jump to navigation

Thought Control and the Subconscious November 27, 2010

Posted by ekarlpierson in 24) Thought Control and the Subconscious.
add a comment

ED: The rover has regained self-control, thought control, right?

WW: No, self-awareness, which is born out of dis-identification from self. Have you ever taken a serious look to see if you can control thoughts? I have thoughts come along over which I have absolutely no control. The trolls come up with them repeatedly. If it is possible to control thoughts, to have self-control, then that’s only oppression—violence. Not many of us would be so brazen as to wrestle someone down to the ground during a conversation and cover up their mouth to keep them quiet! Wouldn’t it be the same thing to do that to our own thoughts? Besides that, once the thought came along, you’ve already had it and it’s too late! Once someone blurts out a rude remark, it’s too late. What will we do, turn back the clock and change a fact into something else?

ED: Well, I control my thoughts.

WW: Before the fact or after the fact?

ED: I’m not following you.

WW: Are you controlling what already happened or what may happen?

ED: I’m controlling my thoughts.

WW: Are you controlling the thoughts that came up a few milliseconds ago or the thoughts that may come up a few milliseconds from now?

ED: I just put things out of my mind. It’s a question of will power.

WW: Okay, so you can put things out of your mind. A thought comes up and you put it out of your mind.

ED: Right. How do you get through life without being in control of the mind?

WW: Where was the thought when you threw it out?

ED: It was in my mind.

WW: So the thoughts come to your mind, totally out of your control? Then you must not be in control of your mind or you wouldn’t have thoughts that need to be thrown out.

ED: Well, I can’t control every thought that comes to mind.

WW: That’s what I said.

ED: Well, the subconscious just brings them up.

WW: So you have a mind whereby you can control your thoughts by force after the thoughts have already appeared and done the damage, but you have a subconscious that you cannot control?

ED: Well, yeah, that’s why they call it a subconscious.

WW: Have you ever found your subconscious?

ED: Well, no. If I found it then it wouldn’t be a subconscious! Like I said, that’s why they call it a subconscious.

WW: Who calls it a subconscious?

ED: Psychologists and psychiatrists. It’s common knowledge.

WW: Where did they get that from?

ED: Freud, I think.

WW: I wonder why they don’t get it on their own instead of from Freud?

ED: Freud must have been able to dig down and find it.

WW: I’ve done some digging, but I haven’t found it. Maybe I haven’t dug in the right spot. I can’t say that I believe in a subconscious.

ED: Maybe it’s like a solar system object. Scientists have proven the object was there before they saw it.

WW: Maybe it’s like a whipping boy. People can blame their problems on a subconscious to absolve themselves of responsibility.

ED: So you’re going so far as to say that there is no subconscious.

WW: On every disintegrative idea that comes up, I have been able to identify the source. As near as I can tell, they all came from an adopted or self-manufactured ideology. Maybe they were there from genetic inheritance, but it doesn’t matter as long as I can see them. I don’t know how they could be from a subconscious if I can see them sitting right there, smoking a big cigar and blowing smoke in my face.

I’m not saying that Freud was entirely washed-up; I’m just saying that he erred in a few points. The main problem is that he didn’t recognize Delta. He also didn’t recognize that a person can grow a new part of the self, or more correctly, reactivate a function that’s been withered since birth, a function that sees the rest of self as a fallacy. It’s really quite understandable that he missed it because so few individuals see the need to do it. So few people even consider the possibility.

ED: So you’re saying that all these well-educated people are wrong and you’re right?

WW: I would say that Freud gave them a somewhat inaccurate picture from which to work.

ED: Okay, so you’re saying that all these well-educated people have an inaccurate picture and you don’t?

WW: Not totally wrong, just less accurate.

ED: You‘ve got moxie.

WW: I just don’t accept authority. The authorities have been proved incorrect repeatedly throughout history on spiritual matters and technical matters, but each new authority thinks they have finally got it right and they find plenty of people to follow them. I don’t want to be one of those followers.

How about if we again check out this idea of controlling thoughts. Why do we feel that there is a need to control thoughts? When you go to a movie, do you try to control the characters in the movie? Don’t you just watch the movie and let it play out?

PARTICIPANT: Sometimes I wish the characters would do something that they aren’t doing.

WW: Let’s take this further. If you could control the characters in the movie, it wouldn’t be a very interesting movie would it?

PARTICIPANT: No. The fun of a movie is that you don’t know what’s going to happen next.

WW: What’s the difference between watching a movie on the big screen and the movie that’s projected on our own image screen, the imagination?

PARTICIPANT: When I have a movie on my own screen, it causes bad feelings …emotions.

WW: But you know that the characters on the big screen are not you and therefore you can watch a movie without having all of those emotions. Why doesn’t that happen with the thoughts or characters on your own screen?

PARTICIPANT: But there’s a difference between having the thoughts and emotions on the inside and watching the characters on the outside.

WW: There’s a difference? What difference?

PARTICIPANT: Because I’m having the thoughts as opposed to just watching them.

WW: Okay, now we’re getting somewhere! I’m not picking on you now. We’re trying to get somewhere with this, and the statement that you just made tells the tale for the way we all function. We’re having the thoughts as opposed to just watching them. When we’re having thoughts, we may as well say that we are the thoughts. We have identified with the thoughts and we then function as if the thoughts were I. We see the movie screen of self as a part of our being. What do you think would happen if the new I—the detached I that we’ve talked about—could stand back from the screen and see it as not I, but as a projection of the trolls? What do you think may happen if the new I stopped trying to control the images that the trolls put up on the screen?

PARTICIPANT: I’m still back on the internal movie as part of our being.

ANOTHER PARTICIPANT: He’s saying that the internal movie is no more a part of our being than the outside movie is.

WW: Correct! Why can’t we just let the internal projection go on? Is there really a difference? Do we have to differentiate between the outside and the inside?

PARTICIPANT: But I don’t like the stuff that goes on in the internal screen. I don’t want to be that type of person.

WW: But we just stated that the imaginary screen is not I. If the images on the screen are not I, then how could I be that type of person? I am just watching a movie on my imaginary screen.

PARTICIPANT: Can we just let the movie run amok?

WW: What if we did let the movie run amok? When we go to the theater and watch a movie on the big screen, don’t we let it run amok? We pay hard earned money to go into the theater, knowing that the movie will run amok and it will be entirely out of our control.

PARTICIPANT: You’ve talked about carrying an idea through, not just dropping it without completing it. On that theme, what if we did just let the mind run amok, unchecked. Where would it take us? I’m afraid that I’d turn into some sort of sociopath. You know, Jack The Ripper or something like that.

(Group laughter and comments.)
WW: I think we can be quite certain that Jack The Ripper was identified with the trolls. I don’t think you need to worry about becoming a sociopath. If you can’t dis-identify with the imaginary screen, then you won’t be free to let be what is. Let me re-phrase that. It’s only when we recognize that the screen images are not I that we can watch them and leave them alone.

These trolls have an interesting characteristic. They don’t like being watched. Did you ever see one of those security videos on television where they were videotaping a shoplifter? Shoplifters will only behave as they do, when they think no one is watching. If they realize that they are being surveilled, they immediately change their behavior. The shoplifters don’t run amok when they realize that they’re under surveillance. They straighten up and act civilized, in hopes that they won’t get caught.

That reminds me of a story my dad told me about roaches. During World War II, he was stationed for period in Tampa, Florida where he lived in a roach ridden apartment. He could hear the roaches scurrying around on the walls, floors, and countertops. If he sneaked into the kitchen and turned on the lights, the roaches would run for cover in any hole, crack, or cranny they could find.
The trolls are a bit like the roaches. They prefer to work in darkness and when we awaken and shine an observing light on them, they often run away and quietly hide. When we live in the darkness they make noise and proliferate.

PARTICIPANT: What about the things on our imaginary screen that are not trolls? I mean, if we didn’t have an imagination, we wouldn’t be human.

WW: Wait, wait. We’re not trying to stop the imagination, we’re just trying to see it as an object, a video, not I.

PARTICIPANT: But I use the imagination to visualize some project that I’m working on.

WW: Excellent point. The imagination is a great thing. I haven’t said that I want to get rid of the imagination. I’m saying that we are better served to keep the imagination in its place as a tool—the same way that a drill or a hammer is a tool.

We’ve probably all heard someone talk about a great strength becoming a great weakness, or a great weakness becoming a great strength. The spine of vertebrates is considered to be a great asset because of the mobility that it allows. It’s also a great weakness because it’s so subject to serious injury. We’ve got a doctor sitting here that I’m sure can attest to that. Our modern computers we have in our homes can be dazzling, but they can also crash and lose years of information in a heartbeat. The imagination is a fantastic tool and a great asset. Like the weakness of the spine, it becomes the playground of the trolls and a device of conflict.

PARTICIPANT: I like to reward myself for making progress in a given area. Is there some way to apply that to this subject matter?

WW: I’m not quite following you on that. I’m not sure what you mean; rewarding yourself on this subject.

PARTICIPANT: Well, I’ve heard you go over most of these subjects before and I would like to make these concepts work for me, but I have a difficult time implementing them. I’d like to know if there is some way to reward myself for applying this to my life. Maybe the reward would help make things stick.

WW: After we live a certain way for decades, it’s too much to ask to be able to suddenly drop a way of seeing the world, then pick up a different way of seeing. We must have resistance to what we’re trying to do—resistance to drive. Look, if you could make all of this work for you just by hearing it, then it has no value; it would be too easy. Let’s carry this further and make it a complete idea. Suppose you could suddenly become a god, knowing everything about everything, performing great feats at a mere wish. You would have reached the end of the rainbow, having no more challenges, nothing more to discover, nothing of interest to see around the next corner. Everything would be a rehash of something you’ve seen or done before. There would be no more “wow” remaining in your endeavors. Does that sound like an existence that would be worth anything?

PARTICIPANT: I get it. I’ve set up an ideal for myself. I’ve sucker-punched myself with a big wish.

WW: There you go! You’ve made a new discovery today. If you already knew it all, you wouldn’t have been led to a discovery. That reminds me of a favorite saying of a guy I used to work with. “Wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first.” The wish, along with the happiness or good feelings that we intend from a wish, is an illusion.

How about the reward? Do you want to treat yourself like a dog?

PARTICIPANT: You mean because we train dogs with rewards?

WW: Right. People use rewards and punishment when they train their dogs. Why would you do that to yourself? Isn’t one part of your fragmented awareness trying to reward another fragment? How would you like to know that someone was trying to manipulate you with rewards and punishment? Aren’t they just playing you for a sucker because they know that you want to alleviate the pain of disturbance? I suppose we’ve all had employers or someone else that have tried that ploy on us.

PARTICIPANT: What have you done when someone tries that on you?

WW: Nothing. I’m not going to argue the point with them, and I don’t care to be a participant in those types of schemes. I do my job.