When we’re in mental pain, this pain – as we experience it – has a very precise relationship to our way of understanding ‘who we are’. To put this even more clearly, the pain that we are experiencing doesn’t just have ‘a precise relationship’ to our way of understanding who we are, it is a faithful reflection of that understanding. What this means is that any idea that we have of escaping the pain, or solving the problem that it poses to us, is no more than a momentarily comforting fantasy. It’s no more than a comforting fantasy but it’s also our sole preoccupation – it consumes us.


We could also put this in a simpler way and say that ‘our thinking about the pain that we’re in is itself the pain’, which is a curious thing to contemplate. The more pain we are in the more we think about this pain, which straightaway creates a trap that there doesn’t seem to be any way out of. This is ‘the trap of resistance’ – the more it hurts the more we resist and the more we resist the more it hurts. The more we turn our face away from our pain, the more the pain grows and we have to put ever-more effort into ignoring it, or running away from it. In a simplistic way we might say that our course of action in this case is clear, and that all we need to do is to take note of our error and then correct it. If turning away from our pain causes this pain to grow, then the answer must be to turn towards it instead.


We are underestimating the subtlety of the trap however if this is what we think. What we fail to see is that any sort of ‘deliberate stance’ that we take with regard to our inner pain equals ‘turning our face away’. What’s the motivation behind the manoeuvre to ‘turn to face the pain’, after all? If we are manoeuvring then there must be a motivation behind it, there must be something that is being aimed at, and what possible aim could it be other than escaping ‘from the pain’, after all? Why else do we do anything? If we sincerely wish to accept the pain that we are in then we wouldn’t be manoeuvring at all – there would be no need for it. If we were truly sincere and wished to unconditionally embrace the pain that we are in then we would also embrace the ‘extra pain’ that we are in as a result of turning our face away from the original pain. There would be no scheming, no manoeuvring.There would be no need for anything like that.


This is an old point, a point that has been made many times. When we try to accept pain or face pain then this is only in order to escape that same pain – is a ‘clever ploy,’ in other words. It’s a clever ploy to do something that is actually quite impossible to do because we can no more ‘face pain on purpose’ than we can successfully avoid or escape it! If we are trying to escape the pain then that is because we’re thinking about it and if we trying to face it then this is also because we’re thinking about it. It’s the thinking that constitutes the trap, not the particular type of thinking that we are engaged in. It’s not as if there is such a thing as ‘the right type of thinking’ that will enable us to escape from the trap! No thinking is the right thinking.


Thinking is itself a trap because it always involves us in self-reflection. Thinking is self-reflection – thinking always traps us in our own assumptions. As we said at the beginning of this discussion it’s not just that our mental pain has a very precise relationship to our way of understanding who we are, it is actually a faithful reflection of that understanding. By reacting in any way to the reflection, we solidify it, we confirm it as being true. The pain of our situation is the pain of our predicament in thinking that ‘this sufferer  is who we are’. If we were to move any distance at all from this fixed position of self-identification then the pain that we are in would immediately change and lose its utterly oppressive nature – it only has that utterly oppressive nature because we think that we are that ‘self’, because we think that we are that ‘sufferer’. The pain that I am afflicted with is the shadow of the ‘self-delusion’ that I am caught up in. I am ‘identifying with the sufferer’;  i am identifying with my manoeuvring, with my scheming and calculating, with my endless ‘thinking’.


The reflection of ourselves that we see and react to as a result of our thinking is a very precarious and transitory type of thing therefore. It’s only there because of our thinking – when we think we solidify it, we confirm it as ‘the only possible reality’. We are potentially very free indeed therefore – we could ‘float freely in any direction’, so to speak, but not if we solidify the picture we have of ourselves and our situation by thinking about it, or reacting to our thoughts about it. As we have said, we are the pain and the pain is us. The specific sense of identity which is conditioned by my reactions to the pain (or my resistance to the pain) gives rise to the pain. I am my pain and my pain is me, and so the idea of ‘escape’ from it is a complete non-starter. If I am constructing myself in terms of my absolute need to escape from the pain then how can I ever go beyond this pain?


If I try to escape or turn away from the pain then this turning away reaffirms the concrete sense of myself that I am identifying with, and if I try instead to turn towards the pain (which I may come to see as ‘the smarter move’) then this too reaffirms the concrete sense of self. Who is it that is either ‘turning away’ or ‘turning towards’, after all? Or purposeful action reaffirms the reality of the one who is striving to enact these purposes, just as all thought reaffirms the reality of the one who is having the thought, and this is the nature of the trap that we are caught in. It doesn’t matter how much I twist and turn with my clever thinking and my goal-orientated actions, all I’m doing is digging myself deeper into the hole.


We can’t try to ‘do nothing’ or ‘think nothing’ either – ‘freezing’ isn’t the answer. Who is the one who has to ‘do nothing’ or ‘think nothing’, after all? If we tried to ‘do nothing’ then we would identify with the one who is trying to do it; if we try to ‘have no thoughts’ then we would be identifying with the proposed ‘non-thinker’! The trap is that we are ‘identified’ with a particular idea of ourselves; a particular idea of ourselves that has been created by our thinking (by our resistance, in other words). All of our thinking, all of our purposeful activity, comes from this particular idea of who we are and so how are these plans and strategies ever going to work? Any method (any method whatsoever) that we are presented with is always going to be used by this ‘idea of myself’ to perpetuate itself and so how is this going to help matters any? How is any method or strategy ever going to genuinely help us, rather than proving to be just another level of the trap for us to get caught in?


We keep on talking about ‘skills’ and ‘tools’ in the world of mental health care – but who do we imagine is going to use the skills, use the tools? Who is it really in aid of? All of this effort and technology is in the service of the mind-created self (which is to say, ‘the conditioned identity’) not in aid of who we truly are. We have no allegiance to ‘who we truly are’. We know nothing about our true unconditioned nature; we don’t even have any curiosity – we think we know everything already. All strategies, all cleverness belongs to the conditioned identity – consciousness (which is our true nature) has no need of such tricks however. The conditioned identity relies on controlling because that’s how it comes into being, because that’s how it is maintained and perpetuated, but consciousness has nothing whatsoever to do with control. If it has something to do with anything, it is honesty, which is somehow the one thing we tend to overlook in our overly-technical approach to mental healthcare. When honesty comes into the picture (instead of controlling) then the phenomenon of ‘self-reflection’ comes to an end and the door to the trap suddenly swings open…






The Realm of Familiarity


When we think we get drawn into ‘the realm of familiarity’. When we don’t think – on the other hand – then we find ourselves in the realm of mystery. ‘Mystery’ easily becomes a rather bland sort of a word – mystery, mystery, mystery. It’s so easy to say it, so easy to over-use the word, or use when we actually mean something trivial. The type of mystery we’re talking about isn’t trivial – when we don’t think (when we don’t allow ourselves to get drawn into the familiar context of thought) we find ourselves in what we could call ‘a realm of electric uncertainty’. Normally we make sense of everything by relating what we are experiencing to the framework that is provided for us by thinking – take away this framework and all of a sudden we’re looking at the world in a way that is distinctly unfamiliar. When aren’t utilizing the framework of thought to make sense of everything then we enter into a state of being in which we are ‘radically free’ from all the dull old preconceptions that we are normally tethered to – chief amongst which is the dull old preconception of ‘who we think we are’!


When we think the operation of thought creates not just the object of thought (the ‘thing that we are thinking about’), it also creates the context within which this object is understood. This might not sound hugely significant but it is. This is actually immensely significant. It’s tremendously significant. We normally imagine that we encounter things just as they are – as far as we are concerned we are ‘seeing’ whatever it is, as it actually is in itself. We imagine that we are encountering the world without any artificial context. We are – as it were – playing the game that there isn’t this ‘artificial context’ which we use to make sense of everything we come across, even though it’s there the whole time, as a necessary prerequisite to the rational modality of consciousness. The ‘artificial context’ that we’re talking about here is simply the everyday thinking mind.

When we think we focus on the object of thought but what we don’t focus on is the context that we assume in order to be able to focus, in the way that we do, on the objection in question. This is just how it works – we ignore the ‘ground’ so as to highlight the ‘figure’. We have to ignore the one in order for the other to be brought into focus as an actual ‘thing’, as an actual ‘positive object’. By ignoring the fact that we have assumed a particular context, the object gets to be real for us…


But what this of course means is that the mental object isn’t real at all. It’s only real when we ignore what we have done in order for it to appear to be real (i.e. ‘assume a context’). It’s only real – in other words – when we pretend that the object exists on its own, as an actual objective fact, and turn a blind eye to the way in which we ourselves have created it by assuming the particular artificial context that makes it real. So the game we’re playing here is the game of ‘creating a mental object and then saying that we didn’t create it’, that it was there all along. We’re divorcing ourselves from our own mental projections and we are creating thereby a ‘false reality’ or a ‘false world’ for ourselves. This is a neat trick that we do all the time without knowing that we are doing it!


When we create both the object of thought and the context within which this object is to be thought about, then naturally there is going to be an ‘air of familiarity’ about this object (about this reality, about this world). Of course there is – we made it ourselves! Talking about ‘familiarity’ is actually understating the matter – we’re not really doing justice to the matter when we merely say that there is ‘an air of familiarity’ surrounding the known things which go to make up our everyday world. We’re not going far enough – the defined element or event that we are thinking about in terms of an assumed context, an assumed ‘framework of reference’, is of course the very same thing as that context, as that framework of reference. It couldn’t be otherwise, it couldn’t be anything else than the framework. There is nothing in what we are thinking about that hasn’t got there via the strictly mechanical process of ‘comparison with the assumed context’ and so of course it’s going to be continuous with the artificial context that we are using to think about it.


So when we utilize thought to know about the world what happens is that we get saddled with a context without noticing that this has happened. We don’t see the context (obviously), and neither do we see that we have been saddled with it. As Guru Granth says ‘we swallow the fly along with the sweet’. What we really want is the sweet (which is the thing that we are focussing on) but we keep on getting that fly as well because of the hasty and careless way in which we go about things. If we didn’t want to get a mouthful of flies every time then we should moderate our heedless greedy way of eating the sweets! We should pay a bit more attention.


The thinking mind draws everything into its ‘taken-for-granted’ context of interpretation and by doing so it ensures that everything will be generic; it ensures that everything will be ‘more of the same, more of the same…’ It is a machine doing a job – it’s like a machine for making sausages for example. If there is a machine for making sausages then it is inevitably going to be the case that the sausages in question are generic products, this is implicit in the nature of all machines, after all! So in the same way the ‘product’ of the machine which is the rational mind is also inevitably going to be generic – the product in this case being ‘the world that we know and believe in’!


We are as a result submerged on a daily basis in this ‘more of the same’, in this ‘generic product’ – we are buried deep beneath it, and the more deeply we get buried beneath the generic product of the thinking machine which is the mind the further away from reality we get! On the face there seems to be some sort of honest curiosity going on with regard to the world around us but this apparent (face-value) curiosity disguises a fundamental conservatism, a fundamental ‘fear of the new’. We might look as if we are trying to create some kind of a relationship with the world but really we are making sure everything is on our terms so instead communicating with the world around us we are actually engulfing it. It’s a take-over bid!


Whatever we engulf straightaway becomes part of ‘the realm of familiarity’. Everything we that we engulf, everything that we subsume, straightaway becomes ‘more of the same, more of the same…’ so although we might feel that we are reaching out with our thinking and finding out stuff about the world we’re doing nothing of the sort. We’re pulling in the world into us, we’re pulling it into our sphere of influence and making it ‘part of us’ and this is an aggressive act. Our whole attitude is aggressive; our whole approach is aggressive; our whole way of being is aggressive…


Whilst aggression as a tactic offers the opportunity of a short-term benefit it doesn’t really get us anywhere in the long run. We aren’t actually ‘on a journey’ – we’re just bringing everything down to our level the whole time. We’re acting as a fixed centre, as if this fixed centre were ‘the most important thing’. We’re resisting change, resisting anything that we don’t already know about. Aggression means that we get to ‘gain’ in terms of our ability to control and exploit our environment, but this ability to control and exploit comes at a price and the price is the ever-increasing impoverishment of our environment, the ever-increasing ‘over-simplification’ of our environment. We inevitably degrade our environment (and ourselves too into the bargain) by embarking upon path of maximized exploitation! We’re shooting ourselves in the foot with our efforts to help ourselves – when I see the world purely in terms of myself I’m not seeing the world at all and if this doesn’t constitute ‘an impoverishment’ then nothing does!

This then is what it means to say that by over-using the instrument of the thinking mind we get drawn deeper and deeper into ‘the realm of familiarity’. The world we are so familiar with is the world that we have impoverished by seeing it entirely in terms of ourselves. In our normal modality of being we’re looking at things exclusively in terms of our ‘assumed framework’ and this is a gross oversimplification of the world. We’re reducing everything to our own narrow terms; we’re making it into ‘more of the same, more of the same…’ We’re homogenizing our environment – we’re turning it into a bland monoculture and treating this bland monoculture as if it were the actual world rather than just our own construct. We sing hymns of praise and adulation to this bland monoculture!


The only way not to impoverish (or ‘informationally-degrade’) the environment in this way would be to see it on its own terms, not on ours. This means looking at the world in a non-exploitative, non-acquisitive way. it means that we relate to the world in a genuine way, a respectful way – not a controlling, bullying way. There is actually no possibility having a ‘relationship’ with anything when there is controlling – a relationship means that there are two sides involved not just the one, and when there is controlling there is only the controller, there is only the fixed centre. There is only ‘me’. An actual honest-to-goodness relationship enriches our world precisely because it takes us out of ourselves, away from ourselves. Enrichment occurs as a result of extending oneself, therefore, which is something we all know on some level or other. Hence, M. Scott Peck says,

Love is the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth…

The idea that enrichment occurs as a result of us extending ourselves makes perfect sense, abundant sense, as far as our heart is concerned, as far as our intuition is concerned, but not as far as our calculating, controlling risk-avoiding head is concerned! The head doesn’t get this at all.


There are two entirely different directions that we might go in, therefore: [1] The direction of impoverishment, the direction of ever-increasing ‘sameness’, and [2] The direction of enrichment, the direction of ever-increasing openness and diversity. Put like this, it doesn’t seem to make any sense at all that we would ever opt to move in Direction [1] rather than Direction [2] – even though we actually do go for this pain-filled option over and over again. Why on earth would we ever want to travel in the direction of ever-increasing closedness and sterility and impoverishment? What possible reason could be persuasive enough to compel us to go down this the grimmest of all possible directions? And if we do pause to ask questions of this sort, the chances are that an answer will present itself to us – the only motivation that could be persuasive enough or strong enough to get us to go down this dark and barren road is the motivation of fear.


When we find ourselves constantly thinking – thinking about this, thinking about that, thinking about the other, then it is fear that lies behind it. Even when these thoughts don’t seem to be anxious or fretful in nature, it can still only be fear that is behind them – odd though this statement may seem. All rational thought – without exception – is based on the desire to increase the control we have over our environment, over the world in which we live; we’re seeking ‘purchase’ on reality, we’re looking for an angle that we can exploit! All rational thinking is an attempt to ‘gain territory’ – as Chogyam Trungpa puts it. At root, the desire to gain purchase on reality is grimly serious; gaining territory is an endeavour that by its very nature is completely lacking in sense of humour, completely lacking in lightness of touch, completely lacking in sensitivity. The urge to extend territory has nothing whatsoever to do with the wish to communicate, the wish to engage in a relationship with reality. It is nothing to do with that at all. It’s another type of thing altogether – a much darker type of a thing.


Under most circumstances we remain utterly unaware of the underlying seriousness of our modality of being in the world – the fact that we are constantly trying to gain and hold onto territory. Our thinking doesn’t seem to have the character of grasping desperately onto reality, the character of holding on tightly and grimly onto reality. It might appear quite playful – frivolous even. But no matter what apparent form our thinking might take, not matter what ‘type’ of day-to-day thinking we’re engaged in (be in ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ or whatever in-between) – what’s going on here is the ceaseless attempt to gain ground, the ceaseless attempt to acquire ontological territory…


No matter what we’re thinking about, no matter what type of thinking we’re engaged in, what we’re really doing is converting everything into our own terms. We’re engulfing everything. We’re importing everything wholesale into ‘the realm of familiarity’. This is what thinking is – there’s no way thinking can work any differently. It assumes stuff and ignores that it assumes and this creates the illusion of familiarity. So as soon as we think about something it gets pulled into the realm of familiarity. It gets made familiar – how after all can our own thoughts be unfamiliar to us? The more we think about this ‘something’ the more familiar it gets and what we eventually discover is that ‘familiar’ actually means unreal because the more often we think a thought (without taking a break) the less meaningful it becomes! We think the thing we’re thinking about to death, as it were. Whatever we go over and over again in our own heads becomes in the process more and more impoverished until it become entirely meaningless. Whatever we’re turning over and over proceeds inexorably to the point of being ‘terminally impoverished’. It approaches – with grim inevitability – the state of ‘maximum entropy’.


Familiarity is a funny sort of a thing. It can be perceived in two totally different ways – there are times when we are fond of it and there are other – much rarer – times when we can clearly see it as an obstruction, as a block or barrier between us and reality. Our familiarity is not with reality after all, it’s with our own mind-produced version of reality! This is like saying that we are familiar with our own opinions or our own beliefs – that’s pretty much a foregone conclusion! We’re familiar with our own dull preconceptions of the world, familiar with our own dull preconceptions of ourselves. When we’re fond of the sense of familiarity that is associated with the known world what’s happening here is that we are experiencing fondness for our own particular way of escaping from reality. This is like the fondness an alcoholic would feel for the bottle, or the fondness a heroin addict would feel for the syringe. We’re fond of our means of escaping reality, but at the same time we hate it. We hate it because it’s also our prison…


When we experience familiarity with the known world then we’re experiencing familiarity in relation to a hallucination. It’s hallucinatory familiarity we’re talking about here. We’re fond of this sense of familiarity therefore insofar as our agenda is to turn our backs on reality, run away from reality, hide from reality, etc, but the other side of this is that if we’re not trying to escape (if our motivation isn’t that of flat-out denial of what we know deep-down to be true) and we actually do want to reach out and taste life (rather than merely tasting our own flavourless generic version of it) then what good is our ‘sense of familiarity’ going to be to us then? The sense that we are ‘familiar’ with the world around us (that we actually ‘know it well’) is going to be like a thick wall of glass that we’re trapped behind.


Familiarity only exists in relation to a hollow (and fundamentally unchallenging) illusion, whereas wonder exists in relation to a reality that is not hollow, and which is profoundly challenging. Put like this, it might seem like a very strange thing that we all tend to go for the suffocating familiarity of ‘closing reality down’, rather than the wonder and electric uncertainty of ‘opening reality up’. And yet how we relate to familiarity (either with fondness or without fondness) depends entirely upon where we’re coming from. If it’s security that we’re looking for then familiarity looks very good to us! It looks very good indeed. If we running away from fear then familiarity looks like the very thing we want – it ticks all the boxes, it meets all the criteria. The realm of familiarity is where we want to be when we’re looking for security and we certainly aren’t going to be looking any further than this! We’ll stick. We’ll keep it as superficial as possible and then – hopefully – we can just forget about the fear-demon that was on our tail. We can go safely to sleep…


When fear is the motivation then if there’s one thing that’s absolutely for sure it’s that we aren’t going to be examining our nice secure reality to make sure that it really is as secure as it looks on the surface to be. We won’t look beyond the ‘comfort value’ of the familiarity that cloaks the hollow illusion of what we ‘think we know’. Why would we do this? We’re not stupid, after all. We know what side our bread’s buttered on. So just so long as its security we’re in the market for, then we’re going to be very happy indeed with the realm of familiarity and we’re going to make damn sure that we don’t ever look too closely into it…

The Gift of Anxiety


Anxiety is a very misunderstood kind of a thing. We see it as being a problem, when really it is a teacher! Anxiety is a teacher and it teaches us something very important – it teaches us who we really are!


Straightaway when we hear this there tends to be a problem and that problem is that we almost always think that we already know very well ‘who we are really are’, and so on this account we don’t feel that we need anyone or anything to come along and teach us otherwise. The very idea that we don’t already know who we are comes across as being ridiculous, it comes across as being totally absurd. This however is because we have made a rather big assumption which we’re just not paying any attention to. Somehow, in our culture, it is assumed that ‘knowing who you really are’ is something that comes very easily – as easily as falling off a log in fact. This must be the case since everyone we meet automatically ‘knows who they are’, regardless of how much work they might (or might not) have put into uncovering the mystery. The way we are brought up to see it is that knowing who you are isn’t a difficult thing at all, but simply a formality, the same way we might know our national insurance number or address. It’s not considered a big deal, no matter what the philosophers of olden times might have said to the contrary! Because we believe that knowing our true identity isn’t a big deal (and that everyone automatically knows it, so to speak), the notion that anxiety could have a valuable function in helping us to learn (or perhaps remember) who we are doesn’t really make a hell of a lot of sense to us, and this is putting it mildly!


The thing is that when I think that I know ‘who I am’ all I really know is what I have been told or conditioned to believe about myself and this – very obviously, when we state it like this – isn’t the same thing at all. Knowing ‘who you are supposed to be in a game’ isn’t the same as knowing who you really are – knowing who you are in the game is just a matter of learning a role, it’s trivial. Thinking that you know ‘who you are’ because you believe what you’ve been told isn’t just ‘not quite the same’ as knowing who you really are – it’s the very antithesis of this. Very obviously, believing you are ‘who you’ve been told you are’ prevents you knowing ‘who you really are’…


The reason that anxiety manifests as such an intractable problem to us is because is because we are already so very sure that we know who we are. Or we could say, the reason that anxiety is such an intractable problem is because the lesson that it is teaching us is one that we are extremely resistant to learning. This lesson is the lesson in life we least want to learn; we are – it seems – so very resistant to learning it that we would rather put up with any amount of suffering rather than do so! The more resistant we are to seeing the truth, we might say, the more of an absolute ‘negative’ anxiety will be experienced as being, and it is pretty much undeniable that we experience anxiety as an absolute negative – we experience anxiety when it comes as an out-and-out curse, a curse with no good side to it at all.


So the reason anxiety is such a problem to us is because we really don’t want to know who we are. This is why we suffer so much. It is in fact no exaggeration to say that the thing we are most reluctant to learn in life (and using the word ‘reluctant’ is putting it far too mildly) is who we actually are.


On the face of it this sounds very strange – how could it possibly be the case that the thing we are most resistant to learning is who we are? What kind of a crazy idea is this? This is – admittedly – not the kind of idea that we tend to come across very often (if at all) in mainstream culture. We don’t come across it in the study of psychology either – there are all sorts of models, all sorts of theories that will be covered in a course on the psychology of personality but the theory that our single greatest fear is discovering who we really are is not one that sounds immediately familiar. Actually, it sounds very unfamiliar – so unfamiliar in fact that we would be unlikely to take it very seriously! And yet as an idea it isn’t entirely unheard of – it has a powerful resonance outside of the mainstream theories of psychology. The philosopher Alan Watts has explicitly referred to this curious state of affairs (the state of affairs in which we don’t want to know who we really are) in his book The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, the thesis of which is that the Number One (unspoken) social rule is that we should not be allowed to have any clue regarding our true identity and that we should all collude in covering it up as much as we possibly can by taking up some sort of prescribed role. As Alan Watts says –

Our normal sensation of self is a hoax, or, at best, a temporary role that we are playing, or have been conned into playing — with our own tacit consent, just as every hypnotized person is basically willing to be hypnotized. The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego.

The one thing we are never supposed to go into (on pain of total social exclusion) is the question of who we really are under the opaque façade of who we are conventionally supposed to be, who we are told we are, who we habitually understand ourselves to be. It’s not of course that anyone explicitly addresses the issue, or in any way acknowledges that there is or might be an issue, but rather its something that we all just take for granted – that we all are who we think we are, that we all are who we understand each other to be. The very thought that we might not be, the thought that there might be some sort of conspiracy of silence going on here regarding ‘who we really are’ (and what life might really about) sounds totally ridiculous. We’re far too adult, far too hard-headed to tolerate any kind of airy-fairy talk like that. That just sounds plain silly to us.


The thing about a ‘conspiracy of silence’ – if we agree for the time being that there might be such a thing – is that if we all agree to pretend that whatever it is doesn’t exist (or isn’t an issue), and then we also agree to pretend that we didn’t ever make such an agreement. This of course means that if you ever do raise the issue (if you ever do suggest that there might be an issue here worth raising) then people will simply look at you strangely – whoever you’re talking to will look at you with that particular look on their faces that lets you know that there must be something wrong with you for coming out with such strange stuff. You will be made to feel that you are being ridiculous, and on the wider scale of things, you will be excluded from any ‘serious discourse’. So even though Alan Watts wrote the book The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are the ideas in it never reached the mainstream and never gets mentioned in any course in social psychology. This, after all, is what happens when you try to bring up something that is taboo, something that has already been decided to be ‘not a subject’ or ‘not an issue’. No one takes any notice of what you’re saying.


What we have collectively done – and this is fairly obvious once we get to thinking about it – is to make a very big assumption about ‘who we are’ and about ‘what life is all about’, and then we have rushed ahead without ever looking back. We aren’t interested in questioning the assumptions that we jumped to on the outset, we’re interested in what happens when we proceed on the basis of these assumptions. Looking at the assumption undermines the whole exercise that we are collectively engaged in, and inasmuch as we are all committed to the exercise (which simply equals ‘the type of life that we are all busy leading’) we don’t want to go spoiling the whole thing. And anyone who does want to go back and start looking at the flimsiness of our ‘starting off point’ is going to be very thoroughly excluded from the public discourse. That is the game we are playing after all, and this is how the game works.


Sociologists Berger and Luckman made this key point in their work The Social Construction of Reality – the only way to create any social structure (and the idea of ‘who we are’ and what ‘life is about’ is a social structure) is to pull a few rules or stipulations out of a hat, and then do a kind of a turnaround and say that we didn’t arbitrarily arrive at the rules or stipulations in question, but that they were there all along. We say that the rules are self-evident, that they were always there, or perhaps that God appeared in the form of a burning bush and dictated them to Moses, or something like that. Whatever way we do it we make those rules, those stipulations unquestionable – we make it so that if anyone does question them then it becomes clear to everyone that the problem is with them and not the rules! This is a type of conspiracy – it is a conspiracy of silence regarding the flimsiness of the foundation regarding the collective endeavour that we are all engaged in, the collective story of what it is we are all about, what life is supposed to be, who we are supposed to be, etc. Really what we’re talking about here is game-playing – a game is where we pick a bunch of rules at random and then act as if they weren’t picked at random, as if the rules ‘simply have to be there’ and that is that. We have to pretend that we aren’t free to question the rules or else the game just won’t work. ‘Not questioning the rules’ is what games are all about!


So we can say that the conspiracy of silence that we have been talking about is a necessity if we are to have any social structure to work with, but the only thing here is that the structure in question then takes over and we get stuck in it – upholding the structure becomes more important than anything else, it becomes more important than our mental health, it becomes more important than our happiness. It becomes more important than anything even though it’s only a game, even though it ‘doesn’t really need to be so’! We get so stuck in the game that we lose sight of the only genuinely meaningful quest in life – which as the philosophers and mystics have always said is the quest to know ourselves – and this loss of meaning naturally has very major consequences for us. Being locked into a way of life that is essentially meaningless (as of course all games are, outside their own frame of reference!) and which systematically denies who we really are is – very clearly – not going to be good news for us in the long run!


So looking at Berger and Luckman’s theory of reification and the general theory of games allows us to see how it could be that we don’t know who we really are, even though this might sound like a rather peculiar idea on first hearing. It also gives us a strong indication that there are going to be major ramifications in terms of our mental health, in terms of our ability to be happy and creative; not being in touch with our true selves is – after all – not exactly a recipe for happiness and creativity! We have said that the discovery of what has been covered up (our true selves) is not a trivial kind of thing – it is not like we can read it in a book or get told about it by some highly-trained expert. On the contrary, it is the work of a lifetime – and no one else can help us if. If they do try to help us, that will only lead us astray. There are no easy answers when it comes to discovering what the truth of our situation is – easy answers are only to be had in games, where everything is standardized, where everything has to be what it is designated to be by the rules of the game…


The thing that is being ‘covered up’ by the game has to be covered up for the game to proceed, and yet the other side of the coin is that from our point of view – as the actual individuals we are rather than the mere players of the game – what is being obscured is actually the only thing that truly matters in life! The journey by which we discover our true individuality is a ‘path with a heart’, as Castaneda puts it. It’s the only genuinely interesting pursuit in life – everything else is just a diversion, everything else is just a red-herring! In our culture, however, no time at all is given over to this endeavour, and instead all sorts of other tasks and duties and ‘responsibilities’ are pushed upon us, to the point where anything else gets quite buried. This is not to say that there isn’t a practical side to life that needs to be attended to – there obviously is – but no matter how important the practical aspects of life are if these ‘practical necessities’ (or ‘responsibilities’) are used as a way of stopping us ever reflecting on what this thing we call ‘life’ is all about, then something has clearly gone very wrong. And this is precisely what has happened – it is hard to imagine how anyone could deny it! First of all there are the things we have to do in life in order to attend to our material needs and then there are the things we do to entertain ourselves when we aren’t working, or when we aren’t attending to the practicalities of life, but between ‘work’ and ‘leisure’ there simply isn’t any space for anything else. When we’re not busy doing what we have to do in order to survive we’re busy entertaining ourselves – we’re watching television, or shopping, or going out drinking. This is the prescribed regime. That’s what modern life is like.


Jung makes the point somewhere that whilst in India there exists a tradition in which one can leave behind the life of a householder in one’s later years and turn to a life of reflection and contemplation, there is no corresponding tradition in the West. On the contrary, once we are past the ‘productive’ years of our lives (or the years in which we are still young and good-looking) we are no longer considered to have much to do in life. We hear talk of the ‘golden years’ that are to follow retirement but this is merely marketing speak designed to sell us pensions and life-assurance policies. In reality, no value is given to the second half of life because underneath all our fine talk we don’t understand life to consist of anything other than purely ‘surface-level’ matters – we have no comprehension of any psychic process, any movement in the ‘inner life’ that is the deeper meaning of our lives in this world. We only believe in externals, in ‘the image’, which is the important thing in the first half of life. No matter what we might say, as a society we don’t place any value in the inner life at all. The term itself is all but meaningless to us. Our so-called ‘inner life’ is simply the generic outer life that we have internalized, the external script or picture that we have unreflectively gone along with.


There is of course a good deal of lip-service paid to ‘self-development’, to this sort of therapy or that sort of therapy, this sort of healing or that sort of healing, but almost always this comes down to fixing the socially-prescribed image that we have of ourselves – almost all of it comes down to what Alan Watts calls ‘social adjustment therapy’. We go off the rails, one way or another, and the expert clinicians are there simply to help us to get back on them again! In Psychotherapy East and West Watts writes,

Whenever the therapist stands with society, he will interpret his work as adjusting the individual and coaxing his ‘unconscious drives’ into social respectability. But such ‘official psychotherapy’ lacks integrity and becomes the obedient tool of armies, bureaucracies, churches, corporations, and all agencies that require individual brainwashing. On the other hand, the therapist who is really interested in helping the individual is forced into social criticism. This does not mean that he has to engage directly in political revolution; it means that he has to help the individual in liberating himself from various forms of social conditioning, which includes liberation from hating this conditioning — hatred being a form of bondage to its object.

According to Alan Watts, a lot of our mental ‘un-wellness’ comes from the inherent contradictions of having to adapt to a system, to a way of life that restricts or denies our true individuality, and forces us to become regulated and mechanical. Simply patching us up and sending us back out onto the front-line again hardly qualifies as ‘therapy’! In Health as Expanding Consciousness, Professor of Nursing Margaret Newman speaks of ‘linear interventionism’, which is where we – as doctors or therapists – attempt return people to where they were before they became unwell. In the case of physical illness we can see that there is a lot of sense in this – if I break a leg I want to go back to being able to go walking and running again; if I get appendicitis or malaria, I want to recover so that I can go back to living my life again, and so on. But even in physical medicine there is the question of considering what elements in or aspects of my life-style predisposed me to becoming unwell in whatever way that I did, which means that healing is not just a matter of ‘us getting better so we can go back to what we were doing before we became unwell’! This may not be the case with a broken leg, or with some infectious disease, but with all of the endemic ‘life-style’ diseases that we are suffering from (such as heart-disease or diabetes) ‘going back to the way we were before we got sick’ is clearly not the answer at all. But with neurosis the idea that we can be patched up and ‘stuck back in the trenches’ is itself clearly pathological. This is the type of thinking that leads to entrenched neurotic mental suffering – the type of thinking in question being where we can’t let go of a fixed pattern of doing things even though that fixed pattern is doing us harm…


It’s not simply the case that we are stuck in one particular pattern that happens to be dysfunctional and that if we switched to a different pattern we would be a lot better off – neurosis is an automatic consequence of holding onto any sort of pattern! As far as mental health is concerned, there is no such thing as good pattern, there is no such thing as a good system. Mental health is synonymous with having the personal courage to let go of all patterns, to let go of all precedents, and this is the one thing that society (which is itself a fixed pattern of thinking and behaving) will never support us in doing. The rules of the game do not have any provision in them to encourage us to not play the game – the rules of society are never going to encourage us not to take them as seriously as they are asking us to! Society is a system that (like all systems) is made up of unquestionable precedents and this means that the one thing it is never going to do is play fast and loose with these precedents. That’s just not how things work, as we could very easily understand if only we could see that all logical systems necessarily have to repress the individuality (i.e. the ‘irregularity’) of the elements that comprise them.

So if we define mental health as fitting in with the world-view of everyone playing the game called ‘society’ we can see that linear interventionism makes a lot of sense. It is the ‘only way to go’ if this is how we understand mental health. This way of defining mental health is however really just a way of approving of our own arbitrary way of doing things – I have a certain set of prejudices about ‘how things should be’ and so then naturally I will go ahead and define good mental health as ‘subscribing to these prejudices’! I am making my way, my pattern, my system into the standard by which all things should be measured. This is clearly a cheat though because no matter what set of biases I start off with I’m going to promote this as being ‘the mentally healthy way to look at the world’. Really, therefore, I am abusing the word ‘health’ because health no longer means anything apart from what I want it to mean. It simply means conformity to the pattern to which I happen to subscribe. It is like me telling you that you are ‘sane’ if you happen to agree with what I say, or if you happen to believe what I believe, and that you are ‘mentally unwell’ (or insane) if you don’t. This way of defining mental health is clearly quite nonsensical, as well as being distinctly sinister into the bargain…

In Finite and Infinite Games James Carse differentiates between ‘society’ and what he calls ‘culture’ –

It is a highly valued function of society to prevent changes in the rules of the many games it embraces… Deviancy, however, is the very essence of culture. Whoever merely follows the script, merely repeating the past, is culturally impoverished. There are variations in the quality of deviation; not all divergence from the past is culturally significant. Any attempt to vary from the past in such a way as to cut the past off, causing it to be forgotten, has little cultural importance. Greater significance attaches to those variations that bring the tradition into view in a new way, allowing the familiar to be seen as unfamiliar, as requiring a new appraisal of all that we have been- and therefore all that we are. Cultural deviation does not return us to the past, but continues what was begun but not finished in the past…

To say that deviance is the very essence of culture is no different from saying that ‘deviance is the very essence of individuality’, and so we can rephrase what James Carse says above and say that ‘whoever merely follows the script, merely repeating the past has lost all awareness of who they truly are.’ When we follow the script, and substitute the collectively-validated ‘external life’ that we have been provided with for our inner life (without us either seeing that this substitution has taken place, or understanding what that means to us) then the unique individual self has been replaced by the generic self, which is a self made up of nothing more than theatrical appearances. The generic self doesn’t have any actual content – it can’t have any actual content because it’s ‘an externality’, because it’s a theatrical performance and nothing more. The outer life is of course made up of externalities – that’s why we are calling it the ‘external life’! The inner life, on the other hand, has no defined features or aspects that we can talk about, or readily discuss in a public forum, but instead of having generically recognizable features that can easily be talked about it is full of actual content. Hence, Carl Jung says –

Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.

When we dream, and live the external socially-validated life only, then what we gain in theatrical definition we lose in genuine content and saying that we ‘lose the content’ is just another way of saying that we lose the connection with who we truly are. What bigger thing could there be to lose than this? We worry about losing all sorts of unimportant, trivial things, but we never seem to worry about losing the biggest thing of all, which is losing our awareness of who we actually are. When we lose this we lose the heart, the core of who we are and as a result of this essential ‘hollowness’ we become slaves to this desire and that desire, this belief-structure and that belief-structure, all of which have the hold on us that they do because they promise to give us what deep-down we know we are missing. They promise to return to us our Wholeness, which we do not consciously see that we are missing.


Society itself is a belief structure that we cling to because it promises to remedy our inner deficit, and provide us – if we play the game well enough – with the much-sought-after social validation (often called success) which is the external substitute (or analogue) for ‘being who we truly are’. This is ironic because society is motivating us with the promise of remedying the painful inner deficit which it itself has engendered in us! It’s both the ‘cause’ of the sickness and the ‘cure’ at the same time, which is something that really ought to tip us off as to what is really going on here…


When we lose the core of who we are and have to go ahead on the basis of what Wei Wu Wei calls the self-concept and what Krishnamurti calls the self-image then we are at a disadvantage, even though we cannot directly see or understand what this disadvantage is. We’ve been ‘wrong-footed’ right from the start. We can talk about this disadvantage (or wrong-footedness’) in terms of loss of essential being – we have lost our essential being and have to make do instead with the theatrical ‘substitute for being’ – which is image or appearance. Some of the time we can get on like this just fine – if we believe the image to be the thing then we don’t see any problem. If we take the theatrical performance of the self-image to be the same thing as ‘who we genuinely are’ (as we almost always do) then we won’t necessarily feel ourselves to be ‘at a disadvantage’. But as we get removed further and further away from any connection with our true nature – from the well-spring of our being – we’re getting stretched thinner and thinner all the time. We’re getting into a sticky situation without being able to see that we are getting into a sticky situation.


As we ‘forget ourselves’ and caught up more and more with a false notion of who we are we end up in a very peculiar – if unappreciated – predicament. The predicament is that we have become ‘unreal without knowing that we are unreal’ and this is akin to having suffered a very serious accident without knowing that we have done so. We have suffered the most serious ‘accident’ of all, and yet we carry on blithely as if nothing had happened, getting caught up in one trivial issue after another. We’ve lost something without which we can’t really continue, and yet we haven’t worked this out for ourselves yet…
And yet there is a way in which this lost understanding can come to us, albeit a way that we cannot readily understand. We cannot see what has happened directly, in a straightforward way, but we can see it in an ‘upside-down way’, so to speak. When being is lost, then we don’t experience this loss of being, but we do experience the neurotic suffering that comes with it – all we need to do therefore is understand this neurotic suffering for what it truly is.


This isn’t actually a question of ‘doing’ – there’s nothing we can ‘do’ to purposefully regain our lost being. It is after all our unconscious attempt to regain our lost being (through all our surrogate purposeful activities) that keeps us trapped in our deficit condition. We just need to be aware of our loss of being, rather than automatically trying to correct it, rather than automatically trying to make it better. When we automatically try to ‘make it better’ all we’re doing is avoiding the awareness. The challenge isn’t to strive to become ‘more confident in ourselves’ (which everyone invariably says it is) – the challenge is to clearly see our lack of confidence and understand its root. The challenge is to fearlessly observe the reality of our situation. If we do somehow manage to become confident again (just like we used to be) all this would mean would be that we have managed to go back to sleep again, immerse ourselves in the dream again. The challenge isn’t to ‘go back to how we were before we became anxious’; the challenge isn’t to ‘go back to sleep’ – the challenge is to wake up!

The Dream Environment


Our default situation in dreaming is that we are 100% helpless with regard to the script, the drama, the narrative that we are being presented with. The way it usually works is that dreaming – for us – means going along with the script, going along with the drama or narrative. There is a narrow predetermined route of ‘how the dream is going to go’ and we go down that route. There is a clearly defined format for our experience in the dream and we accept that format…


The primary element of the script – aside from what it literally entails, i.e. ‘the defined storyline’ – is the degree of compulsivity that comes with it (which is to say, the degree to which we are swept helplessly along with it). ‘Compulsivity’ means the degree of unfree fascination that we experience with regard to the story-line that has been provided for us. It is a measure of the degree to which our attention is held by the storyline, in other words, which is a concept that is known as immersion in gaming. The more immersive the game (or the dream) the less able we are to know that it is a game, or that it is a dream. If the experience is 100% immersive, then we have absolutely no sense that it is only a game, that it is only a dream. Another way of putting this is to say that when compulsivity (or immersion) is at a maximum, then we are completely trapped in the narrative that we have been provided with…

We’re swept along with all dreams – that’s the nature of dreaming – but the degree of compulsivity (or immersion) does vary. Sometimes we’re more aware that we’re dreaming, other times we’re less aware. Compulsivity is what leads to ‘immersion’ and compulsivity is all about how much fear or desire we experience in the dream. Fear/desire is what keeps our nose to the grindstone, so to speak. We’re either attracted to what’s being shown to us in the storyline or we’re averse to it and this attraction/aversion is what determines our ‘compliance’ in the dream. It ensures that we will go along obediently with the storyline. Straightaway – as soon as we say this – this allows us to see what would help free us from the narrow constraints that are being brutally imposed upon us by the compulsive element of the dream. Straightaway we can see what it is that would allow us to work towards not being so ‘helplessly controlled’ or ‘driven’ in the dream…


If attraction/aversion is what keeps us hooked into the script, the drama, the ongoing narrative, then our natural ‘child-like’ curiosity about what is going on is what will free us, and allow us / our experience to be less defined by the script that we have been presented with. Curiosity is the perfect antidote to attraction/aversion. What almost inevitably happens is that as we get older we become less and less curious about life, more and more ‘serious’ in ourselves. This is pretty much what ‘being an adult’ has come to mean – it means being serious. ‘Being serious’ simply means that we don’t question the predetermined situation that we have been presented with – on the contrary, we accept it at face value. We go along with it, in other words. Or we could say that being ‘adult’ very much tends to mean that we just take stuff for granted.


We are presented with a structure (with society, with a way of thinking and behaving, with a whole pre-formatted world in fact) and we unreflectively adapt ourselves to it. We narrow ourselves down until we fit that way, until it wholly determines us. As the character Cristof says in The Truman Show,

We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented.

It could be said that this process of adaptation to a given structure is what the whole process of ‘becoming an adult’ is all about – even though, in a healthy society, it ought to mean more than this. Another word for this adaptation process is simply training. We’re trained. We’re told that we are educated but really we’ve been trained (the difference being of course that the former broadens us whilst the latter narrows us down). This is the point being made here by Krishnamurti

Education is not merely a matter of training the mind. Training makes for efficiency, but it does not bring about completeness. A mind that has merely been trained is the continuation of the past, and such a mind can never discover the new. That is why, to find out what is right education, we will have to inquire into the whole significance of living.
To most of us, the meaning of life as a whole is not of primary importance, and our education emphasizes secondary values, merely making us proficient in some branch of knowledge. Though knowledge and efficiency are necessary, to lay chief emphasis on them only leads to conflict and confusion.

Training is all about pragmatic considerations, and pragmatic considerations are all about continuing the pattern of the past, as Krishnamurti says. The more ‘narrowed down’ our sense of ourselves is the more committed we are going to be to perpetuating the structure that we have been presented with – when we’re totally defined by the training process then we going to be 100% committed to perpetuating the given pattern, the given template, and this is of course just what the ‘given pattern’ (i.e. society) wants. This is what all defined patterns of organization want – to be perpetuated!


So to go back to this notion of ‘child-like curiosity’ – we can say that this quality still exists in all of us even if it isn’t visible. If it didn’t exist, then we’d really be in trouble! Our innate curiosity about the world might have been covered over by the false sophistication of the adult mind but it’s still there – essentially, it’s who we are. It’s our true nature. We aren’t the dry format that has been imposed on us, we are that which has been formatted. We aren’t what has been written on the page, we are the page. We aren’t the message – we’re the medium by which the message (i.e. ‘the conditioning’) is transmitted.


What this means is that the ‘narrowing down’ process of adaptation can be reversed, although not as easily as it happened in the first place. Becoming free from habits of seeing, habits of thinking, habits of behaving in the world is never going to be as easy as acquiring those habits! With regard to the matter of being ‘swept along with the dream’ – in a purely passive modality of being – we can say that being curious is what frees us up and gives us more space to be ourselves within the narrow, predetermined confines of the dream. Curiosity, we could say, is how we come back to ourselves and cease to be wholly defined by the mechanical forces that are operating in the dream.


Being curious within the dream means being present enough to notice where we are, and what is it that is really happening. Moving in the direction of becoming more present means becoming who we truly are, and this means becoming curious. To be genuinely present in the world is the same thing as having an unsophisticated interest in where we are and what it is that is going on with us but this isn’t the same thing as being ‘interested’ in an adult way, which is all about looking at how we can get better at exploiting our environment. As sophisticated adults, we don’t care about what the world is, we just care about how we can use it! Our normal way of being in the world is to be forever concerned with how we might benefit from our situation (or ‘perform optimally’ in our situation) and this isn’t being interested at all – this is just attraction/aversion, this is just ‘the need to control’…


A small child isn’t looking to control the situation that they find themselves in – that would be ridiculous. Only adults do that. A child is caught up in the wonder of the world, not consumed with the need to control it. A child (or the child-like part of us) is not coldly calculating and devious, but immediate and straightforward. So when we tap into our inner ‘child-like’ nature we straightaway find ourselves reconnected with the essential wonder of the universe. We tend very much to think that it is only possible to experience wonder under ‘special’ circumstances, but wonder is there all the time, under all circumstances – it’s just our interest in the wonder that varies. That we exist (or that there is anything at all) is a wonder, and so any situation that might arise on the basis of this existence is also a wonder – even if we can’t at the time see it. The reason we can’t generally see it because we’re stuck in the artificial mind-created context which relates everything to the self, so that everything we perceive is perceived in terms of this self, either in terms of how it is either going to be of benefit or be of danger. This way of looking at the world straightaway removes all wonder – it makes everything banal! When we look at life without this artificial self-referential context, however, then everything is a wonder, even our own pain, as Khalil Gibran says in this line from The Prophet

And could you keep your heart in wonder at the daily miracles of your life, your pain would not seem less wondrous than your joy;

The artificial context that takes the wonder or mystery out of everything is as we have implied the everyday rule-based mind – it is the ‘adult’ way of thinking that we are all so caught up in. It derives as we have said from our agenda to optimize our situation, to either obtain something or escape from something, which is attraction/aversion.


Attraction/aversion drives out any sense of wonder – there is zero possibility of wonder existing within the framework of fear and desire. This is the realm of grim seriousness, not wonder or curiosity. Yet even though attraction/aversion drives out all sense of wonder, it is all the same always possible to bring our natural curiosity about the world back into play. Even if I can’t experience any wonder or curiosity about my environment I can still experience curiosity over the fact that I am not curious about my environment. This is a very curious thing, after all! If I notice the fact that I have no sense of wonder about that fact that I exist (about the fact that anything exists) then this itself is a wonder!


Another way of putting this is to say that even when we are in the grip of attraction/aversion (even when we are experiencing 100% immersion in the drama) we are still free – at any time – to notice that this is the case. We are always free to notice our own immersion in the drama and when we do notice our immersion then – by definition – we are no longer immersed! There is a kind of rule or principle that comes into operation when we obey the compulsivity of the dream. This rule/principle has to do with the ‘narrowing’ process that we have already alluded to in relation to the adaptation process.


We can explain this principle as follows:

The more we go along with the compulsivity the more we let it define us and it is the defining that narrows us.


Fear defines us just as desire does but what this ‘defining’ business entails may not be immediately apparent. We may not see what is so very bad about ‘being defined’! Definition is, after all, generally seen as a good thing when it comes to the question of identity, when it comes to the question of ‘who I am’…


It is true that it feels good – in a particular sort of a way – to assert our identity in a positive way. It feels good to say “I am this!” or “I am that!” but the reason this feels good is because in doing so we are obeying an external compulsion (even though we can’t see this). By asserting our identity in a positive way we are ‘obeying the script’. It feels good (in a particular sort of a way) to be this defined identity, this defined self, but only because of the security that it represents. And security feels good precisely because it is a defence against fear! When we opt for security then we are obeying fear therefore. When we aggressively assert our identity (personal, tribal, cultural, religious, national, or whatever) then we are obeying fear. And when we act on desire and ‘add to ourselves’ by acquiring property, wealth, status; influence, etc., then we are also obeying fear. We are obeying fear when we operate on the basis of desire because we are strengthening our defences, adding to our security, consolidating our position, and our need for defences, security or a solid position is of course nothing else other than fear.


What we don’t see amidst all this business of adapting to the game, adapting to the compulsiveness of the dream is that who we are isn’t some ten-a-penny defined identity! We are vastly more than that. Who we are is not a defined thing at all because to define is to limit. By obeying attraction/aversion we lose ourselves, therefore, we lose ‘who we really are’ and become something else, something limited, something that has been defined for us by ‘the rules of the game’. This is what Jung means when he says that by heedlessly following ‘the passions’ we become ‘Everyman’. Everyman is the generic man, the generic human being, and when we obey the passions of greed, lust, envy, jealousy, rage etc., (which are the ‘generic emotions’) then we allow ourselves to be defined by them and this means – as we have said – that we lose who we truly are, which is unique not generic. When we don’t automatically obey attraction/aversion then the reverse is true -we come back to ourselves, we regain ourselves. We don’t regain ourselves by what we do, therefore, but by what we don’t do! Purposeful doing is just attraction/aversion. The part of us that doesn’t obediently follow the script that has been laid down for us – the part of us that doesn’t let itself be defined or determined by mechanical compulsions – is the unique part of ourselves, which is who we truly are under all the habits, under all the generic conditioning. We recover ourselves (not just our independence but who we actually are) by not automatically getting sucked into the narrative that we have been presented with in the dream. The degree to which we do not engage in the dream-drama is the degree to which we actually are, therefore!


This isn’t just true for the dreams that we have when we’re asleep in bed at night – it’s true for everything. Actually, to be present in our dreams is the hardest thing to do – we generally have least presence in our dreams. Dreams ‘just happen’. The point is that everything we have been talking about applies equally well to our ‘waking’ life and the predetermined scripts that we automatically follow in that life. The same principle holds true across the board, under all circumstances, in every possible situation that we might find ourselves in. The principle is that all we need to do in order to come back to ourselves (or ‘wake up’) is to see that we are unreflectively ‘obeying a compulsion’. This simple act of observation makes all the difference in the world! This is a very basic manifestation of curiosity – the curiosity as to whether or not we are free!


For example, if I am angry and I am acting out this anger in some way then I get curious about what is happening here and I take the trouble to notice whether I am free to not act out the anger. If I notice that I am not able to ‘not be angry’ then I take an interest in this observation! I am interested in this awareness that has just come my way – the awareness that I am not free. Or to give another example, if I desire some outcome or other then I take the trouble to notice whether I am free to not want whatever it is that I want. If I discover that I am not free to do anything else other than obey the desire then I am interested in this awareness. I am curious about the unfree nature of my situation…


Very curiously, the normal state of affairs is that we do not manifest this basic level of curiosity! We’re not curious about whether or not we are free – all we’re interested in is how we can best obey the compulsions that are driving us, how we can best accommodate ourselves to the mechanical forces that are determining the reality of our existence. Beyond this, we have no interest! We have no interest in challenging the status quo, we have no interest in discovering that it is possible to challenge the status quo. We have therefore no interest in discovering who we truly are…


The situation of being totally unfree, of being totally controlled by our conditioning, by the compulsive forces that are shaping our lives, and yet not being interested enough in our own situation ever to find this out is a remarkable one. This is a wonder in itself. It is a wonder waiting to be discovered when we do start to take an interest – one wonder amongst many others…

In the Flow


To say that ‘everything just is what it is’ tends to sound rather vague, rather wishy-washy. It tends to sound emptily portentious. It doesn’t sound like we’re saying anything really. Of course everything is what it is! So what, we might ask. Where does that get us? It might sound rather wishy-washy to say this (from the point of view of our ordinary way of thinking) but actually this is a radical insight. It’s a ‘radical insight’ because it changes everything!


Normally, we take it for granted that ‘things are what we think they are’ which is an entirely different kettle of fish to them being ‘what they actually are’. Normally, we do a whole heap of assuming in arriving at our identifications of what things are, what the world is, what we are, and we never pay even the slightest attention to the fact that we have done all this assuming to arrive at what we think to be ‘the final picture’. We assume a hell of a lot to obtain our rational picture of the world, and this – we might say – wrong-foots us right from the very start. It wrong-foots us right from the very start because it makes everything about us, and everything isn’t all about us….


When we make assumptions in order to arrive at a rational picture of the world (which we have to do, since this is the only way the rational process can occur – by guessing, by assuming, by jumping to conclusions, by saying ‘let’s suppose that..’ and then proceeding as if this basis were true) then we make everything ‘about us’ because the assumptions that we are using here are ours and do not exist independently of us, out there in reality somewhere. So when we form a rational picture of the world we are of course seeing that world in terms of our own assumptions and this is making the world all about us. We’re not seeing things as they are in themselves at all.


Another way of explaining this is to say that when we see the world through our rational/conceptual filter then – even though we are unconscious of the fact – we have introduced the need to control and because we have introduced the need to control (right there at the very beginning of the process) we are obliged from here on in to carry on controlling. Controlling always leads to more controlling. There’s no way we can start off controlling without being obliged to continue – there’s no way out of this because we have ‘taken charge of the process’. By taking charge of the process because we’ve made it all about us!


When we see that ‘everything just is what it is’ then this means that we haven’t made any assumptions. We haven’t taken control of the process therefore – we’ve allowed it to carry on being the way that it already is and so we don’t get hooked into the need to control it. Or as we could also say, when we see that ‘everything just is what it is’ then we are in the flow. But how often is this the case? Generally speaking, we don’t even know what it feels like to be ‘in the flow’. Generally speaking, what happens is that we set up a static framework of thought around us and then we see everything in terms of this framework. We conceptualize everything – we have it all organized neatly in our heads and once we do this then we don’t let go of the reins – we can’t let go of the reins because we’ve taken on the job of saying what reality is’ without even realizing that we have taken anything on. Unwittingly, we’ve taken control of something we ought never to have taken control of. Or perhaps we could say, we’ve taken control of something that didn’t actually need us taking control of. It was after all doing quite fine all by itself beforehand…


We might have the world all conceptualized, we might have it all organized in neat and tidy boxes in our heads, but that of course isn’t the way it actually is. Really, the world just is. It doesn’t fit into any framework. Why should it? The framework is just there for our benefit, after all. The world doesn’t need a framework to explain itself to itself! The world isn’t obliged to ‘make sense’ in any particular narrow way. That’s just the game we play with it. So what we think is going on around us when we look at the world through the ‘narrow filter of the rational mind’ isn’t going on at all. When we look at the world in the way that we normally do then we’re seeing things in terms of our agenda, and this happens without us even knowing that we do have one. We think we’re ‘seeing things straight’, just as they are! We’re absolutely convinced that we’re seeing things straight – we couldn’t be more convinced.


This invisible agenda guides our thinking. More than this, it determines what we see and what we don’t see. If something doesn’t have any bearing on our agenda, any relevance to our agenda, then it doesn’t have any importance to us and because it doesn’t have any importance to us we don’t pay it any attention. Because we don’t pay it any attention it doesn’t really exist for us. So the invisible agenda (which is the same thing as the rational-conceptual mind) determines what we see and what we don’t see, what’s important and what’s not important, what is real and what is not real. Having an agenda (or having a ‘framework’ or ‘rational overview’) gives us a whole different way of relating to the word, therefore. In short, we personalize it! We personalize the world – we make it all about us.


When happens then (after we personalize the world) is that we react to everything  that happens according to the meaning that our agenda puts on it: if it fits in with what we want to happen then I feel good and if it doesn’t fit in then I feel bad. Everything gets coloured with this – the whole world gets coloured with ‘like and dislike’. Because I am seeing everything in terms of my framework (the framework which is my mind, the framework which is ‘me’) nothing gets seen for what it is in itself. Instead, everything gets seen in terms of me, in terms of what it means to me, and this isn’t the same thing at all. As we have said, everything has now been personalized and so all I am really seeing is my own agenda reflected faithfully back at me…


Because everything has been personalized, there is no more flow. I’m not in the flow any more. Instead, I am controlling. I’m out of the flow. I’m in my head. I am bending everything out of shape to fit my agenda for seeing things. I am complicating everything by ‘making it what it is not’. What I am doing is as we have said is that via my controlling I am personalizing everything – because I am controlling everything I am making it all about me. I am of course perfectly free to personalize the world in this way but to do so is to introduce a distortion because the actual truth of the matter is that the world isn’t ‘all about me’! This just isn’t true, this just isn’t the case! How could everything be about me? How could the whole world be centred on me (and what either I want or don’t want)? And yet despite this being very obviously absurd, we still go ahead and personalize the world on a full-time basis. We hardly ever don’t personalize everything. The very fact that I only ever see the world in terms of how it looks when it is fed through the distorting filter of my rational mind means that I am personalizing it. This isn’t reality – this is my own private version of it. As Heraclitus says,

The waking have one world in common; sleepers have each a private world of his own.

My everyday mind is the framework into which I am trying to fit everything – it is ‘my agenda for seeing things’ and so when I see the world through this framework then I have immediately taken myself out of the flow. When we operate out of the assumed framework, out of the thinking, measuring mind, then we are taking ourselves out of the flow because we are not seeing things for what they are. Instead, we are seeing them for what they mean to us. We are then trapped in the abstract world that the measuring mind has created for us, and we don’t know the difference!  Or as is suggested here in verse 32 of the Tao Te Ching (Trans. Stephen Hodge 2002), once we start naming then we get trapped in the world of names and we don’t know the difference –

When we begin to regulate, there is naming,
But when there has been naming
We should also know how to stop.
Only by knowing how to stop can we avoid danger.

To our normal way of thinking the suggestion that we are trapped in a false, mind-created world sounds quite ridiculous – we would reject it straightaway as being nonsensical. We’re in the real world, we would say. The suggestion that we are seeing things in our own private, personalized way sounds nonsensical. And yet – as a moment’s reflection would show – there’s no way that this can’t be the case. Of course we are seeing everything from our own arbitrary point of view, of course we are seeing everything purely in relation to our own personalized ‘yardstick for measuring reality’. Of course we are trapped in an abstract mind-created representation of the world. We might collude with others in using the same arbitrary point of view, the same yardstick, but this doesn’t make it any less arbitrary. Utilizing a collective viewpoint just makes it a million times harder to actually see that it is arbitrary…


Because of our assumed viewpoint everything’s bent out of shape without us knowing that it’s bent out of shape. Because of our assumed viewpoint we’re bound to keep on controlling without knowing that we are controlling. We don’t know that we are controlling, we don’t know that we are holding the reins so tight the whole time. We aren’t aware of this because we’re so very used to it. It’s normal for us. The only time we start to become aware of this controlling is when anxiety creeps into the picture and we catch a glimpse (a very unwelcome glimpse) of just how much stress we’re under, of just how much we need to control. Sometimes we get more than just a glimpse – sometimes we become very aware indeed of how terrible our ‘need for control’ is and when this happens we are said to be clinically anxious. At such times we tend to get the terrifying feeling that we are ‘about to crack up’ – only it’s not really us that is about to crack up, but the unconscious ‘system of control’ that we have come to rely on without realizing it. It is this system of control that is heading for a crisis point (it is after all ultimately unworkable anyway) but because we have identified so thoroughly with the system of thinking, and because we invested so much in it, we experience this as our impending crisis. The one thing we can’t see at such times is that we don’t actually have to be in control at all!


If we were ‘in the flow’ then we would see that we don’t have to control because the flow doesn’t need controlling. That’s why it’s called ‘the flow’ – because it doesn’t need controlling! The normal state of affairs however (as we have said) is for us to be ‘out of the flow’. Everything’s bent out of shape without us realizing that it’s bent out of shape. We’re controlling without realizing that we’re controlling. In this ‘normal state of affairs’ – even when there (apparently) isn’t any major stress going on – there are constant minor fluctuations or perturbations going on. When these fluctuations tend towards ‘the way we think things should be’ then we feel good and when – on the other hand – the parameters under consideration are drifting away from their designated values then we feel correspondingly bad, we feel bad because we feel that we have failed to control the situation satisfactorily. These variations in the gap between ‘how things are’ and ‘how we think they should be’ have the mechanical role of determining whether we can feel good or bad, therefore. In Eastern terms, this is known as attachment.


There are always going to be these little stresses occurring in everyday life in accordance with how we are doing with regard to controlling the relevant variables, the variables that we (or society) have deemed important. The ‘need to control’ is always present therefore, but as long as we are able to stay more or less on top of things it seems as if we have controlling because we want to, controlling because it suits our interests to be doing so. When however anxiety cuts in (and we start to get the feeling that everything is going out of control) then we become painfully aware that we are ‘controlling because we have to’ and this is a different kettle of fish entirely. In the first scenario, this is more like a pleasant game or distraction that we can enjoy, whereas when anxiety really cuts in then everything switches over into the dark side (so to speak) and there is no hiding the fact that we are mercilessly controlled by ‘the need to control’. This is the grim reality. Fear is the grim reality.


The type of life we normally lead (which is to say, the type of life that we lead when we are not in the flow) is thus one in which we are constantly swinging between right and wrong, good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable, satisfactory and unsatisfactory. Everything is either ‘win or lose’, as we could also say. This is a very peculiar state of affairs because there is no peace in it, no ease in it. There is simply no ‘resting’ in this type of a situation – if I get it wrong (if I lose) there is no resting because I have to make things right, and if I get it right (if I win) then I still can’t rest because I have to make sure that the advantageous position which I have just secured for myself doesn’t slip away from my grasp again. It’s an ongoing struggle, in other words, and the reason it is an ongoing struggle is because the goals that I am trying to attain are abstract ideals that do not exist in the real world! This particular type of problem shows up very clearly in what is called ‘perfectionism’ – perfectionism is an endless, fruitless struggle because there is no such thing as ‘perfect’ in the real world…


The state of affairs in which we are constantly swinging between right and wrong, good and bad, win and lose, etc, isn’t actually life, no matter what ideas we might have to the contrary. This isn’t life – it’s a mockery of life, a cruel distortion of life. What we have actually done by ‘personalizing everything’ (or ‘controlling everything’) is that we have turned life into a game. Life is a flow – it moves freely on, it doesn’t need to be controlled or regulated. It moves with grace, with ease, with its own innate poetry and dignity. It doesn’t get snagged on hooks the whole time; it doesn’t keep running into insurmountable barriers, into brick walls. A game, on the other hand, is a loop. And not only is it a loop, it’s the type of a loop that we can’t see to be a loop, and because we can’t see it to be a loop we keep on going around and around in it. Rather than seeing that we’re trapped we think that we’re actually getting somewhere and so we keep on with what we’re doing, we keep at it and it, ricocheting from win to lose, from right to wrong, from hit to miss the whole time without ever really getting anywhere. We’re forever bouncing from one extreme to the other; we’re forever oscillating from one polar opposite to the other like some kind of a crazy rubber ball.


What’s tripping us up all the time is ourselves. That’s what’s keeping us out of the flow. Or we could say that what’s keeping us out of the flow (what’s keeping us trapped in the loop that we think is the flow) is our agenda – i.e. our everyday thinking – which is of course the one thing we are never going to see as the source of our problems.


‘Like and dislike’ is what’s tripping us up all the time. ‘Like and dislike’ is what’s keeping us spinning around and around on the wheel. And all we need to do to get free from this wheel and come back into the flow of life is to see through like and dislike, is to see though our constant counterproductive fear-driven need to be in control…