we ARE influenced by what we take in...

[willow]

So I have been reflecting A LOT on our first zoom meeting. While Brett did not post the recording... I remember the diagrams and while we can't understand the processing and determine the output we can say we are influenced by what we see and experience.
Now for sure 10 kids in a family can all grow up with a different experience depending on their personalities and the way MIND processed and delivered the output.
But to say we are not influenced I think is false
And if we go with this we can say perhaps that therapy in the traditional way may have a place?
That there was trauma ( in how they experienced life)
Now of course no one is bound by this and their thinking can change
It may take work or a miracle who knows
What do you think

This video seems to make sense to me it does anyone. I am sure you all have lots to say!!
looking forward

 

[Sebastian]

Hello willow,

I watched the interview between Gabor Mate and Tim Ferris a while back – I enjoy his thoughts!
I got the sense, that, sometimes, he talks about something in the human which is inviolate, or un-influencable, by what we may call those "inputs,” but not all of the time, of course.

I agree, we are influenced. But it is important to note that we are influenced when we are living/being in a processing of the “things in the world,” (inputs) where the “experience of our world” (output) is unquestionably determined by those inputs.
We will then find some sort of connection, relationship, correlation there.
I think we can observe, that there are instances (especially when talking about psychology), that these relationships between input and output are not a constant relationship, though. The relationship is different from human to human, even in ourselves sometimes.

Where Gabor Mate’s argument seems to go into uncertainty and sounds inconsistent to me, is when he explains that these stressors might cause highly sensitive people to either go into hyperactivity (ADHD) or into a tuning out – two opposite directions for relating to reality. He described this as having inherited “the sensitivity that makes it more likely, under stressful circumstances, that you revert to tuning out, when your brain is developing.”
This sounds like a bit too easy of an explanation where there isn’t really one yet.

You mentioned it in your post, the “way the MIND processed and delivered the output” – something not mentioned in the video, what we also inherit by way of conditioning, cultivation, learning is how we then process the inputs, how our mind relates to the world. And what is in Mind is in thought. How we process is importantly a function of how we understand. That understanding is also shaped by what we have learned.

So, the question is, “Are we fundamentally, in actual, actual, actual reality, influenced by the inputs?”
If how we are influenced is shaped by how we think and (then) relate to the world, which is shaped what happens in the mind – ourselves – then how can we say that we are fundamentally influenced by the world (the inputs)?

I think this is the different paradigm Brett talks about. It’s a radically different, diametrically opposed way of relating to what we see as inputs.

Last, I do think therapy in a traditional way might have a place. Therapy has developed and keeps developing from what it was.

Let me know if I’ve misunderstood something you have said or have misrepresented something explained in the video.

Thanks and best,
xxx

*edited formatting

 

[willow]

Hello willow,

I watched the interview between Gabor Mate and Tim Ferris a while back – I enjoy his thoughts!
I got the sense, that, sometimes, he talks about something in the human which is inviolate, or un-influencable, by what we may call those "inputs,” but not all of the time, of course.

I agree, we are influenced. But it is important to note that we are influenced when we are living/being in a processing of the “things in the world,” (inputs) where the “experience of our world” (output) is unquestionably determined by those inputs.
We will then find some sort of connection, relationship, correlation there.
I think we can observe, that there are instances (especially when talking about psychology), that these relationships between input and output are not a constant relationship, though. The relationship is different from human to human, even in ourselves sometimes.

Where Gabor Mate’s argument seems to go into uncertainty and sounds inconsistent to me, is when he explains that these stressors might cause highly sensitive people to either go into hyperactivity (ADHD) or into a tuning out – two opposite directions for relating to reality. He described this as having inherited “the sensitivity that makes it more likely, under stressful circumstances, that you revert to tuning out, when your brain is developing.”
This sounds like a bit too easy of an explanation where there isn’t really one yet.

You mentioned it in your post, the “way the MIND processed and delivered the output” – something not mentioned in the video, what we also inherit by way of conditioning, cultivation, learning is how we then process the inputs, how our mind relates to the world. And what is in Mind is in thought. How we process is importantly a function of how we understand. That understanding is also shaped by what we have learned.

So, the question is, “Are we fundamentally, in actual, actual, actual reality, influenced by the inputs?”
If how we are influenced is shaped by how we think and (then) relate to the world, which is shaped what happens in the mind – ourselves – then how can we say that we are fundamentally influenced by the world (the inputs)?

I think this is the different paradigm Brett talks about. It’s a radically different, diametrically opposed way of relating to what we see as inputs.

Last, I do think therapy in a traditional way might have a place. Therapy has developed and keeps developing from what it was.

Let me know if I’ve misunderstood something you have said or have misrepresented something explained in the video.

Thanks and best,
xxx

*edited formatting

this is deep and my tired mind dealing with life can't process this. I will revisit I just did not want to think I was ignoring you. I will read this again and again until hopefully it makes sense.

 

[Sebastian]

this is deep and my tired mind dealing with life can't process this. I will revisit I just did not want to think I was ignoring you. I will read this again and again until hopefully it makes sense.

That’s no problem!

Ask me to clarify, if any of it is not understandable. I would have liked to clean up and change the text a bit, but I couldn’t go back in to edit the it.

I might also be wrong at parts, so questions are very welcome.

 

[Gerber 2985]

But it is important to note that we are influenced when we are living/being in a processing of the “things in the world,” (inputs) where the “experience of our world” (output) is unquestionably determined by those inputs.

Thank you for offering to clarify.
I believe that you wrote this very clearly with minimum wording that exactly describes what you are saying.
But can you expand it a little and add a short example so that I/we can be sure we are getting what you are saying?

The relationship is different from human to human, even in ourselves sometimes.

I would tweak the latter part of this sentence and 'so much of the time' or 'often'
To me the learning is much more in ourselves than seeing how my reaction to the same input is different from others.

Ok thank you.

 

[willow]

That’s no problem!

Ask me to clarify, if any of it is not understandable. I would have liked to clean up and change the text a bit, but I couldn’t go back in to edit the it.

I might also be wrong at parts, so questions are very welcome.

I guess simply said.
I think ( ha think) that it is impossible that we are not influenced by what we see
Otherwise we would not have marketing that makes us want to buy things
We see an attractive women and we think about her and perhaps want to be like her
We are around junk food and want to eat those colorful things
Now of course everyone reacts differently depending on personality, choices, experince of life
But we are always learning. That is why we can do things in life.
We learn and grow and somtimes learn and fall into things we wish we did not
And of course we are not static we can change and evolve but we are influenced

 

[willow]

I guess simply said.
I think ( ha think) that it is impossible that we are not influenced by what we see
Otherwise we would not have marketing that makes us want to buy things
We see an attractive women and we think about her and perhaps want to be like her
We are around junk food and want to eat those colorful things
Now of course everyone reacts differently depending on personality, choices, experince of life
But we are always learning. That is why we can do things in life.
We learn and grow and somtimes learn and fall into things we wish we did not
And of course we are not static we can change and evolve but we are influenced

I understand it is not cause and effect science and that it can go any way all the time but I think that is not in my control ( up to G-d) and that yes there is a lot of times cause and effect caused by environment. OTherwise why do so many kids that grew up in unhealthy unattached homes have add or trauma that makes them always feel unsettled......maybe unable to function properly in life because of it

 

[Sebastian]

Thank you for offering to clarify.
I believe that you wrote this very clearly with minimum wording that exactly describes what you are saying.
But can you expand it a little and add a short example so that I/we can be sure we are getting what you are saying?


I would tweak the latter part of this sentence and 'so much of the time' or 'often'
To me the learning is much more in ourselves than seeing how my reaction to the same input is different from others.

Ok thank you.

Hi Gerber! I would agree with you on that point, that "The relationship is different from human to human, even in ourselves s̷o̷m̷e̷t̷i̷m̷e̷s̷ so much of the time". And for myself, too, because I am my own subject and can basically observe myself all the time, so much (most?) of the learning comes from that.

I will try to come up with an example(s). I will try to combine this with my reply to willow's two most recent posts.

I think, willow, you make some good points, based on some observations in life, and things seem to be that way you say, virtually, everywhere we look.

I might not have very good counter-arguments! But, I hope you can bear with me as I work through my own thoughts. I'll try my best.

Here are a few points you have made:

1. it is impossible that we are not influenced by what we see.
2. everyone reacts differently depending on personality, choices, experience of life.
3. there is a lot of times cause and effect caused by environment.
4. it is not in my control.

And you gave a few examples as to why these things might be true. I had to think about whether I, for myself, think these things are true or not.

1. it is impossible that we are not influenced by what we see. ​

I don't know. Is it impossible? I did say in my first post, that I agree, we are influenced! But then I go on to say that we are not influenced in the way that we assume that we are influenced.

If I've understood you correctly, I think you are saying that "marketing makes us want to buy things, so this means that we are influenced by marketing."

I have to say though, I think (I am making a presumption!), I really almost never buy things based on advertisements alone (I despise YouTube ads ) and I often try not to buy those things specifically. But this is just one case in a million, so let's move my example aside.

2. everyone reacts differently depending on personality, choices, experience of life.​

For myself the point of confusion is here – it's really an artful deception in life! A reaction can always look like an influenced action. And an action can look like a reaction, because there was something that happened before that final action/reaction.

I would ask, "Could it be that a reaction was in actual fact not simply an action?"

Sidenote: OK, I'm hurting my own head here. If any of that doesn't make sense at all, let me try to formulate my point differently in the next paragraph.

3. there is a lot of times cause and effect caused by environment.​

I hope you've played with playdough before. I thought this was a pretty nice way to explain it to myself!

The Play-Doh company calls this a Play-Doh Fun Factory tool.

Let's say the human (perhaps things like, personality and experience of life) is the Fun Factory tool. And let's say that the playdough is the environment (so this could really be anything like junk food, advertisements, attractive women, etc...). And we have the rail (with the shapes) where the playdough is squished through. What is the rail? Well, it's part of the human, but I would describe it as the mind-part. If you have enough options for shapes, you can make the playdough come out any way you want really. So that's kind what life is like. You have the playdough (environment), but the shape the playdough comes out, finally, is not altogether determined by the playdough itself or even tool (the human). The rail-part which makes the shapes is important.

This is just an example and you can pick a lot of holes in this!

4. it is not in my control.​

Who decides over the shapes?

---

I hope that example worked for you Gerber and willow. I don't know if it was a good one, since it's not a life example.

I have to stop here, because have to go, but I'll leave you a few questions.

Where is the influence formed?
Where do the decisions on how to react to the influences happen?
Does the person you are have any influence over the influences?


edit: word

 

[willow]

Hi Gerber! I would agree with you on that point, that "The relationship is different from human to human, even in ourselves s̷o̷m̷e̷t̷i̷m̷e̷s̷ so much of the time". And for myself, too, because I am my own subject and can basically observe myself all the time, so much (most?) of the learning comes from that.

I will try to come up with an example(s). I will try to combine this with my reply to willow's two most recent posts.

I think, willow, you make some good points, based on some observations in life, and things seem to be that way you say, virtually, everywhere we look.

I might not have very good counter-arguments! But, I hope you can bear with me as I work through my own thoughts. I'll try my best.

Here are a few points you have made:

1. it is impossible that we are not influenced by what we see.
2. everyone reacts differently depending on personality, choices, experience of life.
3. there is a lot of times cause and effect caused by environment.
4. it is not in my control.

And you gave a few examples as to why these things might be true. I had to think about whether I, for myself, think these things are true or not.

1. it is impossible that we are not influenced by what we see. ​

I don't know. Is it impossible? I did say in my first post, that I agree, we are influenced! But then I go on to say that we are not influenced in the way that we assume that we are influenced.

If I've understood you correctly, I think you are saying that "marketing makes us want to buy things, so this means that we are influenced by marketing."

I have to say though, I think (I am making a presumption!), I really almost never buy things based on advertisements alone (I despise YouTube ads ) and I often try not to buy those things specifically. But this is just one case in a million, so let's move my example aside.

2. everyone reacts differently depending on personality, choices, experience of life.​

For myself the point of confusion is here – it's really an artful deception in life! A reaction can always look like an influenced action. And an action can look like a reaction, because there was something that happened before that final action/reaction.

I would ask, "Could it be that a reaction was in actual fact not simply an action?"

Sidenote: OK, I'm hurting my own head here. If any of that doesn't make sense at all, let me try to formulate my point differently in the next paragraph.

3. there is a lot of times cause and effect caused by environment.​

I hope you've played with playdough before. I thought this was a pretty nice way to explain it to myself!

The Play-Doh company calls this a Play-Doh Fun Factory tool.

Let's say the human (perhaps things like, personality and experience of life) is the Fun Factory tool. And let's say that the playdough is the environment (so this could really be anything like junk food, advertisements, attractive women, etc...). And we have the rail (with the shapes) where the playdough is squished through. What is the rail? Well, it's part of the human, but I would describe it as the mind-part. If you have enough options for shapes, you can make the playdough come out any way you want really. So that's kind what life is like. You have the playdough (environment), but the shape the playdough comes out, finally, is not altogether determined by the playdough itself or even tool (the human). The rail-part which makes the shapes is important.

This is just an example and you can pick a lot of holes in this!

4. it is not in my control.​

Who decides over the shapes?

---

I hope that example worked for you Gerber and willow. I don't know if it was a good one, since it's not a life example.

I have to stop here, because have to go, but I'll leave you a few questions.

Where is the influence formed?
Where do the decisions on how to react to the influences happen?
Does the person you are have any influence over the influences?


edit: word

wowee!! this is a mind twist

 

[Brett Chitty]

I've been keeping an eye on this fascinating thread! May I add an idea to the conversation?

The question of Influence. I think this is an "easy" one to answer, but it can be hugely deceptive. In fact, so deceptive, we have no idea that it's deceptive in the first place and looks for the world to us that "it's just how it is."

For me, what we see is not a result of what's in our environment, but of the outcome of our thought at the moment.
At this point, what happens next is not determined by the thought, but by the paradigm I am in.

So when "what we see" is seen as a product of thought, we can't be influenced by what the content of "what we see." We know exactly what the source is. It's impossible to be influenced by your own thought seen as thought. This is an effect of being inside-out. Wisdom takes over and we start seeing something even deeper than "what we see." (This is the "kind of influence" I'd rather have - access to deeper wisdom!)

However, that same exact "what we see," which is still a product of thought, but appears to us as something other than thought, what do you think happens?

Now, the "what we see" appears as the environmental/physical-"what we see." Not the thought-"What we see." It's a projection that doesn't look like a projection. Because it doesn't look like a projection, we call it "real." (which means, in another way of saying, that "thing" has the power to determine our inner state.)
The question of influence only arises when it's NOT seen as Thought. It can bring up all kinds of questions, such as "How much influence do it/they have," "is it good influence, or bad influence?" I mean, there's an entire industry built around "influence." Which only goes to show how much outside-in is going on in the world.
In other words, we're being "influenced" by the products of our thoughts that appears as something other. It's like a dog chasing after its own tail, believing that's the tail of some other dog/animal etc.

Syd said in an exchange with someone:
Someone: "Are you saying that chair isn't real?"
Syd: "The chair is real. But it comes to you via Thought."

So you see the chair through your thought. Without Thought, how can you know if the chair exists?

 

[willow]

I've been keeping an eye on this fascinating thread! May I add an idea to the conversation?

The question of Influence. I think this is an "easy" one to answer, but it can be hugely deceptive. In fact, so deceptive, we have no idea that it's deceptive in the first place and looks for the world to us that "it's just how it is."

For me, what we see is not a result of what's in our environment, but of the outcome of our thought at the moment.
At this point, what happens next is not determined by the thought, but by the paradigm I am in.

So when "what we see" is seen as a product of thought, we can't be influenced by what the content of "what we see." We know exactly what the source is. It's impossible to be influenced by your own thought seen as thought. This is an effect of being inside-out. Wisdom takes over and we start seeing something even deeper than "what we see." (This is the "kind of influence" I'd rather have - access to deeper wisdom!)

However, that same exact "what we see," which is still a product of thought, but appears to us as something other than thought, what do you think happens?

Now, the "what we see" appears as the environmental/physical-"what we see." Not the thought-"What we see." It's a projection that doesn't look like a projection. Because it doesn't look like a projection, we call it "real." (which means, in another way of saying, that "thing" has the power to determine our inner state.)
The question of influence only arises when it's NOT seen as Thought. It can bring up all kinds of questions, such as "How much influence do it/they have," "is it good influence, or bad influence?" I mean, there's an entire industry built around "influence." Which only goes to show how much outside-in is going on in the world.
In other words, we're being "influenced" by the products of our thoughts that appears as something other. It's like a dog chasing after its own tail, believing that's the tail of some other dog/animal etc.

Syd said in an exchange with someone:
Someone: "Are you saying that chair isn't real?"
Syd: "The chair is real. But it comes to you via Thought."

So you see the chair through your thought. Without Thought, how can you know if the chair exists?

I think I am getting what you wrote.
That brings me around though to I can't make myself be inside out and access that wisdom at my bidding ( I sure would like to life gets so much more relaxed)
And so I am being influened by my outside in par

 

[Brett Chitty]

I think I am getting what you wrote.
That brings me around though to I can't make myself be inside out and access that wisdom at my bidding ( I sure would like to life gets so much more relaxed)
And so I am being influened by my outside in par

Don't make the inside-out paradigm the target - it'll just keep you away from it. Look toward Insight. What can you learn about the Three Principles that you don't yet know?

 

[Gerber 2985]

Don't make the inside-out paradigm the target - it'll just keep you away from it. Look toward Insight. What can you learn about the Three Principles that you don't yet know?

Are you saying any of the following (more than one is ok)
a> don't try to feel ok (via trying to be inside out?)
b> try to get insight (by looking towards insight, pathway to insight, we can't by will get insight)
c> try to look towards insight by thinking about what can you learn about the three principles
d> don't try to feel ok, just try to get insight because...(not sure, because it is an interesting subject? because it is truth and it is a good idea to look at things which are truthful for no other reason but because it's a good thing to do?)

Sorry, if I am not being helpful so skip!

 

[Brett Chitty]

d> don't try to feel ok, just try to get insight because...(not sure, because it is an interesting subject? because it is truth and it is a good idea to look at things which are truthful for no other reason but because it's a good thing to do?)

Look in the direction of insight, and then that will change how you see thinking and feeling (or your relationship to it). Because that's changed, what made sense to you prior to insight won't make sense to you post-insight! So your thinking, feeling, and response will be very different!

Similar for paradigms.
The Inside-out has become too big a temptation, so we make it a target. I kind of blame myself for that one, as I was one of the chief promoters of paradigms!
Where it gets interesting is that when you have insight, the Inside-Out paradigm appears to you differently from before insight. Probably less tempting because you see more of its "default nature."

 

[willow]

Look in the direction of insight, and then that will change how you see thinking and feeling (or your relationship to it). Because that's changed, what made sense to you prior to insight won't make sense to you post-insight! So your thinking, feeling, and response will be very different!

Similar for paradigms.
The Inside-out has become too big a temptation, so we make it a target. I kind of blame myself for that one, as I was one of the chief promoters of paradigms!
Where it gets interesting is that when you have insight, the Inside-Out paradigm appears to you differently from before insight. Probably less tempting because you see more of its "default nature."

Brett I heard a lot in class to look towards the 3p you need iinsight to change your life.....andthen you saying don't try so hard .... don't try to get insight -oxymoron?

 

[willow]

Don't make the inside-out paradigm the target - it'll just keep you away from it. Look toward Insight. What can you learn about the Three Principles that you don't yet know?

I don't know it feels like I don't know how to look for somthing that I am not supposed to workout what it is? And you can't tell me to "do" anything so then I just sit here and ..... what how does one learn without carrying over previous baggage

 

[Sebastian]

I've been keeping an eye on this fascinating thread! May I add an idea to the conversation?

The question of Influence. I think this is an "easy" one to answer, but it can be hugely deceptive. In fact, so deceptive, we have no idea that it's deceptive in the first place and looks for the world to us that "it's just how it is."

For me, what we see is not a result of what's in our environment, but of the outcome of our thought at the moment.
At this point, what happens next is not determined by the thought, but by the paradigm I am in.

So when "what we see" is seen as a product of thought, we can't be influenced by what the content of "what we see." We know exactly what the source is. It's impossible to be influenced by your own thought seen as thought. This is an effect of being inside-out. Wisdom takes over and we start seeing something even deeper than "what we see." (This is the "kind of influence" I'd rather have - access to deeper wisdom!)

However, that same exact "what we see," which is still a product of thought, but appears to us as something other than thought, what do you think happens?

Now, the "what we see" appears as the environmental/physical-"what we see." Not the thought-"What we see." It's a projection that doesn't look like a projection. Because it doesn't look like a projection, we call it "real." (which means, in another way of saying, that "thing" has the power to determine our inner state.)
The question of influence only arises when it's NOT seen as Thought. It can bring up all kinds of questions, such as "How much influence do it/they have," "is it good influence, or bad influence?" I mean, there's an entire industry built around "influence." Which only goes to show how much outside-in is going on in the world.
In other words, we're being "influenced" by the products of our thoughts that appears as something other. It's like a dog chasing after its own tail, believing that's the tail of some other dog/animal etc.

Syd said in an exchange with someone:
Someone: "Are you saying that chair isn't real?"
Syd: "The chair is real. But it comes to you via Thought."

So you see the chair through your thought. Without Thought, how can you know if the chair exists?

Thanks for this Brett! I also thought that last night's webinar actually covered the main questions from this thread very well.
It does seem so hard sometimes, trying to reverse not seeing something as Thought (to have it be seen as Thought).

I did have one question I'd like to ask. I reckon, there are plenty of people, who don't know anything about the 3P, or any other type of helpful understanding, but they have insightful thinking a lot of the time, too. What seems to be happening there? Would you say these are not insights?

Also, I don’t think it’s not only one industry built around “influence,” I assume the whole world is built upon a groundwork of outside-in thinking, and that we keep layering upon it, too. (But those are the assumptions that I have that may not be that helpful for myself )

---

I want to draw something out quickly, to get another line-of-thought around the questions asked and thoughts in the room.

Here you have your input and and output.​

Let's just say, for argument's sake, that your output is abosolutely determined ("influence" sounds a bit obscure to me).

In this representation, we see that we only have one possible output for this input.

But what if... and this is just a thought... What if there isn't only one possible output?

Same representation, but "unknown output" included.​

So, you have your input, but we include the fact, that there might be something we don't know about yet. This something is in your range of possibilities for outputs.

So what do I need to do to uncover this "unknown output"? Say I don't like my "known output" and I'd like to have a different, better output.

I observe that people often try really hard to do something (I do, too). Or they try to do something in the other direction, this could look like "tuning out" (a favourite approach of mine!).

This is trying to do something in relation to the initial input or its output. So, we try things like enlarging it/them, reducing it/them, hammering at it/them, ignoring it/them, etc... trying to make something different out of it, for there to be a different output (or new output). But, in a way, we're already going down a misguided path.

This could look like:

As long as we are in the belief of any specific input having determined its output, hidden outputs remain hidden.​

And because we're already down a misguided path, we're likely going to end up back at where we were or just keep going down a same path (that's why I added arrows in both directions).

Said in another way, we're taking the baggage we want to carry over with us, maybe even adding to the weight. But, in that moment we learn, we then carry over the baggage. Does that make sense? We don't carry over it by carrying it with us.

To me, "not doing anything" is just staying with the fact that there is a range of possible outputs, that the output we already have (or are in) is not the only possible output. Which means, that the input doesn't actually absolutely determine any specific output.

My explanation as to the reason, would be that: the input is created in mind, the output is created in mind. That's where they are born, that's where they go on to give birth.

And "not doing anything" means as much as just staying with the understanding, while you're still living outside of understanding. Not doing anything doesn't necessarily mean that you'll just sit there and do nothing (it might, though, if that's the approprite thing to do).

Nobody knows what the insight will be. If we are trying to get to insight, as a target (as Brett explained) then what are we trying to get to? What target have we made out of insight? It's more like a direction, than a target, I would say.


Additional note:
I got really annoyed trying to draw out these figures (Paint + touchscreen... difficult). I almost gave up. It wasn't the "quick" I was going for. Plus I didn't even know whether any of this would be helpful at all. I probably went into and out of seeing what was annoying me a thousand times. Even if it doesn't help anyone, and if it confuses you further (I am sorry!), in the end I think I enjoyed doing this, anyway.

edited: format, typos

 

[Brett Chitty]

I did have one question I'd like to ask. I reckon, there are plenty of people, who don't know anything about the 3P, or any other type of helpful understanding, but they have insightful thinking a lot of the time, too. What seems to be happening there? Would you say these are not insights?

Oh, absolutely. There are people who have insights without knowing a single thing about the 3Ps. This means that any knowledge you have about the 3Ps are NOT a prerequisite for insight. Insight remains unconditional.
I'm blessed to have met a few people who are naturally so wise, so resilient, so "strong from within" and they know nothing about the 3Ps.
Indeed, I had a period where I asked them a question, before I realised the answer is so universal it didn't make sense to ask anymore.
The question was based on the same variation:
"How are you like this, I mean, the circumstance is so overwhelming, and you seem to be able to go through them without losing your mind?
"How do you think so well?"
"How did you work that out?"
"How can you be so nice and respectful to that person?"

The answer, consistently, was this one: "I don't know, I just do."

In that answer, can you hear what they don't do?

Not a single one of them said anything like, "I had to spend time figuring it out, analyzing my mind and putting things together etc, and then I was able to come up with the answer and I just did it."
That gave me some clues and provided a strong sense of direction - not so much by what they did, but by what they didn't do. It highlights that there is a thought, but it appears that thought happened without any doing involved. The moment "the doing" enters the equation, that's when it gets very complex and confusing, and the mental effort and "trying" just goes through the roof, no wonder it's exhausting.

Also, I don’t think it’s not only one industry built around “influence,” I assume the whole world is built upon a groundwork of outside-in thinking, and that we keep layering upon it, too. (But those are the assumptions that I have that may not be that helpful for myself )

I agree 100%, your description is a fantastic one. The outside-in "has found its way into the minds of so many" and has now become the bedrock of everything society does today. Mental Health field, Physical health, communications, advertising, journalism, politics, religion, you name it. All the structures, laws, and institutions are built on the Outside-In too. Society right now is just one gigantic Outside-In soup.

I know we have a few religious folks here, so I'll just say this: I'm extraordinarily blessed to have met a few religious folks who are inside-out with their religion. Indeed some of them became very dear friends and colleagues. Something that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago before I had my own insights. Thank God! Such people are absolutely nothing like those who are outside-in about their religion (and I'm glad I see this clearly otherwise, the outside-in would make me go outside-in!)

To me, "not doing anything" is just staying with the fact that there is a range of possible outputs, that the output we already have (or are in) is not the only possible output. Which means, that the input doesn't actually absolutely determine any specific output.

That's extraordinary and brilliant, I really like this one!

I found your "article" very riveting and thoroughly enjoyable. It's wonderful you can do this. Lots of brilliant points were made, and hopefully, as people read your post, they will hear something for themselves, as I did myself. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Gerber 2985]

Brett I heard a lot in class to look towards the 3p you need iinsight to change your life.....andthen you saying don't try so hard .... don't try to get insight -oxymoron?

I don't know if this is helpful or 'right' but to me when I feel the 'trying hard' feeling, the intensity, the urgency, in ANY area, 3p insights or helping my son, or getting an answer, then I am alerted (when I am) that I am outside in. That doesn't preclude me from looking in the direction of insight.

Looking towards insight or asking questions or getting help for my children are actions. That is one point.

The other 'action' that I 'do' (right or wrong) is that I look (when I remember, or see my alleged sticky note!) is that I look towards truth, towards, what I know, perhaps towards insight. Maybe it's like Sebastian's being open to other outputs. It's hard to describe. There is a knowing there, perhaps an insight that that is available for me to do.

It is an understanding that though this is what is occurring to me now, it is not truely the only feeling that is around.
I'm not sure how to say it in principle language or as a constant.

 

[Sebastian]

It is an understanding that though this is what is occurring to me now, it is not truely the only feeling that is around.
I'm not sure how to say it in principle language or as a constant.

I feel like this was likely the best language to use.