultimately about preserving a sense of self.
The qualities of the false self
By "self," I'll be specific. I mean: limited, separate, autonomous, located. These are the qualities of what I'm referring to. That I am limited means I begin and end in time and space. Located means I begin and end in space: I'm not there, I'm here. So there's a location, which means limitation. We identify with a body, so I'm limited to my body. I appeared into this world when the body appeared, and I will disappear when the body disappears: also limited in time, in that I began and I will end. And that I am autonomous, that I have agency born by myself, from myself, and none other. All of these are the beliefs or attributes that we hold, which constitute the false sense of self.
Inner integrity and the question "Am I the body?"
I guess learning or understanding internally that we are not our thoughts, could you speak to that?
What I'm saying is actually very easy to recognize, because it's a simple exercise. But there needs to be a really strong desire to see the truth and to have integrity. I describe it as inner integrity.
External integrity is how I relate to the world and other people. If I do what I say, say what I do, and I'm honest, that's external integrity. Then there's inner integrity: do I tell myself my own truth, or do I lie to myself? There's obviously a bridge between the two. I can tell myself the truth but not tell others. Or I can lie to myself and then, even though I might think I'm telling the truth to others, I'm really saying something untrue because I'm not true within myself.
Given that, the question is: if you look at your experience, you can see that everything you know and experience about the body is experienced by something. That which is experiencing your body cannot be the body. That which experiences cannot be what is being experienced.
For example, if I look at my hand, I have sensations and I can see the hand. I experience my hand through sensations that come (we know it's a nervous system, but let's stay with direct experience). Right now I have sensations and sight. Now: am I the hand? If there is inner integrity, the answer is no. I could not possibly be my hand. At minimum, I am more than my hand. And we know that if I lose my hand, I will still remain. If you keep applying this process, you will see it applies to everything you experience that is your body. The same applies to thoughts: every concept, every thought is experienced by something.
The mind-body problem as distraction
This can get tricky if you have a scientific mind, because you will come to a point where you have to contend with a fundamental question in science: is consciousness or matter fundamental? The resolution is to see that this question doesn't matter. What matters is the experience right now. What matters is to see that every time there is a thought, there is something experiencing the thought that cannot itself be a thought. Every time there is a relationship to the body, there is something experiencing the body. The mind-body problem (which is more fundamental, matter or consciousness?) is actually a distraction from this. It's an irrelevant question, because what I'm talking about can be realized without contemplating the scientific problem. It has been realized long before science existed. And when it is realized, the question of what is fundamental is simply not relevant.
Dancing with what is
(A second student returns.) I'm really interested in this dance with phenomena. I recognize that if you're caught in some aversion or story regarding a lamp or any other phenomenon, you're not going to have a great dance because you're not in touch with what is.
You're in friction with what is, exactly.
The way to have a good dance is to know where your partner is, where their axis is, to be in tune with what actually is. At the same time, even though it's a constant moving flow of phenomena (nothing is static: your body, your thoughts, your relationships, everything is in a constant state of flow), there is some temporary degree of structure. We're born and we have these bodies. Yes, they're regenerating, but they hold their form. I can hold my hands up because I have bones, blood, an organization there. I think the same is true of relationships and interpersonal connections. You have a primary partnership, a job, multiple commitments. We're actively maintaining these relationships.
I've been really interested in something related. Yesterday I had dinner with a friend who's been very excited about her new boyfriend, a very magical connection for several months now. She did a DMT experience with him present, and she saw how part of their connection, part of the magic of it, was related to a story she had about him. She was worried, because she experienced some degree of ego death and a revelation that part of what she found attractive was her narrative about who he is and what was going on. It changed her attraction to him and her sense of the relationship.