Bubs b2wf journal - #64 by Kub933 Just continuing my thoughts on this.
Recently I was reading a book called ‘determined’ by Robert sapolsky. Essentially he is making the stance that free will is a myth, that every behaviour can be explained by what happened a second before, a few minutes before, during development and all the way back. When we refer to something such as ‘I chose to do X’ what we are really saying is that the sight of A caused the thought of B which caused C and all the way to X.
Another way to look at this is saying ‘I chose X’ is a way of talking about those same deterministic events (A,B,C → X) but at a higher level of abstraction. Just like I might go to a university and point out the library, the cafeteria, this and that school and then wonder where the ‘university’ itself is, the term is merely a way to describe the buildings at a higher level of abstraction.
So this got me thinking about the application of the method. For example if I am teaching someone a martial arts technique, if they are pretty experienced I am able to talk at a higher level of abstraction because they have the building blocks (on the lower levels) to understand what I am talking about. If I use those same terms to a complete beginner they will think I am talking gibberish. What I have to do with the beginner is to implement those building blocks at the lower levels and some time down the line they can effortlessly work at the higher levels also.
So bringing this back around to actual freedom. Someone who has been a faithful denizen of the real world comes to me and says ‘how do I have a PCE’ and I reply with - ‘by allowing it to happen’.
What I said might be factually correct but is it practically applicable to the person in front of me? Do they have the building blocks to do anything with what I just said? Or will it appear like useless gibberish to them?
So we have someone like Richard who due to whatever circumstances was able to get on with the method and jump to an out from control virtual freedom. Does it make sense to talk in the same terms that worked for Richard to someone who is coming from a completely different situation. And does it make sense to simply refer them to the same information over and over when clearly it is not practically helpful.
If I did this as a martial arts coach and over and over it was the student that was unable to follow my apparently simple information, what is really going on? I would say it means I am unable to teach them something, it is not them who are unable to learn.
I am not in disagreement that the method is about feeling good, that the PCE informs the ultimate goal. This is not what I am proposing that should be shifted . But perhaps the way in which it is practically applied to each different individual needs some tinkering.
Perhaps those of us coming from the depths of the human condition, those who are deeply mired in the conditioning, maybe they require things to be broken down on the levels that are practically applicable.
I remember Peter mentioning in the virtual freedom video that it took him a very long time to overcome this huge resistance he had to feeling good, whereas for Richard this was never even a thing.
So what I am wondering is whether there are other practical ways that the same method (enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive) can be put across to individuals who clearly are interested, trying and yet failing, without simply referring them back to information which has failed to do the job.