On the Containers of the Mind

This Week's Questions

• Does healing actually reprogram the mind?
• Is understanding the logic of things the first part of learning?
• Does why logic have a direct correlation to traumatic events (submergences)?

Do you know?

[Question 1] Is the functional aspect of learning, that is, understanding the logic of a concept, the first piece in true learning?
[Answer] No. It is the last. In other words, logic is the direct result of our efforts to explain to others what has emerged or submerged in us. Even so, there are times wherein we can have some pretty beautiful logic in place before we heal. We just cannot benefit from this logic until after we heal.

As for the actual order in which we learn, everything begins with a personal experience. In this experience, whatever we witness gets integrated into the inner four layers of our personality. This is the visual integration of learning.

Once this happens, whatever we have visually witnessed then rapidly expands outward, and quickly integrates into the two middle layers of our personality. This is the medical integration.

Finally, whatever we have just learned gets integrated into what we already know, including into any previously existing but yet to be experienced logic. Here, then, is where the functional integration of learning occurs. Last, not first.

As a side note, people often wonder if functional learning ups the odds for having an emergence. As far as I can tell, it probably does. Thus, Louis Pasteur was probably right when he said, "Chance favors only the prepared mind." Most times anyway.

[Question 2] Does “why logic” have a direct correlation to traumatic events (submergences), and is the natural why directly related to emergences?
[Answer] The key to understanding your questions lies in the word "directly." Thus, in order to understand what I'm about to say, you need to first ask yourself, to what is the word "directly" referring?

The answer?

With regard to submergent events (also known as "traumatic events"), the amount of why logic generated correlates directly to the combined experience of both the severity of the suffering and the length of time in which you experience this suffering. Thus, the longer and more intensely you spend time in Layers 8 and 7, the more you suffer and the more this suffering generates why logic. (WL = ST; Why Logic = Suffering x Time)

With regard to emergent events (also known as "healing moments," "learning / discovery," "becoming more conscious," and "learning to love",) the amount of natural logic directly correlates to the combined experience of both the intensity of the discovery and the length of time in which you experience this discovery. Thus, the longer and more intensely you spend time in Layers 9 and 10, the more amazement you feel and the more this amazement generates natural whys. (NL = DT; Natural Logic = Discovery times Time)

Now in order to understand what I have just said, remember, we do not always get injured by traumatic events. Thus, in most instances, experiencing a trauma simply causes us to go into shock gradually. This means we do not get startled and so, we do not get injured.

Less often then, experiencing a trauma causes us to go into shock abruptly; to be startled; but not because we get wounded but rather, because we relive an already existing injury.

Even less often still, we experience a trauma in a newly startling way, which causes us to incur a new injury. Fortunately, as adults, we rarely experience this last case, the result of our living mostly in the protective detachment of Layers 1 -4.

My point?

There are actually three kinds of shock. More over, each kind generates a different amount of why logic. The three kinds? [1] Simple shock, [2] wounding shock, and [3] reiterative shock.

Thus, our experiences of simple shock generate in us the least why logic. In these events, we go into shock gradually, the result of being traumatized by an overwhelming amount of information. Note this trauma is always temporary, and always ends with the event.

Our experiences of wounding shock then, generate in us the second-most why logic. In these events, we permanently lose our ability to visualize some area of life on the screen of the mind, the result of having been traumatized by the sequence of [1] hyperawareness, [2] being startled, and [3] going abruptly into shock. Note, these experiences are always permanent, and remain in us even after we heal.

Finally, our experiences of reiterative shock generate in us the most why logic. In these events, we relive the loss of our ability to visualize some area of life on the screen of the mind, the result of reliving a past trauma in the context of an otherwise ordinary life event. Note, these experiences are always semi-permanent, with the ever present possibility that we will heal and so permanently end these painful recurrences.

Please note, this last idea is what makes reliving injury far more painful than getting injured in the first place. It also explains why the amount of why logic we experience correlates directly to our experiences of simple shock and wounding shock, but correlates exponentially to our experiences of reiterative shock.

As for how emergences correlate to the natural why, like reiterative shock, they correlate exponentially. Why? Just as there is no limit to the suffering we humans can imagine during reiterative shock, there is also no limit to the beauty we can imagine after emerging from this shock. In this way then, the intensity of our Emergences directly relates to the intensity of our Reiteratively Shocking experiences.

[Question 3] Is there a way or a technique people can use to develop a sense of the three containers of the mind similar to how a musician learns to see a fretless bass?
[Answer] Great question and one I am sorry to say, I have yet to consider. In fact, this would make a heck of a good subject for the group to explore.

My intuition tells me there is indeed a way. More over, I can picture the end result, therefore, I believe there must be a path to it. However, I have yet to have this path emerge in me and so, I remain, at this point, shocked by your question. Good shooting.

[Question 4] Does healing, like wounding, happen only in the conscious layers of the mind?
[Answer] Yes. The actual event occurs only in Layers 10 through 7, then propagates to the middle and outer layers.

[Question 5] Is there a sequence to healing similar to the sequence of wounding; (1) hyperawareness, (2) getting startled, and (3) going into shock?
[Answer] Absolutely. This sequence is [1] hyperawareness, [2] being amazed, and [3] going into connection.

[Question 6] Does healing actually re-program the mind? If so, which container is affected in healing?
[Answer] No. Healing does not re-program the mind. It simply adds to the already existing programming, similar to how splicing new material into an already existing movie changes the experience of the movie. Unlike the way this effects us with most movies however (wherein the "director's cut" is often less compelling), in real life, these additions always improve the "movie" greatly. Exponentially better, in fact. And in every layer.

The nature of these improvements?

More beautiful accessible choices.

[Question 7] On which layer of the onion do emotions exist? Do emotions, like the mind, exist in different ‘containers’?
[Answer] All emotions result from our experiences of Layer 8. Layer 7 is our response to these emotions. Know also though that all our thoughts also come from our experiences of Layer 8 and so, Layer 7 is the result of these thoughts as well.

Said more exactly then, all of our emotions, and all of our thoughts, get created in Layer 8, at the point just before we enter Layer 7. Conversely, all we experience as being "beyond words" occurs in the inner most two layers, as we exit Layer 8 and enter Layers 9 and 10.

[Question 8] Is “why logic” related to the process of repeatedly asking oneself questions which cannot be answered? Or is why logic simply a Layer 5 symptom? If so, does “why logic” belong in layer 5?
[Answer] To begin with, yes, the process of repeatedly asking oneself "questions which cannot be answered" is directly related to the idea of why logic. These questions, in fact, are the essence of why logic. To wit, in my earliest writings on Emergence (those prior to my organizing my discoveries into a theory of personality), I defined "shock" as the experience of getting lost in a labyrinth of questions which could not be answered. More over, this definition, while merely experiential and not empirical, is still a good way to ascertain whether or not you are in shock.

As for why logic being a "symptom" though, here the answer is no. Why?

We usually experience symptoms much more personally than we experience why logic. Why? Because we experience most symptoms as participants of this suffering and not as observers of this suffering. With why logic though, we experience this sequence in reverse; as observers of our painful life events and not as participants within these events. Herein lies the nature of how why logic decreases our experiences of suffering. It depersonalizes our suffering.

To see this difference personally now, consider how differently you would experience getting a paper cut on one of your fingers and how you would explain getting this paper cut. Similarly, consider how differently you would experience being shocked by people abruptly laughing at you and how you would explain your reactions to this laughter.

So does why logic belong in Layer 5; the Layer of Symptoms? No, and to now see the theoretical reasoning behind this no, realize that the essence of all why logic is that we experience it in after age-seven time. In other words, all why logic blames, and we can blame only when we can assign cause and effect to our suffering.

Conversely, we experience all symptoms in before age-seven time. Thus, with the symptoms themselves, we experience no cause and effect, and only later do we attempt explain these symptoms.

In effect then, our symptoms are simply experiences wherein we over react or under react to some otherwise ordinary life event. Take allergies, for instance. Allergies are an over reaction to what, for many people, is an ordinary life event; for instance, getting hives after eating strawberries; a definite over reaction. This makes an allergy to eating strawberries simply a symptom. This reaction is simply a part of what we experience each time we eat strawberries.

Blaming our allergies on something we did however, or on something others did to us, even the strawberries, is something we mentally and emotionally add to these symptoms, inadvertently, of course. In effect, we reframe our symptoms within a cause and effect sequence. Thus, in the case of an allergy to eating strawberries, we could say we knew better but ate the strawberries anyway. Here, we might say, the symptoms were our fault.

Symptoms are never our fault. Why? All symptoms result from the way we illogically respond to our BLocks. Thus, despite the outward appearance that young children suffer, the younger the child, the less they exhibit symptoms. And the less they suffer. Why? Because the younger the child, the fewer BLocks they have, and the fewer BLocks they have, the less symptoms occur. In other words, the younger the child, the more they experience their life events, both painful and pleasant, as conscious experiences which simply come and go naturally.

Said in yet one more way, all "symptoms" result from our having BLocked experiences (incompletely conscious experiences), and all "why logic" results from our attempts to explain these symptoms. This is why Layer 5; Symptoms, precedes the layers in which blame occurs. And in the case of an allergy to strawberries, if we we had no BLock, we would have nether symptoms nor why logic in and around strawberries.

[Question 9] It is stated in the article that people are attracted to others with similar wounding and programming. Are people also attracted to others who provide a ‘key’ needed to heal?
[Answer] These two situations are functionally the same. The people who provoke us the most hold the most keys to our healing. In the language of Emergence then, a "key" is "an otherwise ordinary life event which has been hypnotically associated to the experience of being startled." And the people we fall in love with the deepest hold the largest number of these keys. At least for us.

In figurative language then, the "key" to our healing is to relive the wounding event. In the language of Emergence, however, "keys" are what cause us to relive our injuries. They are hypnotic cues which against our wills send us back into painful events. They are also the only thing which can put us in a position to heal, because they are the only thing which can potentially cause us to be brave enough to relive our injuries. Were it not for keys then, we would simply choose to avoid these injures for as long as possible, in theory, for the rest of our lives. And who would blame us? Even so, who would want to live an unhealable life?

[Question 10] If a person in a romantic relationship heals a wound, is it possible that they will no longer be attracted to their partner because the wound is no longer present?
[Answer] Yes, and most people know this intuitively. In fact, many people have told me they left therapy or chose not to begin therapy because they knew if they healed, they would have to leave someone they loved.

What they never consider though is that the next person they fall in love with will always be the "new improved model" of the last one. Thus, we never really lose anyone we love. We simply evolve our experiences of them and in effect, love them more, even when what they do to us simply reminds us of how we used to be keyed.