My apologies to JB - I had mistakenly said Dr Andus introduced the article in question, but when I reviewed the thread just now, I saw it was JB.

Daly

Quoted text:
Alexander, thanks for referencing my post on benefits of getting an early start. Indeed, I believe many, if not most of us, may have times of days which are better suited to some tasks more than to others.

More recently I wrote another blog post which may also have relevance to this discussion - it looks at the notion of conscious awareness being beneficial, especially when we face the experience of overwhelm. I suggest that mindfulness practice enables the kind of conscious awareness which enables us to experience and react in a useful manner to those thoughts which interfere with our ability to be focused, and to work in an optimal manner.

This blog post may be found here: http://www.exuberanteclectic.com/2011/10/conscious-awareness-key-to-getting.html

The operative words in the article JB (corrected) introduced may be in its title: If You?re Busy, You?re Doing Something Wrong: The Surprisingly Relaxed Lives of Elite Achievers - and those words are ?surprisingly relaxed.?

We think of relaxation as something we do when we are not working, as the antithesis of work - but my experience, distorted as it often has been with issues related to ADHD and executive dysfunction, is that my best intellectual activity, or my best work as a chaplain or therapist, has occurred in the so-called flow state, which to me is very similar to being relaxed.

I think as research accumulates with regard to mindfulness practice, it may be said our best chance of achieving that kind of state may be through regular practice. It may not make us gifted in what we do, but it will perhaps shift our relationship to the stuff of our life in a way which enables a more relaxed approach. And with that go notions such as being focused, have greater awareness, being able to learn and understand without ?friction,? and so on. Having said that, I need to emphasize one does not practice mindfulness for any ?goal? or ?purpose? other than the practice. So while it is true certain contexts of our life - stress, overwhelm, chronic pain, grief - may lead to our taking up the practice, we do not do so with a specific goal.

Daly

Daly, I think that's a very useful distinction, and I would say that it might not just be useful, but required in many situations. If I am programming with no conscious outcome orientation, my program won't work. I'd also hope that the folks who designed the plane I'm on were actively conscious of the desired outcome.

I personally don't think flow and being conscious of the desired outcome are mutually exclusive in many realms, but for writing fiction, for example, I can see how a conscious outcome orientation would be an impediment.

Chris


Daly de Gagne wrote:

Attachment to conscious outcome is not a useful outcome orientation.

Conscious
awareness of what one's desired outcome is at the time one needs to be aware of it can be
very useful.

JBfrom
wrote:
>Correct. Conscious outcome orientation removes one from flow, because it
precipitates a cascade of conscious attempts to take control from the
subconscious.

You misunderstand the conscious/subconscious distinction I am using.

In this context, it is synonymous with the inner monologue.

For example, when programming, you have a subconscious "visualization" that is far more rich and deep than anything you could express in your inner monologue.

I am not sure, JB, whether I have misunderstood you, or you have misunderstood me.

From what you've written it would seem as though you are equating consciousness with inner monologue - I would not agree that conscious awareness equates to inner monologue, although at times it may include an inner monologue. A mindful person is able to be aware that an inner monologue may be occurring, to observe it, and to choose whether to attend to it, to return to awareness of the breath (a good way to shift gear, as it were), or to bring mindful attention to the task or whatever else is at hand.

One can be consciously aware without having an inner monologue, and without having thoughts.

Inner monologue may or may not be helpful - so much depends on the situation, the context. Inner monologue conceivably could be a useful exercise at a critical juncture in a process, but in another situation, where the monologue is of a scolding nature, or is obsessing with whether one will meet a deadline, it can be clearly maladaptive. Unless, of course, it leads you to do something differently that is worthwhile. The point is not to become attached to the inner monologue, or to judge it, but rather to observe, to accept, and then think/feel/do what is appropriate.

Conscious awareness is much more than cognitions, and defies an ability to be defined as either "this" or "that."

If the visualization of which you speak is subconscious, it is hard to say whether it is in the form of a visualization or not because it is "out" of consciousness. Visualization in the context then is a metaphor to say that the subconscious has in whatever form a concept which may be more comprehensive than what one is consciously aware of.

The process of creating is one which brings this concept to both mental and, as appropriate, a behavioral or physical manifestation.

The interplay of conscious and subconscious during this process is one which is complex, and more often than not, not one which most people have awareness of. Nonetheless, the interplay does play a role in many activities of life, and even in how we live our lives; this interplay can impact both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of our lives, including work and play, which may not always be mutually exclusive.

The critical factor in all of this from a mindfulness perspective, is that one's stance is that of the observer. Practice in mindfulness allows great flexibility in the various activities of daily life, whether programming, ball room dancing, or enjoying a sunset.

Daly



JBfrom wrote:

You misunderstand the conscious/subconscious distinction I am using.

In this
context, it is synonymous with the inner monologue.

For example, when
programming, you have a subconscious "visualization" that is far more rich and deep
than anything you could express in your inner monologue.

Clearly I need to avoid pronouns. I was addressing Chris, not Daly with that previous comment. Overall I think Daly's understanding of it is pretty good.

Although Daly's last post misinterprets what I'm referring to by "subconscious".

I don't mean that which is below one's conscious awareness, but rather that which is generated by one's subconscious and then bubbles into consciousness, as opposed to thought processes that are initiated and directed by the logical inner monologue.

In general, I find the inner monologue to be detrimental, and seek to stay in a mind like water state as much as possible.

JB, thanks for clarifying - I wasn't sure at the time whether you were referring to Chris, or to me, or to both of us.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you are referring to by subconscious. What do you mean by subconscious?

Your paragraph where you do offer some explanation leaves me with questions.

If by subconscious you do not "mean that which is below one's conscious awareness, but rather that which is generated by one's subconscious and then bubbles into consciousness," then how it can be the subconscious which you are defining? It seems like you are saying it is the product of the subconscious which is the subconscious - and I cannot see you meaning that. But it is what your words seem to say.

In terms of the inner monologue, who is to say it is logical? Or illogical? Or that it initiates and directs thought processes? My inner monologue often has maladaptive content (thoughts), and being aware of the inner monologue which is occurring, allows me to think more adaptively. The inner monologue, whether carried on at the level of consciousness or below (ie the subconscious), is itself a thought process. And, it may also be useful in initiating or directing thought processes.

In your last paragraph I'd agree that the inner monologue may at times be detrimental. However, that is different from saying conscious awareness of the inner monologue is detrimental. Conscious awareness provides the opportunity to create changes in the monologue.

I would say it is mind like water which enables one to be more aware of inner monologue - and - whether or not the inner monologue is helpful or not.

It is good to be in a mind like water state as much as possible. Where I would quibble is that mind like water is not necessarily the antithesis of the inner monologue. In fact they are very different things, and do not equate at opposities of each other. Lack of awareness of the inner monologue or an inability to remain detached from it so as to make useful choices in the moment, are issues. But if one has mind like water, these issues are less likely to be the problem they might otherwise be.

And one will more likely be open to whatever benefits the inner monologue may offer.

Daly

JBfrom wrote:

Clearly I need to avoid pronouns. I was addressing Chris, not Daly with that previous
comment. Overall I think Daly's understanding of it is pretty good.

Although
Daly's last post misinterprets what I'm referring to by "subconscious".

I don't
mean that which is below one's conscious awareness, but rather that which is
generated by one's subconscious and then bubbles into consciousness, as opposed to
thought processes that are initiated and directed by the logical inner monologue.


In general, I find the inner monologue to be detrimental, and seek to stay in a mind
like water state as much as possible.

Yes, that is precisely what I meant, however confusing my shorthand may be.

The inner monologue is logical insofar as it is limited to one word after another and therefore at best represents a linear, logical sequence of linguistic meaning. The subconscious mind is not so limited.

In my view, it is a simple question of info throughput. One pipe is big and the other is small.

If you allow the little pipe to be your rate limiter, the big pipe will be way under capacity, yet it abhors a vacuum. Bad things ensue.

JB, your definition of logical is interesting.

But to me, it is like saying that because one makes one step after another by definition one walks in a straight line.

I don't know about you, but I have had inner monologues which, though they may have been one word after another, were far from logical.

My point in the previous post was that inner monologues may occur either consciously or otherwise.

I think the big pipe, little pipe analogy reflects, at least on the surface, a simplistic approach to the way the mind works.

If there's a limiting factor I would suggest it is linked to our ability to be mindful - the less mindful we are the more we are limited.

Daly

JBfrom wrote:

Yes, that is precisely what I meant, however confusing my shorthand may be.

The
inner monologue is logical insofar as it is limited to one word after another and
therefore at best represents a linear, logical sequence of linguistic meaning. The
subconscious mind is not so limited.

In my view, it is a simple question of info
throughput. One pipe is big and the other is small.

If you allow the little pipe to be
your rate limiter, the big pipe will be way under capacity, yet it abhors a vacuum. Bad
things ensue.

You can read Refactor Your Wetware for more on big pipe/little pipe theory and l-mode vs r-mode.

It's certainly possible to have allusive and illogical word sequences; these awaken far more of the subconscious, e.g. poetry or "mimsy were the borogroves."

I am saying that the inner monologue tends to be associated with l-mode, logic, linguistic facility, linearity, etc. Not that it always is.

However allusive it may get, it is not possible for the inner monologue to ever encapsulate the entire subconsciously generated flow of raw thought, which is experienced in half-peripheral chaotic non-linguistic r-mode form.

Therefore, I maintain that the subconscious must be the driver, not the internal monologue, because it has faster reflexes, better vision, and is 100x smarter and more emotionally balanced.

Also, a non-conscious internal monologue is an oxymoron in my model, since the inner monologue is an audible voice in one's head.

For unspecified reasons, I'm afraid I can't discuss this at any but the most abstract level here, so confusion is inevitable.

JB, I appreciate this discussion. Thank you.

I will look at Refactor Your Wetware.

I think the difficulties with this kind of a discussion arise around defining terms, having mutually agreed upon definitions, and being able to reconcile the differing paradigms from which we are working.

While understanding the value and need for very theoretical approaches, ultimately it is necessary to be able to present people with a practical real world approach, in plain language, which will enable them to function more effectively in *whatever* context or life situation in which they find themselves.

That is why I keep coming back to mindfulness. I have always had an attraction to meditation and the benefits it offers. However, in my wildest dreams, I never anticipated the empirical data which has accumulated over the last 15 years or so, largely due to the work of Jon Kabat-Zinn.

Daly

JBfrom wrote:

You can read Refactor Your Wetware for more on big pipe/little pipe theory and l-mode
vs r-mode.

It's certainly possible to have allusive and illogical word sequences;
these awaken far more of the subconscious, e.g. poetry or "mimsy were the
borogroves."

I am saying that the inner monologue tends to be associated with
l-mode, logic, linguistic facility, linearity, etc. Not that it always is.


However allusive it may get, it is not possible for the inner monologue to ever
encapsulate the entire subconsciously generated flow of raw thought, which is
experienced in half-peripheral chaotic non-linguistic r-mode form.

Therefore,
I maintain that the subconscious must be the driver, not the internal monologue,
because it has faster reflexes, better vision, and is 100x smarter and more
emotionally balanced.

Also, a non-conscious internal monologue is an oxymoron in
my model, since the inner monologue is an audible voice in one's head.

For
unspecified reasons, I'm afraid I can't discuss this at any but the most abstract
level here, so confusion is inevitable.

Thanks Daly. I enjoyed it too. I'll look into Zabat.

I go a bit beyond mindfulness, which I view as excessively passive by itself.

My approach incorporates frame control as one of its goals, and also strong identity convergence, and emotion management. I do a lightweight form of meditation continuously.

JB, it's Jon Kabat-Zinn.

The practice of mindfulness has no specific goals. the teachers say even to have the goal of becoming mindful is not helpful.

If there is a goal to mindfulness practice it would be simply to do the practice, and to seek greater mindfulness in the practice.

Whatever follows, follows. Mindfulness is not a way of programming, or of becoming more efficient, though it may lead to such outcomes.

Mindfulness is serendipitous practice in that one never knows what will occur in in its wake.

When used as a means of stress reduction, or post-anesthesia pain relief and recovery, though there is a "reason" or "motive" for beginning or undertaking the practice, the practice itself is no different than if a life-long mindfulness practitioner was sitting for practice on a hill top, or in a crowded city bus.

Mindfulness practice certainly is passive in terms of what we think of when we use words such as active or passive. What may occur as a result of this "passivity" can be transformational, and this isn't me theorizing: empirical, peer reviewed studies from various disciplines confirm what I am saying.

Daly

JBfrom wrote:

Thanks Daly. I enjoyed it too. I'll look into Zabat.

I go a bit beyond mindfulness,
which I view as excessively passive by itself.

My approach incorporates frame
control as one of its goals, and also strong identity convergence, and emotion
management. I do a lightweight form of meditation continuously.

Correct on both counts. Mindfulness can be designed and undertaken for a purpose, and yet the practice of mindfulness must be done without any emotional or conscious agenda.

I wrote an article inspired by this discussion.

It's titled "Laziness and distraction: the ultimate productivity techniques"

http://www.cyborganize.org/clarity/why-use-it/the-best-work-smarter-not-harder/laziness-and-distraction-the-ultimate-productivity-techniques/

I've continued this discussion at http://www.mypersonalproductivity.com/topics/viewt/2/0/check-email-first-thing-in-the-morning-or-not