Disidentification and Self-Improvement
School Talk Number 33 (10/3/1996) inX Services

Copyright Notice: this work is Copyright © 1996 by inX.

All rights worldwide under copyright law are reserved to the author.

Should you wish to contact the author, you may do so at the following address: tmwg@inxservices.com.
Please inform the author of any violations of this copyright.

This is a transcript of a workshop with a group who had begun studying the Science of Man's Conscious Self-Evolution in Los Angeles on October 3, 1996. No attempt has been made to modify the grammar -- it is transcribed as it happened -- only names have been removed.

    So what do you have to report?

    Well, I'm still identified with the critic. And, um, and resisting the suggestion from the not-I's: and I just end up in a worse state. I saw that relationship. And, um ...

    What does that mean?

    What I saw was, um, the not-I's come up and suggest that I'm horrible and bad and screwed up and all that; and I don't disidentify and say, ``They're not-I's.'' And I start resisting it, and then I feel I end up in apathy.


    Um, I also observed that nothing is valued for itself. Everything that I'm doing is valued for what it's getting me. And I don't see value in just doing anything.

    Well, it's very clear that you do not want to disidentify. Because, not once during this entire conversation, have you refrained from using what word?


    So you've no interest the subject, apparently. You did not say that the self doesn't value anything, na na na na na. You didn't say that.
    So, it's up to you. You could make some effort (laughs) to at least try to modify the language a little bit while you're around people who will understand.
    I can understand using the word I around people who know nothing of the work: so you don't look crazy. But I don't understand it here. You're not even trying. In the sense of: there's no effort being put out.


    So, if you'd like to do that again -- and maybe say it in a way that makes sense -- it might be of interest to you.

    Well, I see that the self doesn't value anything for itself. It values it for the pleasure it will bring. And it's not considered valuable if it doesn't bring pleasure. And what I see happen is, the way things get done, this one identifies with side B [Justice] and does it as a ``have to,'' to be ``good.'' Otherwise it doesn't get done.
    Um, I observed a lot of comparing going on after we talked. I saw that that was happening all the time. And, um, I saw that I believed that I was the machine.
    So I spent the last four days after that came up seeing that every suggestion or thing that was done, that: just Picture of Man. To say this is the Complainer, or would you know; you know what I'm saying.

    I just don't understand the self-pity.

    I don't either.

    Those are just facts.
    The self-pity is another thing, entirely. And you know what it's called: it's called unexpressed anger. How many times have we talked about that around here?
    You won't look at the fact that the not-I's are pissed as hell about something, so you feel sorry for yourself instead. How you could possibly believe (laughs) that sitting around feeling sorry for yourself is better than being angry is very interesting to me. That you would prefer to be almost dead than have a little life: very interesting.


    And you didn't do it for very long. You decided not to, uh, make the effort for very long. Because that's all that is required: is just to say, ``That's what the self is doing.''
    What else?

    This person disidentified, and found that sort of calmer; and almost anything that it did. But this one still finds if very difficult to disidentify with the things it can be successful at.

    Anything what?

    Anything that this person considers good, or something that I did well; that I would get credit for.

    Notice that you suddenly went into ``I'' again? So you've made that perfectly clear, in many different ways: that you live for approval and importance, eh? If it's that important to you: die for it.


    Well, that's what you just said. You can say no all you want (laughs). It's not going to change the fact.

    This one is going to continue to disidentify.

    You just kept yourself from making it possible to disidentify from that suggestion. I offered you a way to do it and you threw it away. Because you didn't even like to hear it.

    To die?

    That's right.
    If you realized that the price you pay for the approval and the importance that you get is your own life, you would find it much easier to disidentify from. But since you won't investigate the subject, I guess you'll just get to stay the way you are.
     No matter how times you say, ``I'm going to do it -- I'm going to do it.'' Because you're obviously not.
    I don't say things like that to be, uh, unkind. I say them to offer you a way to do something. And you just rejected it without even considering it: by automatic action. Okay. So be it.
    If you won't look at the price that you pay for the things that the not-I's tell you you must have, then you'll go on buying them. Until finally you run out of credit, and you fall on the ground, and somebody digs a hole and puts you in it.
    That's the way it is.
    You got to pay for it. And the price that they charge is your life.
    If you don't want to see that then you'll go on paying for it: because you'll think it's cheap. Because you won't see the price [until it's too late.]
    But it's interesting that they wouldn't even let you consider the idea.
    What else?

    I -- this one experienced it, a lot of resistance this week. And I saw that, the judgment of that: that I'm still wanting non-disturbance. I saw myself living by the decision to get non-disturbance. And, um ...

    You didn't really try disidentification, did you?

    I think I did (doubtfully).
    I think I did

    What did I tell her when she was having difficulty disidentifying with something? Were you here?


    What did I say?

    (long pause)

    I thought you were here. You just said you were. A body being here doesn't mean you were here. You haven't figured that out yet?
    You might want to get a copy of this tape and listen to it. And hear it somewhere where maybe you can be objective.
    You did a lot of things this week. It very clearly was not disidentification. And maybe if you hear what was said to her and what was said from that mouth, you might hear how that's so. Okay?
    It doesn't do any good to fool yourself. That's to anybody who wants to listen to it.
    It just doesn't do any good. What's the point? If you have some reason for doing this, then why fool yourself? Why not be honest? And say, ``I can do this; and I can't do that: right now.''
    This is where I'm at. Therefore, this is what I need to work at (laughs).
    Assuming you actually want to do this as opposed to doing it in your imagination: that seems like a very valuable idea (laughs).
    Now if all you want to do is do it in your imagination, then I guess you don't have to do that. You can go on fooling yourself.
    But one of the things that has been mentioned around here many times is: that one of the biggest problems that people have is they can imaging anything. And to them it's absolutely true. They can't tell the difference between their own imagination and reality.
    You better learn. If you want to do something real.
    It is possible to tell the difference. But it requires disidentification. Because you've got to see the suggestion that you imagine that such and such is true as a suggestion. (laughs) Instead of just taking it as: fact.
    ``Imagine that this is true.''
    ``Oh, okay, it's true.''
    (laughs) The point of this, as I said last week, is not to look ``good:'' it's to get correction. So you keep on track. If you're going to set out for a particular direction, and you can't stay on that direction on your own, then you need something to keep you on track. Right?
    So if this is the aim, these are just things to look at and say, ``Here's where I got off track.'' So I can stay on track.
    What else?

    This one observed a lot of, um, suffering due to taste. (unintelligible) Observed, also, I, identification occurred with the side of an argument. This, I think, identification was a lot stronger. It was very strong. Identification was there.

    I didn't hear everything that was said, to be honest with you. The last part just sort of dribbled off, for me. The tape probably got it. It's very good at that. It's ears are better than mine.

    This one observed that when there was identification with a side of an argument, that the identification was very strong. Um, and, there was ...

    Okay, so you got to see identification, but didn't necessarily disidentify.



    There's another, there's ...

    Well that's all right. That's better than last week.
    This week see if you can do a little disidentifying, not just notice the identification. But say, ``This is not me.'' Having this argument. Neither side. Or neither sides, because it's not always two sides.
    Turns out that way a lot, because there's two camps. But sometimes there's more than two sides. And none of them are me. So let them argue; I don't care.
    This is not me. That's called disidentification (laughs).
    What else?

    This one observed that, um, there was a lot of suggestion to, uh, be violent outwardly. And, um, it actually, it's been pretty funny. It's been going on for weeks. And, um, there have been moments were there's identification with B [Justice] due to feeling guilty and things like that.
    This morning the not-I's ...

    You have bad thoughts.

    Just bad things (laughs). And this morning, um, there was a suggestion that I was disidentification important.

    Maybe: who knows.

    (laughs) I didn't realize that this was a suggestion until today, until later on today. It's just kind of funny, I didn't, I just didn't disidentify all day.

    What else?

    I think that I'm identified with the outward violence, and it's been difficult to disidentify with that.

    Yeah. That's very clear. So you know exactly to work on.
    It's just thoughts. Sometimes it gets expressed: I didn't do it.
    But, I get to pay the price for it anyway. It used this body.
    We did talk about that last week, didn't we: that there's always some thing that they know will upset you. So they make sure to give you lots of suggestions about that. And we've seen that a bit tonight, haven't we?
    People trotting out: the thing they're having trouble with is the very thing that the not-I's have figured out will get you upset enough that you'll identify with it.
    The thought is just a thought. Who cares what the not-I's think, about violence?
    But the sad thing is that if you care, then it will get expressed. But if you don't care if they have that thought, it probably won't happen. So it will seen as a thought.
    It's a very strange thing, but when you get to the point where you're free to let them have thoughts that you think you shouldn't have, then they get expressed a whole lot less often. But the more you struggle against them, the more often they somehow sneak by you and turn into actions.
    Very odd, but true.

    Is that when I think that it's me?

    Sure. You get tired of struggling, don't you? Doesn't it kind of wear you out?


    So after a while you fall asleep. Because you've been just wearing yourself out. So then, of course, you identify with whatever it was you were struggling against: and now you're doing it. And then you when wake up you feel really bad.
    Why bother struggling?
    That's their game, is struggling. Why would you want to play?
    No point in struggling. They'll always win. It's one against five million. Who do you think is going to win?
    They can afford to go to sleep. Because there's another one to replace them. But that's not true for you, is it?
    No one of them ever does anything for more than a few minutes. So, effectively, they don't tire out. When they do get tired, they take off, and another one takes their place.
    So if you struggle with them, you're going to lose (laughs). You've already lost, just by deciding to fight.
    You get tired; they don't. They do, but it just doesn't matter. I would never have a war with five million people. That would be stupid. I'd know I was going to lose. Isn't that right?

    There's not some conflict on whether or not it's necessary to experience it.

    No. There's not. Not in the sense that you're asking the question. To experience the inner struggle and conflict doesn't mean that you have to allow it to express. I think you've allowed it to express many, many, many times, haven't you? You have more than enough experience on that subject if you use your own memories.
    What else?

    That was really useful. In terms of describing something that has been going on this week for this one. Which was: I was looking to stop a behavior and I didn't realize that I was doing that. It was something that we had talked about on derogatory comments about others, and making fun of others.

    Yes, it would be nice if that happened: that behavior stops.

    Yeah. I think I made it a little important this week. But I did notice something that I hadn't noticed before: which is that that is also a fear suggestion. Which I have not, not always, but ...

    Everything from the self is about fear. If you haven't noticed, then you haven't listened when we talked about the Teaching. Every lower state is a degree of fear. So if you haven't noticed it, then you certainly haven't looked for it.
    It means you didn't listen to the Teaching. Okay? It's not to put you down: it's just to say if you have such a valuable thing as a description of reality, I'd consider it. Instead of rediscovering the entire Teaching on your fucking own, which is going to take you fifty years to start.
    Why do you think we got the Teaching? So you could rediscover it on your own?
    It would take forever.
    But that is the whole damn point, isn't it? So, to be honest with you, I think the not-I's figured it out. I think they got you involved, which is your favorite game, as we well know: of figuring things out. Instead of just doing the simple thing that was asked: disidentify.
    So you decided to identify with the not-I's that figure everything out. Never realizing that everything that you're trying to figure out has already been answered. It's an incredible, useless, expenditure of time and energy.
    So it would be interesting in that one's particular looking at things next week that there is not much ability to disidentify when the not-I's say, ``Figure something out.''
    It's all intellectual activity. You would have found out much faster if you'd simply observed. And not tried to figure it out.
    Because then you might discover this interesting state of being called seeing relationships, where things just are obvious. And you don't have to figure them out.
    And you spend a considerable amount of time being very proud of this intuition you have. And using it on all sorts of strange subjects that don't do anyone very much good. It would be interesting to develop that, if it really is there as an ability, and use it a little bit more by getting into a state called seeing relationships. Rather than trying to figure everything out all the time, and just using it as a way of stroking your pride: that I have intuition.
    It's another thing that's been said around here a number of times: you need to use both aspects of thinking. The ability to see the whole, and the ability to see the parts. You've only been trained in one, so that's the only one you ever use.
    And you use it to try to figure out the Teaching, which is a living thing. So you try to analyze it and apply it to this situation, and then you don't get it as a living thing. You get it as little pieces that you can occasionally use.
    But you can't see it as this incredible, holographic, whole.
    I know you folks don't see week-end workshops very often: but it does happen here in these evenings, too. But many times, those of you who've seen week-end workshops, you know that the Teaching just gets presented as this big whole. That, no matter where you stand and look at a detail, you end up seeing the whole thing.
    That lets it be a living thing, instead of the bits and pieces that you have. That you try very difficultly to apply to your life, because you can't see it as a living whole that applies to everything, all the time.
    You won't let yourself. You're too busy identifying with the mind which always tries to figure everything out: by breaking it into pieces and saying, ``How do these pieces apply to this moment?''
    There is another aspect of the mind that we don't use very often that just sees how it applies to this moment. You won't learn about that aspect of mind if you always use just one.
    You don't believe me: how many of you here are ambidextrous?
    Can you write with both hands. Do you? So can I: but can you read what you've written?
    It's very rare, that when someone relies on one hand, that they can use both of them for fine detail work. I suspect that many of you (not that that many raised their hand), but I suspect that many of you who claimed to be ambidextrous are lying, because it's a matter of pride. Ambidextrous means literally that anything you can do with one hand, you can do with either hand: just as well. That's what I mean by ambidextrous. I suspect that's not exactly what you meant.
    But if you rely on one thing, whether you are truly ambidextrous or not: you kind of get the point, eh? After a while, that's all you can do. And if you try to use the other, you have extreme difficulty with it.
    Just through lack of practice. So if you won't ever give yourself the opportunity to look at anything any other way than the way the not-I's have been conditioned by this particular society to do it: called analyzing and figuring out; you never find out that there's another way of doing things that's just as valuable.
    It's called identification again, eh? They know only one way, so I know only one way (laughs).
    What else?

    When the not-I's started suggesting to me that I be afraid, I, um, stopped and I said, ``Okay. I doubt that I'm going to go insane. I doubt that I'm going to have a heart attack. And if I do, then I do.'' And, um, they shut up.

    Good. Now that you know that, just start saying, ``This is not me.'' Okay? Now that you've found that out: they're not going to carry through on their threat. It's just a bluff. Now go all the way, and start saying, ``Aww, that's not me. It's just a thought.''
    What else?

    On the idea of expressing, um, being disidentified and -- I don't even know if this can be. The question is: um, if you see not-I's being expressed -- are there different degrees of disidentification that can be going on? There are times that I've watched ...

    How many times have we ever said that the degree of anything is absolute?



    You haven't.

    Oh, I see. So this is an exception. This is the one time when I will probably say, ``Yes, there is an absolute thing called disidentification, and it has no degrees.''

    No. No.

    I believe that's one of the Teaching ideas. There are degrees to everything. There are no absolutes. Only in your head are there absolutes, because of the way of the senses work: some things are pleasant, and some things are not. So you made up your mind that there's such a thing as absolutes: and they don't exist. Period.
    I don't think it has qualifications: they usually don't exist. I think it just says, ``In the realm of the physical there are no absolutes.''
    And, since disidentification is disidentification from the physical thing called the self and the body and so on, I do believe we're talking about physical here.
    What else?

    This one observed that, when self was observing the not-I's, the not-I's seemed to stop. And, there was a not-I ...

    That has been said, hasn't it?


    That's one of the difficulties. So what the hell is your point?

    Oh. The point was that, um, I remember the self will never, the idea of saying that that's okay, uh ...

    Well, I guess it may as well be, since it's just a fact.

    Yeah. And that helped that, uh, um, (unintelligible) said last week of being a passive observer. And, the not-I's still seem to play out a bit. A little bit. (unintelligible)

    Okay, I have no idea what the point is. I hear all those words, and I understand them to the best of my ability, and I have no idea what your point is.

    The point is that, um, there is a greater degree of disidentification than last week.

    I rather thought so: it's just an attempt to look good. Good. Now you have something else to disidentify from -- to see and disidentify from something that, right now, is just being identified with: I must look good, at all times.
    And yet, here we are in a situation where, quite frankly, there's no way for you to look good (laughs). Because that's the whole damn point: is to sit here and say, ``Here's what I did,'' assuming that it will be corrected.
    So it's kind of a bizarre thing to do under these conditions.
    What else?

    I want to ask you something about what you just said. Because I notice something the way I heard it, which is: feeling proud of the intuitive part. There is a judgment that says that I can't use that. But, it's going on anyway: it's just being distorted. Is that accurate?

    Nope. Where id it come from?


    I see. So the Teaching Idea that the not-I's never tell the truth suddenly has an exception. They decided to tell the truth in this one particular case.
    That's the need for disidentification. Everything they tell you is a lie.

    Well that was a fine demonstration (laughter).

    The trick is to begin to see the lie in everything they say. Because right now, the fact is we don't, isn't that right?
    They lie to you all the time, and very occasionally you see that they're lying to you. And I doubt that you have even really accepted that Teaching Idea yet. Because you haven't really worked trying to find out if it's true. In fact, you probably don't even remember it very often.
    But I will remind you of it one more time. The not-I's always lie. It's one of the few times that I will make an absolute statement.
    I have never heard a not-I tell the truth. And I've talked to a number of people who have talked to a number of people who have said the same thing.
    Everyone who's ever done this Work has always come to the understanding that they have never told the truth once in their entire life. That goes back many thousands of years, with people who have been observing the self: and they've never reported an instance when a not-I told the truth.
    And this is what you're identified with. A pathological liar. That's what you call ``you.''
    So if want to know if something is true, the first place to start is to say, ``Where did it come from?'' Did I get it from the self? Well, it's not true: I just don't know ``why'' yet.
    I just can't explain to you why it's not true; but it's not true, I can guarantee you that. And I've told you many times before that the best way to lie is to tell part of the truth and then add something onto it that's false.
    Now since you never listen to the whole sentence the not-I's give you: you think they tell the truth, don't you? Because usually the lie is in the part of the sentence that's unspoken.
    So of course, you believe they tell the truth. Because you don't listen very well.
    I believe we did have a little meeting one time where it was suggested that you ask them to finish their sentences. Then you might hear the lie in everything they say: if you get them to finish their sentences.
    Because that's their favorite way of lying. You actually hear the whole suggestion, not just the part that was words in your head. It just is all unconscious to you. We're asking you to get rid of the unconscious.
    It's a terrible, terrible result of disintegration: that you have this thing called an unconscious mind. You were not designed to have one. It's just that you've fallen apart, and a whole lot of what the not-I's do you are simply unaware of.
    It happens below the level that you can be aware. Well, unfortunately, that's where they tell most of their best lies. Below your threshold of awareness.
    So it is suggested that one work at creating an observing ``I'' that does nothing but listen to them. And maybe, one day, you will find yourself able to be aware of the unspoken stuff. The stuff that does not go through the Chooser.
    Because that's the only part of your mind that you're aware of. And that is probably about a tenth of a per cent of what's going in your mind.
    That's the tip of the iceberg, as it were. Except that this iceberg: it ain't even the top one per cent that you see. I think it's probably a tenth of a per cent that goes through the Chooser.
    All the rest, without an observing ``I,'' is just invisible. So it's just acted on. Without ever knowing.
    So that's what we're doing right now: is working at creating that thing called an observing ``I.'' Many of you have been doing this for a very long time and never really done that. Because you didn't work at it for a period of time.
    And it does take considerable effort over a period of time to set that up. It doesn't happen overnight.
    That's what was suggested when we first got together. But it all got lost in thought, didn't it? We did a little bit of observing and one hell of a lot of thinking.
    And all that thinking was actually the self. It wasn't you.
    So it wasn't worked at consistently, with considerable effort over a period of time. It was worked at occasionally, with a lot of breaks between.
    Let's just say that it takes six weeks of effort to get to the point where disidentification is really a reality. Where I can be in a state of self-knowing pretty consistently. And, as we've said, this effort is cumulative. And you do it for three minutes a day.
    How long is that six weeks going to take you? Anybody want to do the math real quick in your head?
    Let's say you do it an hour a day. It's going to take you twenty-four times six weeks, isn't it? There abouts. Let's say twenty times six weeks. That's twenty times a month and a half. We're looking at years aren't we?
    For you to do the very first thing that is asked of you. So this is not going to take you five to seven years as is projected. It's going to take you thirty or forty or fifty years to do the Work.
    And you're going to be sitting here twenty years later saying, ``My god, I feel like I've just started.''
    Well, guess what? You have.
    Disidentification really is not even starting: it's getting ready to start. Okay? That's all it really is, is just getting prepared. You haven't really done anything yet, when you get to the point where you're at disidentification (laughs).
    In fact you're in hell. That's really all you've done, is made sure that you're going to have a very miserable state of existence.
    Do you really want to take twenty years to get started: being in hell all the way? So maybe it would be okay if we just sort of like really worked at it, okay? And got it done.
    Well, it's not quite that bad. Because when I say six weeks of considerable effort, it's not twenty-four hours a day. And we did run that assumption when we did the math. Because I know damn well nobody can do that.
    But still, we're looking at dragging out six weeks worths of effort over probably four or five years. If you just do it a few minutes to an hour or so a day.
    I know you can only do so much in the beginning: that six weeks includes a kind of scale. It says, you can only do a few minutes a day in the beginning. And you work at it, and pretty soon you can do a few hours a day. Okay?
    But it means at the end of that six weeks you're kind of doing it consistently, because you worked at it [and saw what the self is about]. It really will drag out over to years if you just stay at the same level as you began: only being able to do a few minutes to an hour a day.
    And I'll remind you yet again: that disidentification only occurs when there is no judgment at all of what is seen. It is simply said, this is what the self is doing. I don't know if it's good or bad. I only know that this is what it's doing.
    Now, if I use that criterion, I may see that much of the stuff that I call disidentification actually is not. So if I think I'm doing it three hours a day, perhaps I'm doing it thirty minutes a day. Okay?
    Is there anything else that you would particularly like to have some input on before we take the break? Because I'm probably going to talk after the break.
    Those of you who didn't speak are just doing so well that input is not required.
    It would be quite interesting, those of you who found nothing to say, to consider that that's all that this was for: was to give you the opportunity to get input to make sure that you were going the direction you said you wanted to go in. It would be just interesting to look at the self and say, ``What's going on that I felt no need to make sure that I was on target; that I was aiming in the right direction.''
    We have a word called ``sin.'' And it says that it is to miss the mark. And about the best way that I know of to miss the mark is to not aim.
    So if I don't see any need to correct the aim (to make sure that I'm aiming in the right direction): I'm either absolutely certain that I'm aiming in the right direction; or I don't care whether I hit the mark or not.
    There are other things that matter more to me than hitting the mark. And I'm not going to say that that's what's going on, because I don't know. But it would be interesting for those of you who chose not to receive any kind of input to determine that for self. Okay?
    Let's take a break. Then I'll talk about a couple things, I guess. Then we'll go home.

. . .


The End

Copyright © 1996 by inX. SendMail October 6, 1996.

Science of Man's Conscious Self-Evolution