Re: PFing Manual

[Guest guest]

Hey Bill,

Looking at the PF'ing guide (a.k.a. the Matrix guide), I seem to be

coming up with quibbles or questions similar to the one Stan had

when he asked about body sensations & how to classify them.

For example: The guide asks us to consider the difference between

experiencing an object like a pen with our five senses, and

experiencing the same object in our imagination. When I did this

exercise, I came up with an answer that I suspect is not the answer

Polk is looking for, based on what he says about the Matrix

on his web site.

My answer was something like, " It takes an effort of will to

imagine the pen as it looks, feels, sounds, smells, and tastes,

whereas in real life I don't have to exert myself when experiencing

an object. And the pen in my imagination is not so vivid as the pen

in real life. " But seems to be looking for an answer

something like, " My mental experience of the pen involved thoughts,

and some of these thoughts were evaluations. " He does say on his

web site that " mental experience " can include " images " and other

sense memories - but even so, I still think his desired answer is

not what I came up with.

And I think Stan has raised an equally good question about body

sensations and where they fit on the Matrix. You could even extend

his question to where emotions should go: emotions do have a mental

component, sure - but they also have a " five senses " component.

This is not a trivial distinction, given that some ACT defusion

exercises involve looking at emotions closely & slowly enough to

begin separating mental evaluations of body sensations from the

body sensations themselves.

Given that the Matrix is essentially a tool to teach " sorting, "

that is, discrimination, I think these questions are valid and

don't constitute excessive " figurin' out. " It's a matter of using

the tool the way it was intended.

I am sure and his colleagues have answered such questions

many times in presenting the Matrix in group settings. Hopefully

he'll refine the guide further so it can stand entirely on its own.

I do think the Matrix is a neat approach to ACT and I would love to

get with it and practice it in the spirit in which it is intended.

- Randy

[Guest guest]

Randy - I'm the messenger. I assume you will contact directly. Happy quibbling while PFing. Bill

> To: ACT_for_the_Public > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:08:25 +0000> Subject: Re: PFing Manual> > Hey Bill,> > Looking at the PF'ing guide (a.k.a. the Matrix guide), I seem to be> coming up with quibbles or questions similar to the one Stan had> when he asked about body sensations & how to classify them.> > For example: The guide asks us to consider the difference between> experiencing an object like a pen with our five senses, and> experiencing the same object in our imagination. When I did this> exercise, I came up with an answer that I suspect is not the answer> Polk is looking for, based on what he says about the Matrix> on his web site.> > My answer was something like, "It takes an effort of will to> imagine the pen as it looks, feels, sounds, smells, and tastes,> whereas in real life I don't have to exert myself when experiencing> an object. And the pen in my imagination is not so vivid as the pen> in real life." But seems to be looking for an answer> something like, "My mental experience of the pen involved thoughts,> and some of these thoughts were evaluations." He does say on his> web site that "mental experience" can include "images" and other> sense memories - but even so, I still think his desired answer is> not what I came up with.> > And I think Stan has raised an equally good question about body> sensations and where they fit on the Matrix. You could even extend> his question to where emotions should go: emotions do have a mental> component, sure - but they also have a "five senses" component.> This is not a trivial distinction, given that some ACT defusion> exercises involve looking at emotions closely & slowly enough to> begin separating mental evaluations of body sensations from the> body sensations themselves.> > Given that the Matrix is essentially a tool to teach "sorting,"> that is, discrimination, I think these questions are valid and> don't constitute excessive "figurin' out." It's a matter of using> the tool the way it was intended.> > I am sure and his colleagues have answered such questions> many times in presenting the Matrix in group settings. Hopefully> he'll refine the guide further so it can stand entirely on its own.> I do think the Matrix is a neat approach to ACT and I would love to> get with it and practice it in the spirit in which it is intended.> > - Randy> > > > ------------------------------------> > For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.org> > If you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may > unsubscribe by sending an email to > ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links> > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/> > <*> Your email settings:> Individual Email | Traditional> > <*> To change settings online go to:> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join> (Yahoo! ID required)> > <*> To change settings via email:> ACT_for_the_Public-digest > ACT_for_the_Public-fullfeatured > > <*>

[Guest guest]

>

> Randy - I'm the messenger. I assume you will contact

> directly. Happy quibbling while PFing. Bill

I have done so, yes. I've also thought about it a bit

more & decided my questions have some pretty easy answers.

First, the sorting of recalled images (touch, taste,

sight, sound, smell) is not something we need to be

concerned with. I'd say they're " 5 senses " but it

isn't really important.

Second, physical sensations (such as Stan was aking

about) are definitely " 5 senses. " It is only our

interpretation of such sensations (e.g. if we find

an attack of shingles not just extremely painful,

but somehow " unbearable " ) that is " mental. " That

makes for an easy sort. This actually might be

of some use if we are trying out this PF'ing stuff.

Similarly, with emotions, if we unpack the

physical sensations associated with emotions, these

become " 5 senses, " even though our usual experience

with emotions is packed rather than unpacked and

thus definitely " mental. " Again this could be useful

if we are into PF'ing as a way of practicing AC.

-R.

[Guest guest]

Bill, Randy,

Thanks for pointing me toward simplicity rather than over-analysis.

Sorting what comes into our awareness from moment to moment into 'sensing' and

'thinking' seems an easy sort.

I recall reading somewhere that we have more than five senses (eg,

proprioception), but I'll resist the temptation to get hung up with quibbles

like this and lump them all together as sensing.

A bit of background, which you can ignore if you wish. Before I retired a little

over a year ago, I worked in a government IT section as a programmer and

database administrator for about 20 years.

Success in this field requires an ability to think logically and analytically. I

think that, over the years, the neural circuits in my brain have wired

themselves in a such a way that I can't help but (computer pun alert) pick

things to bits.

This of course has its good and bad sides.

The good is that by nature I am highly skeptical. As a scientific naturalist who

has a passion for science, when I encounter something new, I like to look at it

carefully and objectively, and look at the evidence for and against. For me,

trying to understand how we, the planet and the universe works is how I express

my spiritual values.

The bad is that I sometimes find myself thinking too much at the wrong times. I

think I use this kind of over-thinking when I'm stressed or anxious as a way of

moving away from valued goals.

See, I'm doing it now! I guess the trick is to find the right balance. There's a

place for thinking, a place for feeling, and a place for both.

Cheers, and thanks again,

Stan

> >

> > Randy - I'm the messenger. I assume you will contact

> > directly. Happy quibbling while PFing. Bill

>

> I have done so, yes. I've also thought about it a bit

> more & decided my questions have some pretty easy answers.

>

> First, the sorting of recalled images (touch, taste,

> sight, sound, smell) is not something we need to be

> concerned with. I'd say they're " 5 senses " but it

> isn't really important.

>

> Second, physical sensations (such as Stan was aking

> about) are definitely " 5 senses. " It is only our

> interpretation of such sensations (e.g. if we find

> an attack of shingles not just extremely painful,

> but somehow " unbearable " ) that is " mental. " That

> makes for an easy sort. This actually might be

> of some use if we are trying out this PF'ing stuff.

>

> Similarly, with emotions, if we unpack the

> physical sensations associated with emotions, these

> become " 5 senses, " even though our usual experience

> with emotions is packed rather than unpacked and

> thus definitely " mental. " Again this could be useful

> if we are into PF'ing as a way of practicing AC.

>

> -R.

>

[Guest guest]

Hey Stan - I'm a retired corporate trouble-shooter. My brain serves me extremely well on external stuff. Until I discovered ACT it haunted me on internal stuff. With lots of practice I've learned to defuse from most of the crap most of the time. It's good that you know of your tendency to over-think stuff. Try noticing that as often as possible and notice that you are noticing. In ACT that's called self as context or observing self. It helps keep you out of the fray.Bill> To: ACT_for_the_Public > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 01:03:03 +0000> Subject: Re: PFing Manual> > Bill, Randy,> Thanks for pointing me toward simplicity rather than over-analysis.> > Sorting what comes into our awareness from moment to moment into 'sensing' and 'thinking' seems an easy sort.> > I recall reading somewhere that we have more than five senses (eg, proprioception), but I'll resist the temptation to get hung up with quibbles like this and lump them all together as sensing.> > A bit of background, which you can ignore if you wish. Before I retired a little over a year ago, I worked in a government IT section as a programmer and database administrator for about 20 years.> > Success in this field requires an ability to think logically and analytically. I think that, over the years, the neural circuits in my brain have wired themselves in a such a way that I can't help but (computer pun alert) pick things to bits.> > This of course has its good and bad sides.> > The good is that by nature I am highly skeptical. As a scientific naturalist who has a passion for science, when I encounter something new, I like to look at it carefully and objectively, and look at the evidence for and against. For me, trying to understand how we, the planet and the universe works is how I express my spiritual values.> > The bad is that I sometimes find myself thinking too much at the wrong times. I think I use this kind of over-thinking when I'm stressed or anxious as a way of moving away from valued goals.> > See, I'm doing it now! I guess the trick is to find the right balance. There's a place for thinking, a place for feeling, and a place for both.> > Cheers, and thanks again,> Stan> > > > > >> > > Randy - I'm the messenger. I assume you will contact > > > directly. Happy quibbling while PFing. Bill> > > > I have done so, yes. I've also thought about it a bit > > more & decided my questions have some pretty easy answers. > > > > First, the sorting of recalled images (touch, taste, > > sight, sound, smell) is not something we need to be> > concerned with. I'd say they're "5 senses" but it> > isn't really important. > > > > Second, physical sensations (such as Stan was aking> > about) are definitely "5 senses." It is only our > > interpretation of such sensations (e.g. if we find > > an attack of shingles not just extremely painful,> > but somehow "unbearable") that is "mental." That> > makes for an easy sort. This actually might be> > of some use if we are trying out this PF'ing stuff.> > > > Similarly, with emotions, if we unpack the > > physical sensations associated with emotions, these > > become "5 senses," even though our usual experience> > with emotions is packed rather than unpacked and > > thus definitely "mental." Again this could be useful> > if we are into PF'ing as a way of practicing AC. > > > > -R.> >> > > > > ------------------------------------> > For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.org> > If you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may > unsubscribe by sending an email to > ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links> > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/> > <*> Your email settings:> Individual Email | Traditional> > <*> To change settings online go to:> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/join> (Yahoo! ID required)> > <*> To change settings via email:> ACT_for_the_Public-digest > ACT_for_the_Public-fullfeatured > > <*>

[Guest guest]

Hi Randy (and reste of the gang)

Great minds think alike!

I had similar difficulties, especially when I heard say that " emotions "

are to be sorted as " mental experience " .

So we talked some more and came to another distinction (and the most important

part of this work is about distinguishING as process, more than the outcome you

come up with):

" inside the skin " and " outside the skin " , as alternatives for " mental " vs 5

senses " .

Works much better for me... Hope it helps you some, too,

Maarten

> >

> > Randy - I'm the messenger. I assume you will contact

> > directly. Happy quibbling while PFing. Bill

>

> I have done so, yes. I've also thought about it a bit

> more & decided my questions have some pretty easy answers.

>

> First, the sorting of recalled images (touch, taste,

> sight, sound, smell) is not something we need to be

> concerned with. I'd say they're " 5 senses " but it

> isn't really important.

>

> Second, physical sensations (such as Stan was aking

> about) are definitely " 5 senses. " It is only our

> interpretation of such sensations (e.g. if we find

> an attack of shingles not just extremely painful,

> but somehow " unbearable " ) that is " mental. " That

> makes for an easy sort. This actually might be

> of some use if we are trying out this PF'ing stuff.

>

> Similarly, with emotions, if we unpack the

> physical sensations associated with emotions, these

> become " 5 senses, " even though our usual experience

> with emotions is packed rather than unpacked and

> thus definitely " mental. " Again this could be useful

> if we are into PF'ing as a way of practicing AC.

>

> -R.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> So we talked some more and came to another distinction (and

> the most important part of this work is about distinguishING

> as process, more than the outcome you come up with): " inside

> the skin " and " outside the skin " as alternatives for " mental "

> vs 5 senses " .

Thanks Maarten!

I confess that I hear " inside/outside the skin " as being like

" public/private. " Not so useful for me. But maybe for you it is

more like what Stan meant when he distinguished " sensing " from

" thinking. "

- R.