Viewing entries in
Observing Mindfulness
Making it a general principle to “accept, then redirect” thoughts - that is, to accept the initial manifestations of a thought stream and then redirect attention to the “present” – reflects low regard for what thought streams have to offer. The technique of labeling moods and emotions reflects a similar devaluation of emotional life.
Words point to something beyond themselves. When you “accept” a thought, that means you have not resisted an arbitrary stopping point in the potentially endless signifying.
Some patterns of thought are like family. A few words out of their mouths and you know where they’re going.
The phrase “wandering thoughts” is interesting. Why not call the movement of thoughts “exploring thoughts”? From the outside, exploration may look like wandering. From the outside, you can’t see direction; you can’t see what is being sought. It’s all helter-skelter.
I just don’t see mild –sometimes very mild - stress as “suffering”. Occasional feelings of irritation, guilt, anger, shame, embarrassment, disappointment, frustration, chagrin, boredom, and all the rest of the less-than-positive spectrum of emotion are not a cause for alarm. These are not “toxic” emotions, unless you define them as such.
…the origin of thinking is some perplexity, confusion, or doubt. Thinking is not a case of spontaneous combustion; it does not occur just on "general principles." There is something specific which occasions and evokes it. (Dewey 2010, p 1)
Although “wandering” conveys an impression of thoughts adrift, unanchored and chaotic, it may be more accurate to view such thoughts as triggered by a sense of concern and seeking some resolution. The Wandering Mind is theExploring Mind: exploring the problem space, a few moves at a time.
Imaginary conversations and scenarios are like the brain running through hypotheticals and counterfactuals, just in case. The imagined events may never happen but something like them may and the process of playing them out in the brain is a kind of problem-solving exercise that can sharpen one’s readiness for whatever may come one’s way.
Some may say the prosody of thoughts simply reflects their emotionality: words flowing on a sea of feeling. But when we engage in imaginary conversations, are the feelings heard in the words independent from the communicative intention, which is to have an effect on an imagined audience? Emotional expression is calibrated in the real world – why not in the world inside our heads?
Thoughts that amplify bad feelings aren’t necessarily dysfunctional – they may serve a useful purpose. Some unpleasant thoughts lead to breakthroughs; others become repetitive and reap diminishing returns.
Humans are animals. Questions to ponder: What does it mean for an animal to become enlightened? Is it possible to become enlightened incrementally (like gaining expertise)? Is enlightenment on a continuum with regular human capacities, or does it represent a qualitative shift? Or is the approach to enlightenment incremental but then actual achievement is a qualitative shift (kinda like expertise too)? Can one be enlightened and then fall out of it? Why? Why not?
When you yield to a thought, you stay with it as it expands and meanders. You haven’t prejudged whether it will lead of anything of value. It may lead to a tangle of thorny bushes or to a treasure trove....
What is the difference between “awareness” and focal attention? Is “awareness” the same as “consciousness”?... Is “awareness” of online focal attention possible, i.e., awareness simultaneous with and distinct from focal attention? Or is “awareness” really the same thing as focal attention? And if we are “aware” of focal attending, is it simultaneous with the attending or awareness of attending that just passed? Please answer and get back to me.
We often talk about thoughts as if they were an outpouring of words, with word after word reeling off like widgets coming off an assembly line. When I hear my thoughts they are more like participants in a conversation. As social animals, our behaviors are often communicative acts. And that includes cognitive behavior.
The world places conflicting demands on our brains. When we are intentionally paying attention to sense impressions or tasks, “stimulus-independent-thought” (aka “tasked-unrelated-thought” aka “mind wandering”) is unable to proceed. This is because focusing on something taps into the same general cognitive resource, one which can only “handle only one coherent data stream at a time” (Teasdale et al 1995, p 38).
To “accept” a thought that just unfolded and then to redirect attention to something else is a type of shallow processing. It’s like listening to the first few notes of a song and then turning your attention to something else – all you can really say is you heard a few notes, not the entire song. What you’re really doing is accepting little notes of thoughts. If you’re already pretty sure where those notes lead to and you don’t want to listen to the rest of the song, then there’s no need to listen to the whole thing. But acknowledge that this is “acceptance” writ small.
Think of thoughts as guests at the party of your mind. Imagine being at a family gathering and the relatives are a talkative bunch. You are “observing” the scene not as a detached bystander but as a loving, involved family member. You catch snatches of conversation, some not that interesting, some best to ignore.
A lot of mind wandering does seem to be on a mission of sorts: rehearsing, planning, rehashing – as if trying to achieve resolution to some sort of unfinished business. Unfinished business implies a goal – something has not been achieved. Of course, many of these mental missions are aborted mid-stream, as life and other missions intervene.
We’ve all been advised to “accept” some bad thing. You know: “it is what it is”, “embrace the suck”, and variations thereof. But what does it mean to accept something?
If we want to avoid deeper processing, then lingering in observation mode is just the ticket. While we observe, we are not actively inhibiting thoughts and feelings, we are just watching them to do their thing. After a while the act of observation interferes with directional or associative elaboration of thoughts and feelings. It prevents them from going further. It prevents them from branching out. Without letting ourselves get “caught up” in them, thoughts and feelings peter out.