About 'thinking'. The psychology formula video. And unconscious thinking.

Gerber 2985

Member
Sep 9, 2020
76
59
18
Hello,
I have been watching in detail the video the Psychology formula and have been doing a lot of 'thinking' about the usage of the term 'thinking' as in: going into the power of thought.
But before I get to that, i wanted to know how you would define unconscious thinking as in 'thinking whether conscious or unconscious' with the understanding that we learn here. How would that be put into the formula? Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: willow

Brett Chitty

PTI Lead Trainer
Staff member
PTI Platinum Member
Aug 12, 2020
329
200
43
46
March, United Kingdom
For me, it's this:
Unconscious thinking is NOT unconscious thinking.
Unconscious thinking is CONSCIOUS thinking appearing as something other than thinking.

Every insight makes us learn the thinking we are having that appears as something other than thinking and return to its original nature as thinking!
As a result, we expand our understanding of what thinking is insightfully. This is why I will not give a definition of what thinking is (never mind that I do not know what it is either!)
It's also why it's a lot easier to say what goes into Thought than saying what thinking is!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gerber 2985

Gerber 2985

Member
Sep 9, 2020
76
59
18
Ok so this is what I understand (or don't understand) so far.
When you say UNCONSCIOUS thinking. You don't mean that it's unconscious, i.e. that I don't know that I'm having that thinking.
You mean that we have conscious thinking and we think that it's something other than thinking.

Is that correct?
You weren't referring to the subconscious correct?
Can you give an example?

The second part.
It took me a few readings to understand it. But I will say what I understand though maybe it's obvious.
All the insights are about discovering thinking that we thought wasn't thinking and discovering that it IS.

Again, the example would be helpful.
--
I don't really need to know what thinking IS. That's not a problem for me currently.
I want to know what it's NOT.
I want to check in that it's NOT referring to the thoughts that we have in our head.
My understanding was that thinking was some kind of 'material' that goes into the power of Thought, which processes it and out comes the 'feeling'-
The feeling is a word that has been given for the total experience of that moment. Emotions, thoughts in our head, physical feelings, maybe something to do with actions..

thinking we are having that appears as something other than thinking.
The underlined part is one of the sources of my question.

Is the red thinking the same as the green thinking?
Or are you referring by the RED thinking as the thinking that we have (thoughts) which we don't know came from Thinking (the type that goes into the power of thought?)

Thank you.
 
Last edited:

Gerber 2985

Member
Sep 9, 2020
76
59
18
'my feeling isn't coming from consciousness my feeling is coming from the principle of thought about my thinking of the consciousness.

(A quote from the same class)

THINKING OF CONSCIOUSNESS ---> POT ----> FEELINGS (would that be thoughts in my head about what is consciousness)?

Thank you.
 

Brett Chitty

PTI Lead Trainer
Staff member
PTI Platinum Member
Aug 12, 2020
329
200
43
46
March, United Kingdom
THINKING OF CONSCIOUSNESS ---> POT ----> FEELINGS (would that be thoughts in my head about what is consciousness)?
Yes, it's still made of thoughts. It looks for the world that it is consciousness we are dealing with but actually isn't. The consciousness part is the content, the what.

When you say UNCONSCIOUS thinking. You don't mean that it's unconscious, i.e. that I don't know that I'm having that thinking.
You mean that we have conscious thinking and we think that it's something other than thinking.

Is that correct?
You weren't referring to the subconscious correct?
Can you give an example?
Yes, though it isn't so much "we think it's something other than thinking," it's more like "I've taken for granted that it has nothing to do with thinking." The speed at which this takes place is almost always faster than what our awareness can...well...be aware of!

No, I wasn't referring to the subconscious. I mean, I don't even know if the subconscious exists or not. I've never seen anybody prove or disprove it yet.
However for us to be "aware" of there is a subconscious, there has to be a reality in the first place that makes it exists. And that reality has to be created by thinking -> PoT -> Reality.
This is not a statement on the subconscious itself, this is a statement of how mental life works.

So, I can say this much:
Thinking about the subconscious -> PoT = A reality about the subconscious.
Now, this is happening in the world of Thought. It's NOT happening in the world of the subconscious. It's still Thought that's giving us the reality, not the subconscious. The Three Principles certainly change a few things, including the widely held idea of the subconscious. Remember, I am not talking about the subconscious in and of itself. I've just never seen one, except as a belief. Of course, it's easy to believe there is one when we don't factor in the Principle of Thought because it'll look like it has nothing to do with thinking, when it actually has everything to do with thinking.

All the insights are about discovering thinking that we thought wasn't thinking and discovering that it IS.
Beautifully said! I agree 100%.
This has two hugely transformational consequences.
1. Your knowledge of "what thinking is" has to expand due to the insight, whether you want to or not.
2. Now you know you are living INSIDE the world of psychology, as that's where thinking takes place in. Pre-insight, it looked like it was the thing, the object, the circumstances, the past, the identity, the quality of feeling, etc.
These two things will evolve you. It must. This power is beyond any human being therefore the occurrence of evolution is certainly not by choice.

I don't really need to know what thinking IS. That's not a problem for me currently.
I want to know what it's NOT.
I want to check in that it's NOT referring to the thoughts that we have in our head.
My understanding was that thinking was some kind of 'material' that goes into the power of Thought, which processes it and out comes the 'feeling'-
The feeling is a word that has been given for the total experience of that moment. Emotions, thoughts in our head, physical feelings, maybe something to do with actions..
Well, anything that is in the physical dimension (time, space, and matter) isn't thinking. But for us to even be aware of such a dimension in the first place is through Thought. So once again, something has to go into it. The entirety of the human experience and existence is 100% because of the PoT. Without it, there would be no existence, even if the human body was present.
I think not only do we learn what are thinking through every insight we have, but we also learn how the physical didn't "take over our minds."

A quote from Sydney Banks:
Someone once said to me, 'Are you telling me that chair isn't real, that it's only thought?'
I said 'Of course the chair is real. But it comes to you via Thought.
Without Thought, how can you know the chair exists?

thinking we are having that appears as something other than thinking.
The underlined part is one of the sources of my question.

Is the red thinking the same as the green thinking?
Or are you referring by the RED thinking as the thinking that we have (thoughts) which we don't know came from Thinking (the type that goes into the power of thought?)
Yes, the red part is exactly the same as the green one.
Red thinking didn't come from thinking. Red thinking IS thinking. So the red thinking goes into the Power of Thought, and now you'll have a reality that looks like it has nothing to do with thinking.

There's really only two/three things to learn about thinking and thought, depending on how deep you want to go.
Inside-out thinking -> PoT -> Inside-Out reality. The person knows it's "Thought," or "inside" etc
Outside-In thinking -> PoT -> Outside-In reality. The person believes it's nothing to do with thought, or not inside, so they look outside of the psychological system, because of the outside-in-based thinking that went into the PoT.

Other ways of saying what thinking is might be:
Big Thinking, small Thinking - all of that is going into the PoT.
Impersonal thinking, personal thinking - all of that is going into the PoT.
Fast Thinking, slow thinking - all of that is going into the PoT.
Insightful thinking, egotistical thinking, all of that is going into the PoT.

It really doesn't matter what you call it. What does matter is knowing that the PoT exists. It's constant and ever-present and there's no human power that can stop its existence.
 

Gerber 2985

Member
Sep 9, 2020
76
59
18
Thank you very much.
I still have to clarify more to get past the ambiguity of the word 'thinking' being used in different ways.

Tell me please about the following:
So the red thinking goes into the Power of Thought, and now you'll have a reality that looks like it has nothing to do with thinking.

Ok so THINKING goes into the power of thought.
and then I have a reality.

Question 1- is that reality what we call FEELING in the equasion. I am assuming yes.

Question 2- for example, let's say I am having the experience that comes to my awareness about thoughts of consciousness or about this topic that I am writing, right now. Is that reality called FEELING in the equasion? I am assuming yes.

Question 3- So where did this reality (experience or FEELING) come from? We know that it came from something that we call THINKING.
As in: thinking --> (goes into) POT --> FEELING true? i will assume yes.

Question 4- We can replace this word THINKING with CHAIR THINKING. (just like you replaced THINKING with Tinnitus) correct?

The reason I am asking and asking about this is because when I hear 'THINKING about tinnitus' I hear or rather am concerned that it sounds like we are saying that that means:

'thoughts in my head about tinnitus'

But we just agreed (i believe!) that that is on the RIGHT side of the equasion!

A word that is used in the world to mean: the EXPERIENCE of having an awareness in the physical world about thoughts in our head.
----
So going back to my original question:
thinking we are having that appears as something other than thinking.

Question 5-

So going back to my original question:
thinking we are having that appears as something other than thinking.

I would like to say that 'thinking that we are having' refers to an experience of thinking in the PHYSICAL world.
i.e. thoughts in our head. The awareness of thinking which is the RIGHT side of the equasion, which we call: FEELING.

or can we say 'thinking that just now went into the power of thought and THEN when FEELING was experienced it appeared to the person as something that didn't have it's source from that THINKING but rather that it appeared as coming from the PHYSICAL WORLD?
----
I would like to propose that that appears as something other than thinking.
that the word 'thinking' here is referring to the word THINKING as in: THINKING-->POT-->FEELING.

yes?


Red thinking didn't come from thinking. Red thinking IS thinking.

I like this VERY much. It is very helpful. Therefore:
Question 6: if the above is true, can we say:

This question I'm much more not sure about or not sure what you are referring to because of the ambiguity (to me) of the word thinking.

I will ONLY use the word THINKING to mean THINKING (capital letters)--->POT---FEELING
and the awareness of thoughts in my head in the physical realm to be calling thoughts in my head. I don't want to call it thinking (even lower case). too hard.

So THINKING (this stuff that we don't know exactly what it is, but it is the ingredients or recipe of computer program of the chair experience or the tinnitus experience) goes INTO the POWER OF THOUGHT and we HAVE the experience, the feeling, the thoughts in our head, the sensations, the emotions. yes?

When you are saying red thinking is thinking do you mean there is only one kind of thinking which is the one that goes into the power of thought

OR are you meaning that

thinking and feeling - are 2 sides of the same coin or not at all. (i don't think so).

Ok everyone. I'm sorry to have complicated this so much. I think the underlined sentences is the real question.
it's a semantics question which I think can really easily be cleared up as soon as we have a dictionary of words we are using.

Thank you.
 

Brett Chitty

PTI Lead Trainer
Staff member
PTI Platinum Member
Aug 12, 2020
329
200
43
46
March, United Kingdom
Question 1- is that reality what we call FEELING in the equasion. I am assuming yes.
Yes, I use feeling as it's common, but can easily be replaced by Experience, Seeing, Hearing, Behaviour, Reality, Attitude, Perception etc.

Question 2- for example, let's say I am having the experience that comes to my awareness about thoughts of consciousness or about this topic that I am writing, right now. Is that reality called FEELING in the equasion? I am assuming yes.
Yes. Careful - Reality doesn't cause feelings

Question 3- So where did this reality (experience or FEELING) come from? We know that it came from something that we call THINKING.
As in: thinking --> (goes into) POT --> FEELING true? i will assume yes.
Yes. Thinking -> PoT -> Reality is exactly the same as Thinking -> PoT -> Feeling.

Question 4- We can replace this word THINKING with CHAIR THINKING. (just like you replaced THINKING with Tinnitus) correct?
Yes, we don't need to categorize thinking into buckets. it's ALL thinking.

The reason I am asking and asking about this is because when I hear 'THINKING about tinnitus' I hear or rather am concerned that it sounds like we are saying that that means:

'thoughts in my head about tinnitus'

But we just agreed (i believe!) that that is on the RIGHT side of the equasion!
This is where we need to be super careful.
For the longest time it looked like it was tinnitus that gave me the feeling. i.e.
Tinnitus -> Feeling.
But once the PoT has to be factored in, then the equation has to change
Tinnitus -> PoT -> Feeling.
Meaning, tinnitus has no ability to give me a feeling, unless it went into the PoT, so I can have an experience of Tinnitus.
But for as long as it was tinnitus -> feeling, I was building layer upon layer of thought about it all because I was missing just one factor- the PoT.

I would like to say that 'thinking that we are having' refers to an experience of thinking in the PHYSICAL world.
i.e. thoughts in our head. The awareness of thinking which is the RIGHT side of the equasion, which we call: FEELING.
Everything we think ABOUT, the content or the WHAT can only come to life within the boundaries of time, space, and matter (try thinking of absolutely anything that isn't in time, space, and matter!)
That's suddenly seeing its thinking going into the PoT, it's not in the dimension of the physical. It's the hidden dimension I call the psychological dimension. It's too simple, really. But very very easy to miss. I had no idea such a dimension existed for 40 years!

or can we say 'thinking that just now went into the power of thought and THEN when FEELING was experienced it appeared to the person as something that didn't have it's source from that THINKING but rather that it appeared as coming from the PHYSICAL WORLD?
Bingo! Well said.
I will ONLY use the word THINKING to mean THINKING (capital letters)--->POT---FEELING
and the awareness of thoughts in my head in the physical realm to be calling thoughts in my head. I don't want to call it thinking (even lower case). too hard.
For me thoughts is just another word to describe the same thing I call thinking. I prefer to say thinking because it's less likely to be conflated with Thought. At the same time, thoughts, with a little t and it;'s plural must be content-based or what-based, because there isn't more than one Principle of Thought. The PoT must, and always, have the number of instances at one and never more than that.

So THINKING (this stuff that we don't know exactly what it is, but it is the ingredients or recipe of computer program of the chair experience or the tinnitus experience) goes INTO the POWER OF THOUGHT and we HAVE the experience, the feeling, the thoughts in our head, the sensations, the emotions. yes?
Yes

When you are saying red thinking is thinking do you mean there is only one kind of thinking which is the one that goes into the power of thought
*All* kinds of thinking go into the PoT. Including the ones we have yet to recognize as thinking.

thinking and feeling - are 2 sides of the same coin or not at all. (i don't think so).
They are two sides of the same coin, but it's easy to miss the main part - the coin itself. If there were no coin, there'd be no sides.

it's a semantics question which I think can really easily be cleared up as soon as we have a dictionary of words we are using.
I agree. When I write my book, I think I'm going to need a glossary of some sort.