Â
Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief
— Scientific American
Â
A series of new experiments shows that analytic thinking can override intuitive assumptions, including those that underlie religious belief
By Marina Krakovsky | April 26, 2012 | ?
Â
People who are intuitive thinkers are more likely to be religious, but getting them to think analytically even in subtle ways decreases the strength of their belief, according to a new study in Science.
The research, conducted by University of British Columbia psychologists Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan, does not take sides in the debate between religion and atheism, but aims instead to illuminate one of the origins of belief and disbelief. "To understand religion in humans," Gervais says, "you need to accommodate for the fact that there are many millions of believers and nonbelievers."
...
Analytic thinking undermines belief because, as cognitive psychologists have shown, it can override intuition. And we know from past research that religious beliefs—such as the idea that objects and events don't simply exist but have a purpose—are rooted in intuition. "Analytic processing inhibits these intuitions, which in turn discourages religious belief," Norenzayan explains....
...
Another experiment used a different method to show a similar effect. It exploited the tendency, previously identified by psychologists, of people to override their intuition when faced with the demands of reading a text in a hard-to-read typeface. Gervais and Norenzayan did this by giving two groups a test of participants' belief in supernatural agents like God and angels, varying only the font in which the test was printed. People who took the belief test in the unclear font (a typewriterlike font set in italics) expressed less belief than those who took it in a more common, easy-to-read typeface. "It's such a subtle manipulation," Norenzayan says. "Yet something that seemingly trivial can lead to a change that people consider important in their religious belief system." On a belief scale of 3 to 21, participants in the analytic condition scored an average of almost two points lower than those in the control group....
...
.The study also gets high marks from University of California, Irvine, evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala, the only former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science to have once been ordained as a Catholic priest, and who continues to assert that science and religion are compatible. Ayala calls the studies ingenious, and is surprised only that the effects are not even stronger. "You would expect that the people who challenge the general assumptions of their culture—in this case, their culture's religious beliefs—are obviously the people who are more analytical," he says.
The researchers, for their part, point out that both reason and intuition have their place. "Our intuitions can be phenomenally useful," Gervais says, "and analytic thinking isn't some oracle of the truth."
Greene concurs, while also raising a provocative question implicit in the findings: "Obviously, there are millions of very smart and generally rational people who believe in God," he says. "Obviously, this study doesn't prove the nonexistence of God. But it poses a challenge to believers: If God exists, and if believing in God is perfectly rational, then why does increasing rational thinking tend to decrease belief in God?"
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 57
Because many people have irrational beliefs about God, I believe. If their belief is not well grounded in reason, so to speak, but more or less imitative and/or assumptive, then they are prone to being dissuaded rather easily, it seems to me. Jesus speaks of this in a parable, and when his disciples ask him to explain the parable, he tells them;
Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
John.. although you try and try, we can lead a horse to water, but we cannot make it drink. But I commend your passionate will to try anyway.
This is classical entropy.
A bit alike Ptolemy defining the Universe FROM the Earth, while we should define it (Copernicus) at the least from the Sun but certainly better from some other point far away from us and which may still be ignored.
The real question, the analytical one, is, as far as I am concerned and IMHO, reversed and then some cognitive question can be set up as:" how come elements can tight together and start moving, growing and reproducing themselves?"
But one trick should be reminded: "Nature responds to the question after the way she was raised".
What people believe likely depends on how they think.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables...
Play at being gods yourself if you wish, but you can't really see into anyone else's heart/mind . . just can't, it's an illusion, generated by your own minds I say. Just imaginings . .
The flattening of the word "literal" is one example of a trend in modern English and an indication of a materialistic, mechanistic worldview and rationalistic thinking . This sort of thinking impoverishes our experience of connection and meaning to nature and life.
The assumption that all "Faith" people express having, is equally born of understanding to begin with, such that Joe Blow feeling less sure of his belief, means all people of "Faith" are rightly spoken of as being so easily cast into doubt, is just plain dense, to me. For me, the more "analytical thinking" I do about these matters, the more faith I feel in God's existence, not less . . I don't doubt there are many who have "unfounded" faith in God, but that don't mean everyone who believes is in that same boat. Many who profess faith in science could surely be "shaken" in a similar manner by the right cues, but that don't mean all who have faith in science are so easily moved, right? Some are more or less just "groupies", regardless of what they express faith in, I believe. They react to this or that stimulus, like leaves tossed in the wind . . no roots.
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
Analytical thinking itself is by definition an attempt to go beyond what can be seen, to find greater understanding of something. It is undertaken by faith, in things we cannot see, right?
Take a glass of water: the water has the shape of the glass. However, separated, the glass has it own (empty) shape and the water has the shape the Observer wants.
These properties are well-known from physicists and is applied in all sciences. This why analytical thinking is a view of mind given by the observer himself and not a reality. No element of a watch would give alone the hour; furthermore, the several elements should be assembled in a single specific way to be a watch.
This why communication requires 4 elements which cannot be dissociated from each other. The problem is that, as observers, we end being simultaneously object and subject of our own observations.
I can't speak for this experiment, but training in the sciences encourages you to believe what has been proven and keep an open mind about the rest. The great majority of religious scholars throughout the ages have been intuitive thinkers. (Myers-Briggs NT).
Now featured at Examining Our Religion.
This is as stating the great majority of drinkers were drinking water because nothing else existed then.
Indeed, all universities were catholic ones because of the need of new generations of bishops was needed for allowing the Church to remain. Initiated as per Wikipedia "The first universities in Europe with a form of corporate/guild structure were the University of Bologna (1088), the University of Paris (c. 1150, later associated with the Sorbonne), the University of Oxford (1167), the University of Palencia (1208), the University of Cambridge (1209), the University of Salamanca (1218), the University of Montpellier (1220), the University of Padua (1222), the University of Naples Federico II (1224), the University of Toulouse (1229),[10][11] the University of Siena (1240)."
It would be difficult to achieve researches no approved and out of these Universities.
The Church is in itself , a political organization and implies knowing how to answer questions.
As science progresses, it is necessary to answer questions of increasing complexity which we know are changing. There is a strong tendency to deny evolution of ourselves. And it is from this perspective that we answer questions. And what we know and we seem unreachable, which is useless to question is, God.
The Greek and Roman Ancient civilization believe that the Earth was as flat as a dish. When Christians succeeded their political revolution, the dish idea subsisted and when coming back from its borders, the boat was always saved "thanks to God".
It has been tough for the Church to accept the "round" Earth as it has been tough to accept the Earth not any more in the center of our Universe, etc., etc.
Each evolution knowledge is denied because it changes and drives away God.
Is God really existing? How shall we react when, one day, discovering how life was initiated if no God is involved?
This is as stating the great majority of drinkers were drinking water because nothing else existed then.
Gilbert,
You are not responding to Ann's point about "intutition" as a state of consciousness. Have you studied Christian thinkers, such as Irenaeus, or thinkers of other traditions that I have mentioned? There is "flatland" thinking among contemporary scientists who have no knowledge of states of consciousness . Ancient peoples were in fact very good astronomers . They could chart the heavens and measure movements, predict eclipses and planetary effects through a fine awareness of sound and number, without even need for language and theories.
I thought I was talking science, as neuroscience and biology. From your knowledge of Buddhism you may see correlations? The three-partite- brain (which several scientists interpret in different ways) is not a new concept. Anyone can verify this for themselves by experiment and skilled meditators teach how.
The science of consciousness is not based on "belief" but on systematic knowledge that everyone has the potential to verify if they choose to learn . Many teachings can assist but if you don't do the necessary work you won't learn. It's like the clever boy who was thought to be stupid because he couldn't milk the cows: "If I don't learn to milk a cow, I don't have to milk cows." Willful ignorance is another matter! Shermer plays such people for suckers.
Ignorance of religions is one of the greatest obstacles to our attaining a global civilization without much avoidable conflict and suffering. The failure to understand the nature of consciousness is a matter of choice; for everyone has the potential to do so. Both science and religion can assist one to understand consciousness . You might learn a lot from the Dalai Lama's excellent books. I recently read and liked Toward a True Kinship of Faiths because he describes in a personal way his own long learning process regarding the modern world and science and religion .
No science should be based on belief. But belief can be, and has been, studied scientifically!. It sounds like you are letting your own "belief" cloud any analytical or objective thinking you might do.
Shermer is far from being ignorant of religions. And so am I. Just try not to foist off your religious belief as something empirically valid to me.
Perhaps I missed the point of your article. I thought you were presenting analytical thinking as a good thing. Sorry about that.
Shermer's dishonesty has been exposed. The point about "analytic thinking" as Gilbert has also noted, is that is limited to selected "causes" and "effects". But this depends what the 4% or so observable matter. The rest is inferred. This is useful in quantum mechanics and so on. But consciousness has many levels and can work with finer matters than the dense physical. There is no "belief" or theory involved when we are doing practical work that brings about practical results. Religions are one form of knowledge that describe some of such work. But doing such work and getting results is like any work. One doesn't need to know anything about religion.
I am surprised, Gary , that you didn't seem to notice this ridiculous statement in the article. Cognitive and neuroscientists who assume that what some so-called "believers" see is not real are obviously over-the-top. We know that humans are much more sensitive in observing and measuring things than machines. What some "religious" see are "real " as are what those practitioners of medical systems like Oriental Medicine and artists in many fields see and work with. The notion that the "brain" is "in the head" is another wrong assumption of some reseachers . There are other centers in the body that work as brains and work more quickly and sensitively in concert with the head brain.
Many of the comments above on this article (did you read them?) elaborated in more detail its faults and assumptions.
If you had actually read The Believing Brain, you would realize that you are demonstrating a perfect example of irrationality and forming a belief first and only then seek out confirming "evidence" while dismissing evidence to the contrary of your belief. You seem to be quite Literally blinded by your belief and will not for an instant seriously consider that you may be wrong.
But that's all well and good. You have your beliefs and mysticism, I have logic, reason, and science. I will never convince you to reassess your position. And you will never convince me of anything as long as I can't make heads nor tails of what you are saying.
The way "belief" and "intuition" are defined for the studies is almost on the level of taking a poll about how groups feel about politicians. "Religion" includles knowledge about many faculties that humans may demonstrate. It is as though the researchers don't recognize telepathy, non-local consciousness (as remote viewing in real time and past and future) , healing at a distance etc. are not scientifically proved . The article also, I think, seems to imply a 'belief" by the researchers that consciousness and mind do not exist independent of the brain. What the studies do show that is that people are suggestible and their minds and opinions can be manipulated, which the media ad agencies, governments and religious institutions understand very well. But the use of terms like "belief" and "inituition" as it does is not intelligent to put it mildly . This sort of science is seriously lacking authority in many ways.
Another mistake you make is thinking that mind and consciousness exist independent of the brain. There is plenty of hard evidence that mind and consciousness are not independent of the brain and there is no scientific evidence that they are independent of the brain. You see, you are choosing to believe differently even in the face of all the scientific evidence to the contrary.
Those researchers would be quite correct in treating things like telepathy and remote viewing as not having any scientific validity, so I don't know what your point is with that.
Again, I must mention that you seem to be demonstrating with uncanny precision the type of thought process that forms a belief with insufficient information and then continues thereon with perceiving only supporting "evidence" while, perhaps unconsciously, dismissing evidence to the contrary. You seem to "believe" your position in the exact manner proposed by Shermer. But I guess that would mean little to you because you obviously haven't read the book I mentioned, yet you "believe" his work to be dishonest and that he hasn't followed the scientific method. You may want to review your source for your belief - perhaps it came from someone who supports your own position. Critical evaluation and the scientific method would require that you actually read Shermer's work directly instead of taking someone else's word for it. Yet again, not doing so is typical of putting belief first and evidence later - exactly the mistake Shermer would warn about.
I submit that your "knowledge" is quite erroneous, exposed quite clearly by the mere fact that you use the phrase "religious knowledge." Unless of course you are using "knowledge" to mean "belief" that is not scientifically supported.
The meaning you attach to "faith" is only one of many possible meanings that term has been used to mean over many centuries among thinkers in any cultures. In terms of consciousness, whether used by those affiliated to religions, secularists, atheists, humanists et al. , it often indicates a state of awareness and perception that is beyond three-dimensional awareness. The decline of English in modern times has fostered much sloppy thinking . "Literal" for many centuries meant "true meaning", that is understanding acquired by struggle and effort. Now it commonly has a very different connotation.
Another mistake you make is thinking that mind and consciousness exist independent of the brain. There is plenty of hard evidence that mind and consciousness are not independent of the brain and there is no scientific evidence that they are independent of the brain. You see, you are choosing to believe differently even in the face of all the scientific evidence to the contrary.
You are wrong in asserting that there is scientific evidence that mind and conscious do not exist independently . There are many peer-reviewed studies that indicate to the contrary.
Those researchers would be quite correct in treating things like telepathy and remote viewing as not having any scientific validity, so I don't know what your point is with that.
You haven't studied the available research. There are hundreds of studies. I don't know what else to think of what you say.
Again, I must mention that you seem to be demonstrating with uncanny precision the type of thought process that forms a belief with insufficient information and then continues thereon with perceiving only supporting "evidence" while, perhaps unconsciously, dismissing evidence to the contrary. You seem to "believe" your position in the exact manner proposed by Shermer. But I guess that would mean little to you because you obviously haven't read the book I mentioned, yet you "believe" his work to be dishonest and that he hasn't followed the scientific method. You may want to review your source for your belief - perhaps it came from someone who supports your own position. Critical evaluation and the scientific method would require that you actually read Shermer's work directly instead of taking someone else's word for it. Yet again, not doing so is typical of putting belief first and evidence later - exactly the mistake Shermer would warn about.
I was trying to be precise! I have worked in science and studied consciousness for more than 50 years and I think I have considered many different views and can probably describe any of them in a coherent way.
I do not consider Shermer credible as I have said. I have read some of his work . Others have exposed in detail his dishonesty and false claims.
I submit that your "knowledge" is quite erroneous, exposed quite clearly by the mere fact that you use the phrase "religious knowledge." Unless of course you are using "knowledge" to mean "belief" that is not scientifically supported
Knowledge is knowledge, whether it is expressed in the arts and sciences, philosophy or religions. There is theoretical knowledge and there is the how-to- use- it, that is, its practical application. There are examples in all fields of what may be called objective work as opposed to subjective work. A mastery of fundamental universal laws is recognized in the former. All the world religions were created to make some real knowledge available to humans of very different capacities in order to make societies possible. Laws for governance serve the same purpose but are complementary, that is, what is commonly considered for dealing with mundane matters. Humans throughout history have invented all sorts of distorted versions of both. Societies fail for many reasons, but the weaknessess of human nature are often a strong reason. Some societies become mad and self-destruct when they lose touch with knowledge of reality and behave irrationally.
I appreciate your above response, Gary. We have very different views. I do question your personal opinion that I am somehow defending irrationality. I was trained as a scientist, worked in institute labs and clinics on cancer for many years with researchers who received Noble Prizes .
I hope you don't choose to stay in the Dark Ages! Whew!
Is God really existing? How shall we react when, one day, discovering how life was initiated if no God is involved?"
Gilbert,
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts",said physicist Richard Feynman (b. 1918). He worked on the Manhattan Project to develop the nuclear bomb, and he was the youngest group leader in the project's theoretical division. When the first test bomb was detonated in 1945, he was ecstatic about the project's success, but soon the real-world implications of this new weapon began to trouble him.
He made contributions to the field of quantum mechanics and electrodynamics, had fun doing it. It frustrated him that so few shared his awareness of the wonder in science. Feyman refused to believe that scientific inquiry came at the expense of beauty. He said: "Stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern — of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it."
Talk about reaching...
That's like trying to convince me that My House just appeared out of nothing? No make a lot of sense to me.. you?
This is the basis for most of the friction between the believers and non-believers: Believers think they are "better." More moral.
BULLSHIT!!!
On top of it, the sole "achieved" assembling way , drives to promote entropy.
I prefer to revert to Nature itself while analyzing the behavior of each element within its position: you may have the 360 different pieces of a watch, each one has just some value within the watch when working together within the system.
If I look at the working watch, each piece is valuable; if I look at the different pieces non assembled or badly assembled, the watch will not be working and each element, separated, has no value at all.
Therefore we have the 2 ways to look at the "already" assembled watch and decide that each element has been designed to fit in or, to the contrary that each element found "miraculously" its conceptor, manufacturer and positioner!
Analytic thinking cannot solve the problem, per se, because when an element changes, the others change as well. But, sticking on an analysis of the assembled item with no interest for its elements will not provide the properties of the watch, neither its value as "a whole".
This means we should forget about entropy in order to consider the "how come" of the system.
This is the basis for most of the friction between the believers and non-believers: Believers think they are "better." More moral.
>>>>
Oh come on, Bert. We know very well that a minority of individuals serve higher values of their own free will. They are more "grown up" than others. That doesn't mean "better" but it does mean more responsible and trustworthy The majority will not be responsible members of society unless a system of laws ensures they behave so. Legal systems may become corrupt. Religious institutions may become so. The distinction between "believers" and " non-believers" has to be considered in the context of the individual differences in the mental development,character and understanding that exist among members of both groups. Common sense!
That is not a matter of "religion" per se, but of actual knowledge. There are more grown-up and less grown-up - this is the case with all humans. I have taught and worked with thousands of individuals who have no beliefs as well as those who do and it never was an issue or a reason for conflict. Obviously it is a cause of fricition in the public square. The Theocratic Right and theocratic Islamists are extreme examples.
Happiness is a state of mind, inspired and created out of more than just a belief system; there are good neurological reasons for it. We have developed our knowledge of the human body and its functions down the ages by learning what works and what doesn't. Scientists can quite legitimately debate these findings in healthy discourse, it's all part of the process.
However, the existence of a deity seems to be linked in some people's minds to the collection of ancient documents written less than 2000 years ago, when knowledge about how the World worked was, by comparison, quite primitive. Why, then, is it given such importance? The answer could be in the emotional 'sanctuary' which is suggested by believers in the deity, the kind of 'conditioning' which shuns a more logical approach; the 'happiness' is there, but it has escaped a more rational process.
The need to believe in 'something' is surely what drives some people to accept the existence of a deity, rather than discussing the logic of it.
Down the ages, the many have been ruled by the few, judged, punished and imprisoned, as well as rewarded. The many have been told what to believe in by the few, simply because 'the church' was, at one time, the centre of learning and education, the place where reading and writing (those mysterious talents) were done. The Romans, for one example, had many gods which they believed in and worshipped; Emperor Constantine decided to make most of them redundant, to retire them to history and have just one. the many were told this was what was true. Constantine also, together with his 'friends', decided to choose which of the 'books' should be included in the hallowed collection of documents now known as the 'bible'; the many did not disagree, neither did they know any better. Perhaps they were too busy trying to survive!
And the source of that big wad of old documents was the ideas, memories, retold myths and legends, the 'faction' (the combination of fact and fiction) which some, with their inevitable use of poetic licence and the liberal use of metaphor, say was written by that deity. Man's intervention is usually carefully deleted from the idea.
The idea that everything 'has a purpose' (see article above) is the kind of 'Man-centred' thinking which parallels the Mediterranean principle, the 'medi' (middle) 'terra' (Earth) idea that the tribes and lands around the Mediterranean existed in the centre of the Earth; the World does not revolve around the Mediterranean, or even Man.
Civilization is a fragile thing : much easier to destroy than to maintain and grow. Change depends on many factors. A reversal of decline often doesn't begin until events create conditions which demand change. This is like having to learning the hard way.
Ancient civilizations have been shown to have had scientific knowledge that contemporary science doesn't . We can't do with our technology what former civilizations could . We are discovering that ancient peoples were good astronomers: they could chart the heavens , measure the movements of planets , predict eclipses and so on. Our most advanced telescopes are discovering stars and galaxies that the ancients had identified over 35 thousand years ago. They had a knowledge of fundamental laws of sound and number. Perhaps for several hundred thousand years and more, they had no need to develop language systems and writing. We have much knowledge to rediscover and of course we will have to do so based on working with the limited knowledge we have.
The records we have in scriptures, which may have not been written down in cases like the Vedas of Indian for many thousands of years, contain similar accounts of creation , cosmology, humanity and much else expressed in symbolic and metaphorical language. The correlations to contemporary scientific theories, notably since Planck's 1900 paper on quantum mechanics, have been noted by many scientists. But for moderns to penetrate the levels of meaning contained in these texts would require the ability to think as the people who understood them thought. The keys or "secrets" to understanding them were carefully guarded from the many by the few.
Inside the Medieval Mind
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/whats-on/ou-on-the-bbc-inside-the-medieval-mind
The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara
http://davidkertzer.com/books/kidnapping_of_edgardo_mortara.html
Did (and does) anyone have the (human) right to indoctrinate others, either adults or even infants?
None of these beliefs are any more basic than wanting to survive with others, to be charitable and helpful to others in order that the bigger group is happy and supported. Only others merely add to these ideas with the aid of strong egos, which are the weapons which get us into trouble.
I rest my case.
The loss of a sense of meaning seems to a fundamental reason why many civilizations decline. We can recognize many things that would be beneficial to do to help but the will is lacking to try to bring them about : Take the UN Charter and the 4 Freedoms. There are some who work with goodwill but generally we see do-gooders fight among themselves and those who have power often manipulate such organizations (and governments) to control others who lack power. The idea that acquiring gold was one answer was tried ; that didn't work and was replaced by ideas of modern mass democracies which generated ideological experiments like Communism and Capitalism in which individuals became required to conform to roles and demands that did not give them a sense of meaning and purpose.
We ordinary people are generally more normal and wiser than the leaders. Pessimism is self-defeating. Violence and revolution can not bring about fundamental change in what is lacking in order to make a sustanible civilization. I think Arthur C. Clarke, on his 90th birthday, was life-affrming although I question whether the discoveries he thinks may be made will be or would be agents of change if they are.
According to my experience the cultivation of consciousness by individuals and groups who have share a common aim can help provide an opening and conditions for positive change. It is self-sustaining and free of manipulation. There are questions to ask, but any answers are temporary and may lead to better questions.
Clarke said, Communication technologies are necessary, but not sufficient, for us humans to get along with each other. This is why we still have many disputes and conflicts in the world. Technology tools help us to gather and disseminate information, but we also need qualities like tolerance and compassion to achieve greater understanding between peoples and nations.I have great faith in optimism as a guiding principle, if only because it offers us the opportunity of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. So I hope we've learnt something from the most barbaric century in history – the 20th. I would like to see us overcome our tribal divisions and begin to think and act as if we were one family. That would be real globalisation. http://www.tveap.org/index.php?q=0712art_transcript_02.php
The human condition is, I suspect, however, wired to relating to just a few associates/friends/relatives for the purpose of survival; in communes, hamlets, villages. How we, as yet another animal (albeit a slightly more aware one) can relate to millions across the world, especially when they are unknowns and potential predators or competition for resources, is, I think the biggest dilemma.
It's worth a try.
There are two attentions. How we pay attention to our living and working is one aspect of who are . We are successful or unsuccessful according to how well we do so. I mean we learn from our showing up and trying. When we don't pay attention, things can go wrong . And this never changes. We are limited by many conditions that we are unable to see and recognize more than partially or subjectively. Experience helps but we never can see more than what is present now. If we are in prison , have a castle and servants, are a soldier fighting in a war, afflicted with illness, it's all the same. How we respond shows us who we are. But there is another Attention, that is not ours yet it is present in us. When we separate some of our ordinary attention from our thoughts, feelings and sensations that are engaged in living, another awareness can appear accompanied by a sense of presence to myself, a self that is not "me" but one that is related to a higher level or energy. I am in-between so to speak: both me and this other Attention like an unknown self are both present. When at moments I experience and am aware of both simultaneously, there is a sense of freedom and the working of a process in the direction of transformation of the heaviness of the whole of me.
The wish to cultivate this work is something like a hearing call . Perhaps a thousand times a day the call appears but I fail to notice. The beginning of work is aborted. Working with others, working for oneself, working to be open to Attention itself - all seem to be necessary aspects of work toward transformation and freedom.