WHAT IS THE ‘TRUTH' ABOUT THE FOUR WINDOWS?

This blog is several hours late this week, because I have been very busy.

Last week I briefly introduced Window No.4 - ‘Life is neither suffering nor non-suffering' - and then ended with this comment: "We will return to this topic later.  Next week I want to take a kind of overview of the Four Windows model, and to ask: Is any of this true? What is true?  How are we to think critically and effectively about such philosophical subjects?"

Firstly, the overview:  The Four Windows model is my way of operationalizing certain insights from Buddhism, combined with ideas from REBT and cognitive psychology.  The modern, western, positivistic science perspective contains the idea that:

There is *an objective reality*

which is like a *god's eye view*

which takes in all that is (relevant to a particular question or enquiry)

in one grasp

from *all angles at once*

and presents it in a black and white format:

"This is true; that is not true".

This may be a reflection of our biological wiring, in which a vulnerable animal sees something that might just be a predator, concludes (instantaneously) that it is a predator, and runs for cover.  Stimulus > response, no choice; no debate.  That kind of biological wiring clearly has survival value. 

However, that kind of biological wiring has been significantly modified by civilization, in which large numbers of groups of human families have to learn to live side by side without turning aggressively on each other, in black and white stimulus > response over-reactions; or permanently hiding from each other in fear and trembling.

However, our private, internal over-reactions of an emotional nature, which do not result in (overt or excessive) aggression towards others, or extreme (self-harming) avoidance behaviour, go largely unnoticed by others, and we suffer in silence because of our fears and anxieties, and our horror and terror about our problems, threats and dangers.  The Four Windows model is intended to help with those silent, internal states of unnecessary suffering.

I will now attempt to answer the first couple of questions presented above:

1. Since all four Windows state different perspectives on the same problem, which is ‘correct' or ‘true'?  None is absolutely true.  This is very difficult for the ordinary western mind, which normally says, "Of the available explanations for something, one must be true, and all the others must be false".  However, that is a grossly oversimplified, black and white model that comes from Aristotle, and is now increasingly seen to be false: (Kosko, 1994[1]).  Kosko argues against absolutizing our probabilistic inferences - turning a 60% positive sample on a test into "Therefore it is true..."  Instead of graphing our conclusions on a two dimensional graph, and then absolutizing any outcome with a score above 50%, Kosko suggests that we graph the world of our investigations onto a cube of equal sides, and recognize that only at the corners of the cube will our results seem absolute.  At all other points on the cube, the results are grey!  *Black and white* means "100% this, and 0% that".  *Grey* means anywhere between "99.999...% this and 0.111...% that. 

2. What does ‘true' mean?  One philosophical take on this question would be this:  To say that "I am Jim" is a statement of fact.  It is a fact that I am called Jim (by most people, most of the time).  To expand that statement to include the word ‘true', like this - "It is true that I am Jim" - adds nothing to the statement.  However, we then have to decide the answer to a further question:  "What does it mean to say that "It is a fact that I am Jim"?  According to Novak and Gowin (1984[2]), "Facts are records of events that are no better and no worse than the person or device making them".  So "facts are records of events".  Here are four events:

(a) I look through Window No.1 at my financial problem.  I see that my financial problem is not so bad, given that it is happening in a world that is framed as normally containing suffering.  The *fact* that my problem is not as bad as I had previously thought it to be is a *record of an event*, and that *event* is looking through Window No.1.  That fact is relevant to this context, and this context only.

All statements are relevant to the context in which they are stated, and we fall into error when we present them without the original context.  (This happens because all statements/knowledge claims contain words that are ‘indexical', and not absolute references.  That is to say, we don't truly know what they mean unless we know the context to which they apply, or applied when originally formulated). 

(b) I look through Window No.2, and I begin by taking the philosophical stance that "Life is without difficulty, provided I avoid picking and choosing".  And I look at the data that "I have more money going out of my bank account than I have coming in".  This had seemed to be a nightmare, but now, from the perspective of "giving up picking and choosing" I can see that if I *choose* to allow my bank account to be the unfortunate way that it is, I will not experience the previous panic and distress about impending bankruptcy!  The *fact* that I can choose to allow my bank account to be the crummy way that it is, is a function of the flexibility of my mind.  I can make my mind up, and I can change my mind! 

(c) I look through Window No.3 and I begin by taking the philosophical stance that "Life is both difficult and non-difficult".  That is to say, my bank account is emptying faster than it is filling, and therefore will eventually reach a crisis point, which will involve an obligatory meeting with my bank manager, which will not be pleasant.  And, on the other hand, the *cottage pie* that I made earlier, and placed in the oven, is almost cooked.  It smells wonderful, and I know it will taste delicious.  So life has its balancing aspects.  It is a fact (or record of an event or events) that my bank account is emptying, and it is a fact (or a record of an event or events) that my saliva glands are beginning to respond to the wonderful aroma of my cottage pie. Because life *has* its balancing aspects (from the perspective of Window No.3) I do not feel as bad as I did earlier, when I had a mono-focal take on my bank account alone.

(d) I look through Window No.4 and I take the philosophical stance that "Life is neither difficult nor non difficult".  Is this a fact?  Is this a record of an event?  Yes it is.  And what is the event?  The event is looking through Window No.4.  And when I look through Window No.4, what is this fact (or facts) that I see?  I see that "difficult" is a word; a word in the air.  And so I do not relate to it in quite the same way anymore.  I have been frightening myself with a sound in the air.  Like "Boooo!"  Or "Rooooaaaarrr!"  A gap has now opened up between the words and the "thing in itself" that exists beyond the words.  My bank account is emptying faster than it is filling.  I could call that *something*, or I could allow my mind to be silent about it.  I could allow my mind to focus on the breath coming into my body, expanding my body, and then flowing out again.  I could choose to let the word-labels fall away.  I know the basic facts about the inflow and outflow from my bank, but instead of *languaging* that to death, I focus on the inflow of air into my body, and then on the outflow.  I meditate (or have my attention on) the bodily processes of calming breathing.  I don't have to fret about my bank account.  When I have done this breathing for about twenty minutes, I can stand up and sit at my desk with a pen and a pad, and work out a plan of action for dealing with my cash flow, including how to communicate with my bank manager, and how to identify new sources of income.

But for the moment, just twenty minutes, I sit in eternal silence, and all is well!  And all is well because I have allowed all word labels and all ‘languaging' to fall away. And when any words return to consciousness, I gently brush them aside, gently, and return to focusing on the beautiful sensations of breathing, in and out, in and out.

More next week: when I will deal with questions 3 to 6 of my original list.

Best wishes,

Jim

Dr Jim Byrne

ABC coaching and Counselling Services 

Jim.byrne@abc-counselling.com

Why not post this to your social network(s), with this button:

 

~~~

---

[1] Kosko, B. (1994) Fuzzy Thinking: the new science of fuzzy logic.  London: Flamingo.

[2] Novak, J.D. and Gowin, B. (1984) Learning How to learn.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hi,
It is now 22.00hrs on Friday evening, 25th September, and I have been teaching all day and tied up since finishing that work.  Therefore, I have been unable to get this Friday's blog done on time.  I am now committed to getting it done by the end of Sunday.

Sorry for this delay.
Best wishes,
Jim

Dr Jim Byrne

Window No.4 of

The Four Windows Model

 

“Life is neither suffering nor non-suffering”

 

Copyright (c) Jim Byrne, 2009

 

In previous posts I have described the Four Windows model as a whole; and then introduced Windows No.1 to 3 in some detail.  If you have not read those previous posts, this post will not mean much to you, so I suggest you go back and read the previous posts.

 

Window No.4 is the most difficult of the four for a western mind.  It is in fact the “transcendental” window.  Transcended means that we get to see beyond ‘conventional reality’.

 

The truth about humans is this: we do not see with our eyes, but rather with our cumulative experience (stored in our brain/mind).  But not our cumulative experience of ‘what is so’.  No.  We don’t accumulate experiences of what ‘is’.  We accumulate experience of our ‘interpretations’ of what happens to us, or what we otherwise sense.  We are ‘cumulative, interpretative experience machines’.  And we do our interpreting on the basis of clues we pick up from mother and father (initially), and we use the tools of the language we get from our culture to shape those interpretations we make.  We ordinarily swim in a sea of ‘languaging’ but, just as a fish does not see the water through which it swims, we do not see the sea of language through which we swim. 

 

We believe in our interpretations.  We think of them as ‘concrete realities’.  But actually they are closer, in the main, to being projections of our minds.  ‘Something’ exists out there, but we cannot look ‘out there’.  Light bounces off whatever is ‘out there’ and passes through holes in our eyes, triggering preexisting maps and patterns in our brains which help us to construct a three dimensional ‘pseudo-reality’ inside our brain/mind.  We never see ‘outside’ our brain/mind.  We are always looking at something ‘inside’ our brain/mind, and projecting it out into the ‘outside’.

 

We live in a state of continuous self-delusional hypnosis.  And it is almost impossible to wake up.  We are, by nature, delusional beings.

 

We think we are always totally conscious, but we are not.  We are mainly non-conscious, and most of our functioning is automated.

 

We think we are a ‘person’, but our ‘personhood’ is an ‘emergent phenomenon’, generated by the complexity of vast numbers of experiences gained (interpretatively) by our organism as it negotiates its way through life.

 

We think we are ‘one person’, but we are more accurately modelled as fragmented into a number of ego states (Parent, Adult and Child), with further compartmentalization within those ego states; and perhaps some additional sub-personalities.  But we ‘feel’ integrated.

 

One of my main models of the human being is this

 

Perhaps we are just these physical organisms,

with all of our cumulative, interpretative experiences,

including internalized representations of (good and bad aspects of) significant others

and our good and bad adaptations to, and reactions against, those representations

stored in long term memory

in the form of schemas and stories

below the level of conscious awareness

and permanently beyond direct conscious inspection.

 

That is one of the major insights of Cognitive Emotive Narrative Therapy (and is copyright, Jim Byrne, 2009).

 

If that is what we are, think how vastly that diverges from what you normally think you are.  That gap (between how you normally see yourself, and how I describe you above) will give you some measure of how delusional you are (just as I am).

 

This delusional state makes it difficult to cope with Window No.4.  When we go into the Mind Hut, and look out through Window No.4, the frame declares:  “Life is neither suffering nor non-suffering”.  Yiiiikes!  Are you kidding me?  We are reluctant to take this on board.

 

This is very difficult for us to compute.  What does it mean?  The quick answer is this: “Life” is not “suffering”, because “life” is a lived experience, and “suffering” is a sound in the air.  “Life” is not “non-suffering” because “life” is lived experience, and “non-suffering” is a sound in the air.  Therefore, “Life (which is a lived experience) is neither suffering nor non suffering (because suffering and non suffering are sounds in the air)”.

 

If you want to look at that a little further, than I want to look at two different possibilities:

 

1. The ‘is’ of identity:  Briefly, this was conceptualized by Korzybski (1933)[1].  Aristotle had taken the word “is” to be about “predication”, or attributing qualities to things.  That is to say, when we say: “The horse IS white”, we mean this particular horse has the attribute of whiteness.  But he overlooked the other meaning of “is”, which is about “identity”, as in “2 + 2 IS 4”, or “blue plus yellow IS green”.  Thus the “is of identity” means that something equals something else, full stop (or period).  One misuse of the “is of identity” would be to say: “Harry is a criminal”, implying he has no other redeeming qualities.  The “is of predication means” means that Harry has the quality of being a criminal (because he recently committed a crime), but he also has many other (fine) qualities.  The problem with the little word “is” seems to be that we cannot tell from any particular statement whether we are uttering “an is of identity” or an “is of predication”.  If we say “Life is suffering (or difficult)” do we mean “Life equals suffering (or difficulty)” or are we saying “Life has the quality of including suffering (or difficulty)”?  Using the “is of identity” we can say “Life is neither suffering nor non-suffering”, because both of them commonly arise; therefore we cannot say Life equals just one of them.  And since life does not equal either of them, we can validly say “Life is neither suffering nor non-suffering”.  In this sense, we are not saying anything that is not contained in Window No.3: Life contains the qualities of both suffering and non-suffering.  Therefore, this cannot be the meaning of Window No.4.

 

2. Words are sounds: Words are sounds that evolved at some point in our history to allow us to ‘point’ more quickly and easily to some referent that we wanted our associates to notice. “Here comes that predator again, slinking up through the trees” has greater survival value than: “Ugh!”  Pointing.  “Ugh, Ugh”.  Jumping up and down and looking worried.  “Eeek!”  Etc.  When we point at a simple object, such as a chair, and say ‘chair’, our meaning is quite clear.  When we wave a hand around the room and refer to “the furniture”, our meaning is still pretty clear.  Those were just first and second order constructs: an object; and a collection (or class) of related objects.  But if I now say: “Your behaviour is going to have to change, or there will be serious consequences”, you now have much greater difficulty interpreting my meaning, because I have moved up to third order constructs: relationships between relationships; or relationships between classes of phenomena.

 

Suppose I say: “Your attitude caused me to suffer enormously”.  Does the word “suffer” really equate to the pain I am trying to describe?  No.  The sound is a symbol.  So does the word “suffering” in general equate to the pain people often feel when they use that word?  No.  It’s just a symbol that stands for a subjective experience. 

 

In this sense then Life IS not suffering.  Life IS life; and suffering IS suffering.  And the lived experience of life is not the same thing as the symbols we use to try to communicate it.  Therefore “life (as we live it) is not suffering (which is a sound in the air)”; and “life (as we live it) is not non-suffering (which is a sound in the air)”.  Or to restate it as stated earlier:

 

“Life” is not “suffering”, because “life” is a lived experience, and “suffering” is a sound in the air.  “Life” is not “non-suffering” because “life” is lived experience, and “non-suffering” is a sound in the air.  Therefore, “Life (which is a lived experience) is neither suffering nor non suffering (because suffering and non suffering are sounds in the air)”.

 

~~~

 

We will return to this topic later.  Next week I want to take a kind of overview of the Four Windows, and to ask: Is any of this true? What is true?  How are we to think critically and effectively about such philosophical subjects?

 

~~~

 

If you like this blog, then please post it to your profile page at your favourite social media platform (Facebook, Bebo, LinkedIn, etc) so you friends can see it.  Here’s the button:

 

 

~~~

 

Window Number Three

Of The Four Windows Model

From Cognitive Emotive Narrative Therapy (CENT)

Copyright (c) Jim Byrne, 2009

Introduction

Over the past few weeks, I have been introducing the Four Windows model, which is central to CENT.  Of course it is not the only model we use in CENT.  We also use the ABC model from REBT; the APET model from the Human Givens tradition; the WDEP model form Reality Therapy; the RCFF model from Impact Therapy; and some others.

The Four Windows model is my own creation, based on some insights from the Buddha and later Buddhist sutras, plus some ideas from REBT and Cognitive Psychology.

The Four Windows model is designed to address a defect in the human perceptual apparatus - a defect that allowed us to survive, but which could now destroy us.  That defect is the almost instantaneous sequence: Attention > Perception > Attitude > Emotion/Cognition > Response.  The great survival strength of this automatic process is that it is based on certainty about what is perceived, followed by a rapid response.  The great destructive weakness of this automatic response is that it is BASED ON CERTAINTY about what is perceived!

Whatever shows up as a phenomenon in our minds, we relate to as if it were "a concrete fact".  But it's just a perception, based on interpretation, and often involving distortions and prejudices.  Look at racism, sexism, warmongering, and ‘mental illness'.  All based on delusions.  But humans are delusional beings: (Gray, 2003[1])  See also my CENT Paper No.3: 'The status of autobiographical narratives and stories'.

Review

The aim of the Four Windows model of CENT is to help to break up the certainty - the mono-focal delusion - that the precise intensity of the (emotional) suffering we think we are experiencing is a concrete reality.

When you feel like you are stuck in some intense suffering, try the Four Windows experiment, and see what happens.  Imagine you are able to go into a Mind Hut, in your mind's eye.  The Hut has four windows, facing north, south east and west.  Look at your problem through Window No.1.  This window has a frame which declares that: ‘Life is suffering'.  As explained the week before last, when you look through Window No.1, you see your ‘personal suffering' in the context that ‘life itself is suffering', which tends to reduce your upset about it.  (See the Window No.1 blog, below).  Then imagine you can rotate the Hut so that you are now looking through Window No.2.  The frame on this window announces: ‘Life is without suffering provided you avoid picking and choosing'.  This helps you to see that your suffering is magnified by the fact that you are ‘choosing' that it not be present, when it inescapablyis.  Once you accept that you have whatever you have in your life, your upset reduces, and you can set a goal to change that situation in a future moment, but NOT in this present moment.  In the present moment, you must accept that things are the way they are; and not pick and choose about that. (See the Window No.2 blog, below).

Window No.3: Life is both suffering and non-suffering

Now let us move on to Window No.3.  This window has a frame on which is engraved the following words: ‘Life is both suffering and non-suffering'.  Let us now apply this to the two cases we have been using in recent weeks: my career crisis from 1992-93, and a generic problem which you might be experiencing right now.

In 1992-93, I went through a major career crisis, which I have described in the previous two blogs.  I frequently felt anxious about my future financial prospects, and depressed by the loss of my office, salary and work status.  At the time, I used REBT to reduce my emotions to concern and sadness.  That took a whole lot of time and effort, and went on for months and months.

                                               

Today, thinking about the same problem, this is how I would apply Window 3 of the Four Windows model:

(a) My career and finances are in a mess.  I feel panicky about the future, and down about my personal/professional failure.  My attempts to get a new company up and running are not going well.  Money is running out.  I feel guilty about letting my family down, and I feel like a failure.

(b) Let me now look at my problem/suffering through Window No.3: Life is both suffering and non-suffering.  That is difficult to see at first.  What could possibly be said to be non-suffering about this situation?  Well, firstly I have my health.  That's a blessing.  I can be grateful for that.  Secondly, my wife is very supportive, rather than critical and scornful.  That is a second blessing.  It would be even more miserable to be coming home to a carping wife.  So I am grateful for that.  Thirdly, when I sit down to family meals, I do not worry all the time.  I experience relief from suffering - which is what this window is pointing at.  I am not in suffering ‘all the time'. I am like a (wo)man with disrupted sleep - partial insomnia.  It is very easy for such a (wo)man to conclude: "I did not get ANY sleep last night".  That is almost never true.  Even extreme insomniacs get some sleep; and even the most suffering person gets some relief from suffering.  But we insist on focusing on the suffering, and forget to pay attention to the non-suffering.  If we paid attention to the non-suffering, we would notice that suffering and non-suffering come in waves, like physical pain.  So when the suffering is here, and intense, we can remember to tell ourselves: "This too will pass; and all will be well; and all will be well; and all manner of things will be well" (Julian of Norwich).  Soon, the suffering will pass - like the pain subsiding - and non-suffering will replace it (for a while!) 

So I could now sum up the three perspectives of the first three windows as follows:  I am suffering with this career crisis, but not as badly as I had thought, because I am suffering in the (freshly revealed, by Window No.1) context of a world of suffering.  Everybody is suffering to some degree most of the time, just because we are humans, with appetites and preferences that cannot always be sated or matched.  And, then, from Window No.2, I know that I am amplifying my suffering by choosing that it not be happening, when it quite clearly is; and trying to pick a better present moment, instead of choosing to have a goal of a better future moment.  And then, Window No.3 informs me that life is both suffering and non-suffering, and that it comes in waves; and thus I have merely to endure this wave of suffering, and a few moments of non-suffering will follow, when I can luxuriate in the joys of life - despite my career crisis!

Of course, because I am a fallible, error-prone human, I will tend to keep going back to my automatic, mono-focal delusion that ‘My life is suffering, unlike the lives of everybody else; and it should not be so bad; and I have to be able to change it in the present moment - otherwise it will always be this way; and if I cannot change it instantly, then what kind of tish am I?'

So I have to work very hard to reprogram myself for a multi-focal perspective on noxious events in my life. 

Now let's think about your life.  Are you suffering at the moment?  If so, let us look at your suffering through Window No.3.  You might say: I am undoubtedly suffering. Nobody could deny that having these kinds of difficulties and challenges in one's life amounts to a high level of suffering.  Well let us grant that you are probably accurate in identifying the fact that you have suffering in our life.  Nevertheless, that sounds like a mono-focal take on reality.  Let that be your signal to change.  As soon as you think ‘This (unitary description) is how it is', you know you are in error!  Remember the Four Windows.  There are ALWAYS at least four different ways of looking at any instance of human suffering.  So get your rear end into the Mind Hut, and rethink your suffering, by look out through the four windows in turn!  Your automatic responses are delusional.  ‘Reality' is much more complex and varied than you think.  When you give up engaging in simplistic delusions about human suffering, the sun comes out, and you feel good, even while walking in cold rain.  For this too will pass; and you are not alone in your suffering; and you cannot change the present moment in the present moment.  If you can find a cave to shelter in, then the rain will not fall on you.  But until you do, you'd better accept that you are being rained upon!  But rain does not last forever!  And you are not the first person to be rained upon.  And you won't be the last!

Does this seem like a good way to handle your suffering?  Does it reduce your suffering sufficiently to justify putting in the time required to change your automatic responses?  Please let me know how you get on with your Mind Hut experiments.

I care that you suffer, and I know that suffering is as much a part of the human condition as skin and hair.  And I know there are always at least four ways to look at your suffering.  So please try the experiments.  Do not be taken in by your conviction that "This (one way) is how it is!"  Look for at least four ways to frame your problems and suffering.  And then ask yourself: Has this reduced my problem?  And please let me know the results.

Next week I will describe Window No.4.

Best wishes,

Jim

Dr Jim Byrne

Doctor of Counselling

ABC Coaching and Counselling Services

Jim.byrne@abc-counselling.com

~~~

If you like this post, please share it with your favourite social networking group (e.g. at Facebook, Bebo, LinkedIn, etc).

---

[1] Gray, J. (2003) Straw Dogs: Thoughts on humans and other animals.  London: Granta Books.

Part 2 of the Four Windows Model

In recent blogs, I have described the ‘Four Windows' model of Cognitive Emotive Narrative Therapy (CENT).

Last week I applied Window No.1 to a specific problem from my past, and a generic problem that you might be suffering from.  Let us now apply Window No.2 in the same way.

Applying Window No.2

Last week, I explained how, in 1992-93, I went through a major career crisis, when the cash flow in my company began to dry up, and I had to contemplate resigning in order to save the jobs of my business partner and our employees.  As I said, I frequently felt anxious about my future financial prospects, and depressed by the loss of my office, salary and work status (which was the ‘Deputy Chief Executive' role). 

                                                           

Today, thinking about the same problem, this is how I would apply Window 2 of the Four Windows model:

(a) I am suffering with anxiety and depression because my business is in decline, and I am going to have to leave my job in order to save the company.  I do not know what the future will hold.  But I am already paying out more money than I have coming is, as I try to launch a new company for myself.  The pressure is enormous, and I feel panicky. 

(b) Let's look at that problem through Window 2.  Window 2 has a frame that says: "Life is without difficulty provided we avoid picking and choosing".  But am I picking and choosing?  Is that why I am experiencing difficulty (in 1992-93)?  I think I really am picking and choosing.  I am saying, in effect: "I should not have to deal with this unpleasant mess.  Life was rosy for the past five years, and it should continue to be so.  Woe is me that life has now ‘turned against me' and dropped me in the doo-doo!  It really is intolerable.  And I am some kind of hopeless s**t for not being able to stop this from happening".

So, according to the Four Windows model, all I have to do right now is to give up picking and choosing.  How can I do that?  Here's my attempt:  "Instead of choosing what is not happening, I had better choose what is happening, which is the same thing as not choosing.  I had better pick the reality that exists, which again is the same thing as not picking.  So, I should and must be going through this financial and career crisis.  It does not have to be any different from the way that it is.  This means I am surrendering to reality as it is, which is not the same thing as being submissive.  I surrender to what is, in the present moment, and then try to change it in the next moment.  So I give up picking and choosing present reality; but that does not stop me from setting goals to have a different reality in the future.  But I had better not try to substitute that hopeful, propositional future for the present uncongenial reality.  Whatever is the case must be the case - in the present moment!"

Would that have felt any better, way back then, in 1992-93? Yes, I believe it would.

How would I have operationalized it?  I think I would have developed an affirmation like this:

"Stop picking and choosing. Stop picking and choosing.  Stop picking and choosing".  Over and over again.

And: "I accept the things I cannot change and change the things I can.  I accept them.  I accept them.  I accept the things I cannot change and change the things I can".  Over and over again. 

I would have chanted those kinds of affirmations over and over again (silently in my mind), all the way to the office, and all the way back: At least for that period in which I was getting my anxiety/depression under control.  Later on, I might choose to chant my affirmations (silently in my head) for 5 or 10 minutes each morning and each evening.

I could also have told myself that: "Picking and choosing what does not exist is insane.  Pick and choose what exists.  Then set a goal to change it over time".

Again I could chant that in my mind, or write it out in my journal, over and over again.

Repetition is the key here.  If I want to change any belief in the basement of my mind, I need to repeat my new belief over and over and over again.  (Daniel Coyle, ‘The Talent Code'; and various statements by Paul McKenna).  The repetitions add a layer of myelin to the relevant brain cell network, and each repetition brings closer the day when this belief will become an automatic response.

As I visualize myself doing those repetitious affirmations now, I feel a lot better about the problems I was facing.

Now let's think about your life.  Are you suffering at the moment?  If so, let us look at your suffering through Window No.2.  You might say: "I am in a state of emotional misery, and I am definitely suffering.  But how much of my misery is caused by choosing that I not have any suffering in my life?  And how much is caused by the original problem?"  I think you will find that most of your suffering comes from the choosing of what does not exist, and trying to push away what actually exists.  If you get rid of this insane choosing of what does not exist, then your level of misery will fall dramatically. 

So Window 2 is quite a simple little shift in perspective, away from choosing what does not exist, towards accepting that whatever exists right now must exist right now, even if it would be preferable it is did not exist.  Whatever exists, exists.  So choose to accept whatever exists, and then try to change it over future time.  Do not try to have the present moment be other than the way the present moment happens to be.  You cannot change the present moment!  You cannot arrange to have "what is" transformed into "what is not", in the present moment.

Please do try to apply Window No.2 to your current problems, and please let me know how you got on.  I would love to hear of your efforts to use this model in your life.  There is no alternative to experimenting with new ways of being in order to change your life.  If you keep doing what you learned to do in the past, you will continue to get whatever misery you currently have in your life.  To change your life, you must learn how to change your mind.  The Windows involve a way to change your mind, by practice, practice, practice.

Wishing you all the best with your life's challenges.

Best wishes,

Jim

Dr Jim Byrne

Doctor of Counselling

ABC Coaching and Counselling Services

Jim.byrne@abc-counselling.com 

~~~

If you like this blog, why not save it to your Favourites, or post it to your profile page at your favourite social media location (.e.g. Facebook, Bebo, LinkedIn, etc):

~~~