In the last chapter, we looked at the four philosophers whose work underlies what I've been telling you; that the mind and body connect through our perception of time. Why begin with philosophy? Because the primary clue to uncovering the actual mind body connection lies in how we psychologically experience this connection rather than in some physical location, such as within our brains. In this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy, we're going to look at the other end of the psychophysical continuum; the actual laws of physics which underlie these psychological experiences. Specifically the psychophysics underlying audio video recordings and how we technologically sync multiple media sources when we mix them down to one data stream. Did you just go into shock? Not sure where this is going? Don't worry. Just remember. The key to understanding the mind body connection lies not in understanding our physiology but rather in understanding how we experience it. Thus while we are indeed looking for the actual connection, we will not be looking for an actual physical location. Why not? Because there is none. Don't believe me? Let's see.

"Let's Get Psychophysical"
As I begin to write this chapter, for some reason the chorus from Olivia-Newton John's 1982 song, "Let's Get Physical," keeps playing in my head. Annoying when that happens, isn't it? The thing is, to some folks, even my knowing this song would indicate that I must be a very old dude indeed. Which I am. No big secret there. What is interesting about this though is that because I am this old, I was alive before a lot of what we're about to talk about was invented. Digital clocks? Sample rates? Certainly not common knowledge in 1982. Even for brainy types like me. And years later, when I was learning this stuff? It felt more mysterious than my former wife's thirty year old forgetting to buy her a birthday card resentment. I did it once. That's all it took. Ah, the mysteries of marriage.

Fortunately for us, by comparison, the mind body connection is a lot easier to understand. Especially if you focus on what we spoke about in the last chapter; on how we experience the mind body connection. Rather than on explaining it medically. In other words, to uncover the mechanism of the mind body connection, we need to focus on how we sense this connection rather than on searching for some fabled neurological site. Which is why, in the last chapter, we began our search by exploring how four of the great philosophers sensed this connection.

The four philosophers? Descartes, Spinoza, Herbart and Leibniz. And the four ideas we drew on from their work?

• That human beings have a threshold of perception, a point at which we begin to experience the mind and body (per Herbart).
• That above this threshold of perception, we experience mind and body as separate and distinct experiences (per Descartes).
• That below this threshold of perception, we experience mind and body as two aspects of one continuum (per Spinoza).
• That our perception of time is what connects our conscious awareness of these two experiences (per Leibniz)
  

Granted, stating this last idea as I have is a bit of a stretch; Leibniz actually never actually mentioned that we perceive two senses of time. Only that our having two clocks is a good metaphor for how the mind and body connect. Even so, it appears that Leibniz may have been the only person to make any reference at all to that the mind body connection involves our perception of time. Thus my including him and his ideas.

What will we be looking at in this chapter? As I said, we're going to get psychophysical. In other words, we're going to build a mind body bridge between the philosophical ideas of these four great men and the laws of physics underlying twenty first century digital recording. Specifically the laws underlying digital audio and video recording whenever different audio video streams get combined into a single presentation.

Does this sound like it's going to be hard to understand? Don't worry. We're only going to explore three simple situations. One using 1950's tape recorders. One using 2007 television studio equipment. And one using us. Moreover, with the two technological examples, we're only going to explore the parts of these situations which involve syncing separate pieces of playback equipment together in time.

The three real life situations?

• No Master Clock. We're going to look at how recording engineers in the fifties on rare occasions tried to manually sync the output from two tape recorders so they could combine these two sources onto one master tape. By hand. By trial and error. The point here will be to offer you an example of how our two internal clocks function in everyday life; our minds and bodies free wheeling with no master clock to sync them together.
• Digital Master Clock. Next we're going to take another look at how digital systems work. This time in a modern television studio. Beginning with a quick look at how things get to be digital. Followed by a look at how the big boys do digital; how digital recording studios manage to sync together dozens of physically separate devices. The point here will be to show you how today's digital systems, DVD players to whole television studios, sync physically separate playback devices to a single external master clock. Which is what happens to us whenever we are in the presence of great beauty; the beauty we experience becomes the master clock.
• Life as the Master Clock. Finally, we're going to look at how the psychophysics of time within these two technological situations mirror what we experience in our minds and bodies in everyday life. First, when we "free wheel" with no master clock. And second, when our minds and bodies sync up and mix into one vivid experience. Just like what happens to playback devices in television studios when they broadcast it all as a single show.
  

What is my goal in all this? To give ordinary folks a way in which to grasp how our minds and bodies do and do not connect. As well as an understanding of what makes me so certain that what connects our minds and bodies is our perception of time. Both within ourselves and between us and others; mind to body and body to mind.

Before we begin this journey though, I need to first clarify something, by addressing one of the potential snags in this whole concept. What snag? That current mind body research assumes that by mapping specific physical locations to what we do, say, and feel, that they are locating the mind and body connection. What am I saying? That while the ongoing neurological discoveries regarding how cognition and neurological brain functioning seem to overlap are indeed fascinating, nothing discovered so far even begins to prove a connection between the mind and body. It proves only that coexisting activity occurs.

In other words, while current brain scan research suggests mind body connections, in truth it proves only that some psychological things happen at the same time as some physical things. Nothing more.

Thus, while fMRI's and SPEC scans can now show connections between certain human activities and experiences and increased or decreased blood flow to certain areas of the brain, none of this research shows how the physical experiences of the body connect to the non physical experiences of the mind. Unless, of course, our physical bodies are what create our minds. In which case, this research does reveal the mind body connection.

Does it though? Not really. And to see why I say this, consider this. Consider how, when researchers and scientists assume this coexisting activity suggests they are mapping the mind body connection, the unspoken assumption beneath their statements is that our bodies create what our minds experience. This assumption, in fact, is one of the major philosophical viewpoints underlying most current medically based research. The thing is, despite claims made by these researchers that their research is scientific, by not mentioning this assumption, they skew the opinions of all those reviewing this research. Ergo the leaps frequently made by untrained news reporters regarding the implications of this research.

Are they right though? Does the body create the mind? To see, we'll need to take a moment to explore this assumption. How? By turning to yet another a group of philosophers and specifically, to the view point known as materialism; the idea that mental events are causally dependent on bodily events.

Ironically, were the scientists who unknowingly espouse this view point to know of it's controversial beginnings, in the writings of Julien Offray de la Mettrie (1709-1751) for instance, they might seriously reconsider. In his book, L'Homme Machine, Mettrie suggests we are all just human automatons. And while this viewpoint obviously falls far outside of what most medically oriented researchers believe today, Pierre Jean Georges Cabanis' (1757-1808) interpretation of Mettrie's work does seem to state their view point pretty well. Cabanis wrote , "to have an accurate idea of the operations from which thought results, it is necessary to consider the brain as a special organ designed to produce it, as the stomach and intestines are designed to operate the digestion, the liver to filter bile . . . " (Rapports du Physique et du Moral de l'Homme, 1802)

Does this at all sound like what underlies most of today's neuroscientific research? Indeed. Thus while these researchers claim scientific foundations for their work and conclusions, unless they can prove what we experience in our bodies occurs on a psychophysical one way street leading to our minds, their work, as exciting as it is, falls far short of explaining how the mind and body connect. Or anything else, other than coexisting activity.

So do any of these researchers admit they make this assumption? In my many searches, I have yet to find a single mainstream neuroscientist who openly admits they assume this let alone one who takes seriously the idea that what they are really researching is the mind body connection. It seems, to admit to this in print is tantamount to admitting the sin of researching forbidden questions. Or at least, admitting your research focuses on questions deemed quackery by the scientific community at large.

Note what they are calling "quackery" here. Not the search for these connections, mind you. Rather, the phrase itself; the mind body connection. Thus, if you do the research but do not mention this phrase, you can somehow squeak by the Cerberus of science.

This prejudice aside, the thing to realize here is that there are many philosophical positions with regard to whether the mind and body do or do not connect. Not the least of which is the one Descartes observed; that we experience the mind and body differently and that they both interact. Moreover, while science, and psychology, can point to times wherein our minds play tricks on us, this is not one of those times. How can I be sure? Because the position I'm suggesting here goes far beyond mere philosophy and or scientific observations of concurrency. It's already helping people. Many of whom are among the most conscious folks I know. Including that they regularly and frequently question everything they see. Openly and honestly.

For instance, take Kristin and Allen. Kristin is a music therapist and a teacher in my Emergence Master Teacher's Group and her husband Allen teaches kinetic language among other things. Signing and such. And sadly, a few days ago, their eight year old daughter fell off a boat and hit her head on the boat propeller. Which then sliced through her jaw and skull.

That she lived is a miracle. One of many unexplained acts of kindness and beauty which occurred in the Universe that day I'm sure. But that she is recovering at a rate far in excess of what the hospital staff is used to is quite another thing entirely. Moreover while the hospital staff admits being at a loss as to how to account for why she is recovering so quickly, we know it is the love and support she's receiving. Especially from her mother and father, Kristin and Allen.

When mention this? Because yesterday my friend and fellow teacher Ed and I drove to Rhode Island to visit the three of them. And in the pediatric intensive care unit, while standing within feet of their semi conscious daughter, Kristin and Allen spoke to us about how the idea of Mind First / Body First connection has already affected their marriage. Including that it has affected their ability to connect to each other in this deeply emotional time.

To say this deeply affected me is to put it mildly. I, the consummate lover of words, am still at a loss as far as how to express the love I saw there. Husband and wife love. Mother and father love. Family and hospital staff love. So many pictures of love. Many of which existed long before these mind body discoveries. Even so, that Kristin and Allen could so consciously express this love in the face of such a tragedy amazes me. Which makes me think and feel that if the only contribution these discoveries made was to their daughter's well being, it would still be worth my efforts.

Of course, this is not the only family being affected by what I'm positing here. In fact, even now, only weeks into having made these discoveries, a number of other families are reporting similarly increased abilities to connect. To each other and to those outside their relationships. My point? How many researchers can claim their work has accomplished this beauty even once? Moreover, of the folks who do believe in the mind and body connection, how many can make what they practice accessible to ordinary folks?

What follows is the physical science behind these admittedly grand claims. Please know these ideas are but one piece of the mind body puzzle. Still, when you combine this piece with what we looked at in the last chapter, we have the underpinnings of a great discovery. The actual mechanism of the mind body connection. Not the locality of it, mind you. There is no such thing. Rather the experiential substance from which this connection is made. Our physical and mental perceptions of time itself. And how these two perceptions do and do not sync up.

Ready for part two? The physical part of the psychophysical connection between mind and body? Here we go.

[click here to read the rest of The Physics of the Mind Body Connection]

In the past two chapters, I've introduced you to some of the theoretical underpinnings beneath the mechanism which connects the mind and the body. The philosophy behind this mechanism, and the physics which supports it. In this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy then, we're going to begin to look at how this theory plays out in real life situations. Specifically at how it affects our abilities to connect. To ourselves. To others. And to the ideas and beliefs we hear and say to ourselves and others. For instance, why is it we so often feel disconnected from each other. Do we do this to protect ourselves? Is it weakness or injury? Or are we exactly as we should be, disconnections and all? Can this inability to connect be healthy in fact? Do you know? Are you sure? Let's look together.

The Power of Having a Master Clock
The big thing I'll be introducing you to in this chapter is how external events, such as falling in love, getting high, and having sex for the first time, can become the master clocks to which our minds and bodies synchronize. And how, when this happens, these experiences can feel so good, they can seduce us into all kinds of craziness. Some of it destructively bad. And some of it world changing good.

Before we begin though, I first need to mention a few more things which point to that we do indeed have two internal clocks, a mind clock and a body clock. And yes, I've already pointed out both philosophical precedents (the ideas of the Four Philosophers) and anthropomorphic mirrors in our technologies (free wheeling and master clocks) which point to this being the case. However, the more you know, the more you can draw your own conclusions.

In addition, there is the idea that the only way to know for sure if a theory is true or not is to test it for "fractility." And for those of you for whom the meaning of this term has yet to emerge, allow me to restate it briefly.

Fractility is the essential quality of real world objects; things (body) and ideas (mind). This quality is that they are based on recognizable patterns which always repeat differently. As opposed to the essential quality of classically geometric things and ideas (like statistics), which is that they are based on recognizable patterns which always repeat identically.

For example, Einstein's E=MC2 is an incredible truth. Why? Because it is based entirely on the relationships between three fractals; energy, mass, and light. As is Ohm's law; E = IR. Again, the formula is based entirely on the relationships between three fractals; voltage, amperage, and resistance.

In both cases, the formula is a recognizable pattern with always repeats differently. Thus while there are an infinite number of different, real life possibilities which could derive from these two formulas, all these possibilities will stem from the same set of recognizable patterns.

Some may now ask, so is there a formula underlying what I've been telling you about how the mind and body connect? A formula based on the relationships between fractals? My answer? Yes, there is. M=I(T). Meaning equals Information multiplied by Time. And before I tell you what this formula defines, please first note the similarity between this formula and the previous two; they are all based entirely on the relationships between three fractals. Which means all three are recognizable patterns which always repeat differently.

What does this last formula represent? It represents the ways in which our minds and bodies manifest Information, Meaning, and Time. Here, the Information fractal is identical to Spinoza's Mind Body continuum, wherein thoughts are one end of the continuum and feelings on the other. The second continuum then, the Meaning fractal, is identical in nature to Herbart's thresholds of perception, which Herbart himself referred to as the varying "intensity" of what we perceive. Finally the third continuum is the Time fractal, a continuum which is identical in nature to Herbart's second measure of human nature, the one on which he maps out peoples' perceptions of time.

The thing that makes this formula, M=I(T), particularly meaningful though is what it reveals about human nature. You see, if you use this formula to chart how the visual intensity of the information we perceive over time changes (by making our perception of Mind / Body Information, the "X" axis, the visual intensity of this Information, the "Y" axis, and our perception of Time, the "Z" axis), you will find that underlying all of human nature, there are four, three dimensional fractal shapes. And only four. Four simple recognizable patterns which always repeat differently. Moreover, what makes these four fractal patterns so meaningful is that they are capable of describing the essence beneath all human experience, from the fractal which defines human injury to the fractal which defines learning itself.

Obviously, if this formula is true, then it represents a major step toward quantifying human nature. However, as our focus here is on fractility as a test for truth (and not on how this formula quantifies human nature), I need to now beg your indulgence and set this formula aside, so we can return to the topic at hand. That the way to know if a theory about our world is true or not is that this theory must be based entirely on the relationships within and between a group of fractals. If not, then no matter how intriguing the theory, there will always be limits to the amount of truth it can tell us, even when it holds some truth.

How then does this "truth test" play out in real life?

Basically, it's simple. When a theory is true, there is always more it can teach you about the nature of life. Including more personal stories in which this theory is in play. This, in fact, is what makes statistically based research hollow at the personal level. The amount of stories in which it still holds true end long before our searches reach the personally descriptive level. Similarly to how, when you zoom in on anything fake; a silk rose, a cultured Christmas tree, a photoshopped photograph, at some level, you'll find linear transitions. Places where you can see unnatural boundaries. There are no straight lines in nature, remember.

In effect, these unnatural boundaries define the limit to which you can zoom into a theory and still have it be real. For instance, say you are trying to describe an oak leaf to someone whom has never seen one. And say you must do this using only statistics to describe this leaf. How well do you think you would do if your goal were to impart the beauty of an oak leaf?

Let's see. "Average length; 7 inches. Average width; 5 inches. Average number of points; seven. Average color during July; medium green. And so on. All true statements at the general level. But at the up front and personal level? To see for yourself, ask yourself this. Could anyone whom had not previously seen an oak leaf recognize one, with confidence, after having only heard this data? Even if you offered reams of it? More important, could they actually know the beauty of a mid fall New England oak leaf, just from having been told these numbers?

The obvious answer? Of course not. And this is what I'm getting at when I say real world truth is fractal. Thus to know the degree to which a theory holds true in real life, you must see the fractal or fractals from which this theory derives. And if your hypothesis is about human nature? Then for this hypothesis to be true, it must always be able to teach you new and interesting things about human nature, and at the same time, have all these things derive from the same pattern of fractal relationships.

And if your theory reaches a point wherein it has no more to teach you?

Then this theory has reached the limit of it's truth. The limits of its accuracy. And the limits of its usefulness.

As such, it has failed the test for fractility. Why? Because no fractal fails this test. Not a one. There simply is not limit to what we can see in a fractal. Which is why there is no limit to the beauty you can find in oak leaves. Or the wonder in snow flakes. Or the mystery in human beings.

Now let's look at one more story. A story which meets this criteria. How? It is yet one more real world example which supports the fractal patterns that show how the mind and body are two separate, but interactive experiences.

The Second Brain
In a previous chapter, I briefly mentioned the work of Dr. Michael Gershon, a neurobiologist whose work centers around proving that we humans have two brains. In fact, Dr. Gershon literally writes these very words throughout his book. No coincidence his book is entitled, The Second Brain (1998).

What is his book about? Dr. Gershon says we literally have two physically separate brains. A brain in the head. And a brain in the bowel. Please know that when he writes this, he is not merely referring to this second brain metaphorically. Nor is he positing a medically unsupported hypothesis. Rather, he is referring to what medical doctors call, the enteric nervous system, a complex system of nerves and nerve centers in and around the gut which literally functions as a separate and distinct "brain." His words, not mine.

What makes him say this so emphatically? Because research ongoing since the early nineteenth century proves that our gut functions very differently our the limbs or other organs, especially with regard to how they connect to the brain and spinal cord. What I'm saying is, if you sever the nerves which connect any limb, or any organs other than the gut, to the brain or spinal cord, these limbs and other organs cease to function. Reflexively. In other words, to function as they normally do. However, in the case of the gut, even if you sever all the nerves which connect it to the brain and spine, it will still continue to function. Reflexively. Even to the point where it will continue to function even after being surgically removed from the body.

Why mention this? Because other than in the gut, reflexive behavior always involves signals sent either from the brain or from the spinal cord. In effect, all limbs, and all organs other than those of the enteric nervous system, are unable to make decisions for themselves. Thus, for the heart, or the bladder, or the skeletal muscles to function normally, they must receive instructions from the central nervous system.

The organs of the gut are totally different. Why? As I said, because even when you cut all the nerves which connect them to the brain or spine, they still function as if they are being given instructions. Why? Because they are. Not by the brain in the head or by the spine, but rather by the enteric nervous system itself. Which is part of why Dr. Gershon calls the gut, the "second brain."

Why makes this important? Because if indeed we do respond separately to what we feel in our guts, then knowing this separateness exists physiologically as well as psychologically adds yet one more pointer in Descartes' direction. And yes, Dr. Gershon himself seems reluctant to say this as directly as I'm saying it here. In fact, his words fall short of even admitting that this second brain is responsible for our "gut reactions." Not surprising considering his fellow doctors crucify folks who even allude to such things publicly. This said, in the opening of his book, Dr. Gershon actually hints at this very possibility when he says, "Since the enteric nervous system can function on its own, it must be considered possible that the brain in the bowel may also have its own psychoneuroses." And lest you think this statement crazy, consider this.

The neurotransmitter most associated with moods and the lack thereof is serotonin. Most current antidepressants in fact are SSRI's; serotonin re uptake inhibitors. Why mention this? Because over 95% of the body's serotonin is made and exists, not in the brain, but in the bowel. Why and what does this mean? You tell me. Is it that the bowel is the seat of emotion as I've been saying here? Makes you wonder what and where those anti depressants are working, doesn't it?

Okay. So this stuff is interesting to say the least, But why include it in a chapter on how the mind and body are what allow and disallow us to connect in the world?

In simple terms, because if we have two ways in which to perceive the world; through our thoughts and reasonings (the mind) and through our feelings and gut reactions (the body), then we have two ways in which to connect to the world. Moreover, like all coins which by design can be stood on end only with great effort, we too perceive the world with both sides only with great effort.

Like coins thrown in the air then, we all end up having a sort of built in preference for one of these two ways of sensing the world. Either we land on the mind first preference side of the coin or the body first preference side. Moreover, because we all have this one sided preference, whenever we make decisions, we make them mostly based on only the half of the data we prefer. Either what our minds have perceived, or what our bodies have perceived.

The result? We end up making mostly half baked decisions, in everything from what we eat to whom we marry. Not always. But often. Why? Because we, by nature, ignore, or do not sense in the first place, what one of our brains is trying to tell us.

Putting this into my language then, all of us end up preferring one or the other kind of perception. Either we prefer to sense life through what we think of life or we prefer to sense it through what we feel in our guts. Either way, we have a preference, wherein we value one way of sensing life at the expense of the other.

This then is where Dr. Gershon's idea that we have "two brains" comes in. Because we human beings literally have two decisions centers, we function much like corporations wherein there are two managing partners. Including that like many real world business partnerships, one of the two managing partners is usually more powerful.

Our "two brain corporations" function very similarly. Not on paper, mind you. But in real life. Thus, while on paper both brains are required to make decisions, rarely are both brains fully present and accounted for. This results in our making many bad, poor, wrong, or half baked decisions.

My point here? That the source of a lot of our problems in life is that we make decisions with only half the data. Over eating and addictions being two examples. And if you need a more normal example of how this happens, picture this. Picture yourself asking a friend if she and her husband would like to come over for dinner on Saturday night.

Now picture her saying yes.

Now picture her sheepishly calling you later to beg out, because she said yes without first asking her husband. Which made him so mad, he wouldn't go.

The decisions we make with only one brain present end up very similarly to how this "didn't ask first " marital decision ended up. In other words, when one of our brains makes a decision without first consulting the other, then whatever follows is at least half baked, and often times a mess. Not always. But often.

What do we feel when this happens to us? Usually we end up feeling confused as to why we made this decision. Or when things really go badly, we often torture ourselves, or those around us, for having made the decision which led to this disaster.

How often do these kinds of things happen in real life? Well ask yourself. How many times have you, in hind sight, remembered ignoring a gut feeling which, if listened to, would have prevented a bad decision? An intuitive voice which was telling you, you should probably pass on something? The deal which felt too good to be true and in hind sight was. Or the relationship wherein the person was saying all the right words but in hind sight, ended up being more of a self serving business deal than a friendly offer.

Or how about the salesperson who promises that what you are by buying will be just right for you. Or the unfaithful lover who assures you, yet once more, that he or she will never cheat on you again. Yeah, right.

So what makes us ignore what we know to be the dissenting opinion? The wisdom of the unequal partner in our two brains?

It's simply our nature to do this. Moreover, this is what these bad decisions all have in common. We make them because we miss seeing, or ignore, what one of our two managing partners has to say. Either we ignore or miss what our gut has to say or we override or misinterpret the logic present.

Having trouble believing this happens as often as I'm implying? Well consider this. We human beings make so many of these minds mistakes that saying we've made one has become cliche. Why? Because we normally cannot "remember" to include both partners. Nor can we learn to do this. You see, our two brains remember things very differently.

What I'm saying is, mentally remembering to "check downstairs" will never be a long term answer. Nor will remembering to "think before we speak." Why not? Because in order for us to have simultaneous access to both these intrinsically different memories, we must be able to feel them both consciously. And to feel them both consciously, we must have more than just an awareness that they both exist. Both brains must be in sync, time wise.

What this means in daily life is, we humans will always function more like two physically separate reel to reel tape recorders, both of which are "free wheeling," than like the equipment in modern television studios, all of which is synced to a "master clock."

So are we doomed, meaning, is there nothing we can do to remedy this inequity?

The answer lies in asking whether there is a functional equivalent to master clock in out lives. Is there? Yes. And understanding how this works is really a lot simpler than you might imagine. You see, it turns out that any event wherein we experience surprise can become a master clock to our minds and bodies. Anything at all. A surprise birthday party. The birth of your first child. The day you got married. Or the morning you got promoted.

All these and similar life events hold the potential to sync up our mind and body clocks. Which is why we often feel so clear and sure of ourselves right after experiencing one of these kinds of events.

Herein lies the answer to our dilemma regarding our two out of sync clocks. And what we are about to explore. Learning to find, create, and use life's master clocks. Beginning with how special life events can sometimes sync up our two brains and in doing so, get our two brains to be on the same page. Walking in lock step. Clear and focused and ready for action.

And without this sync?

Without this sync, we feel a hollowness in our inner life. Not functionally, mind you. Most of us can accomplish much good even when what we are doing feels hollow. What I'm saying is, we all have the capability to do good even when we are only "doing the right thing." Unfortunately, unless we do this good while both our brains are in gear, we take no credit for the good in what we do. After all, we were only half there when we did it.

To state this even more emphatically, the only time we human beings experience life consciously is when our two brains are synced to an external master clock. This in fact is why we can at times so desperately latch onto what we believe is an inspiring leader, only to find out later that we were taken in by their rhetoric, or by their hand shakes and smiles. Insincere politicians immediately come to mind. And sincere but crazy cult leaders. And well meaning to blinded by science medical prophets. And fear mongering kill them all power hungry generals.

This group also includes the lovers who whisper words of endearment while at the same time cheating on us. And the alcoholics who promise us yet again that this time will be different.

In all these cases and in so many more, in hind sight, we see we failed to trust either our guts or the facts. And because we never face the real problem; our out of sync clocks, we end up blaming ourselves or the world but never really change.

Here then is our real problem. We need a master clock. Moreover, we cannot create these clocks all by ourselves. We need relationships with others in order to create them. Which is why, in talk therapy, we must either connect as two openly human equals or settle for not getting better.

So how do we begin to learn to do this? The answer? Like everything posited by Emergence Personality Theory, the solution lies entirely in learning to see what cannot normally see, rather than in learning to better see what you can already see. And what is it you will find has been what you cannot see? The feeling I call, "hollowness." And the times wherein you do not feel this hollowness.

This then is what we are about to explore. The special events can cause our two brains to sync up. Including those which underlie all lasting results in talk therapy. In other words, no connection, no lasting results in therapy.

Has all this theory suddenly become more important to you? I certainly hope so. Here we go.

[click here to read the rest of Mind Body Connections - How They Happen]

Ever felt like someone you were speaking to wasn't there? How about a therapist? Ever had one whom you felt wasn't listening or just plain didn't get what you were saying? In this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy, we're going to explore what underlies these uncomfortable experiences. The feelings I call, "hollowness." Not from the psychological perspective, mind you. Rather, from the mind body perspective. Why do we feel this kind of hollowness? Is there something inherently wrong with us? For instance, are we all just bad listeners at times? Or is this hollowness more a normal feeling? Do you know? Let's see.

"Hooking Up"
Ever overheard a young person say, "we hooked up last night"? Modern parents know to pay particular attention to this phrase. Why? Because for today's kids, "hooking up" is not exactly 'hanging out." Hooking up means your kid had some kind of "body to body" contact. Or as we old folks used to say, they "got it on." Of course, were you to inquire directly as to what they did last night, they'd probably say something like, "we just talked." Translation. They had the kind of interpersonal contact officially sanctioned by the league for the parents of perfect kids. "Mind to mind" contact.

Then there's the look. You know. The one wherein your daughter appears to have just swallowed a halogen lamp. The bright, light, sunny, airy, floaty look. The "yes, I really liked him but don't ask me any more questions" look. Which means what exactly? Which means your daughter had person to person contact. Mind to mind and body to body. And a whole lot more. In the hormonally driven teenage sense of "a whole lot more." But they didn't necessarily hook up. Confused?

Actually, it's quite simple given you take a minute to reflect on it. Then again, with all the late twentieth century TV therapist type psychobabble floating about these days, it's a wonder some modern parents can still boil an egg let alone talk to their kids. After all, why else would they ask things like, "how old is he; where's he from; and does he get along with his mother?" Oh, Lord.

Interestingly enough, when you know how simple mind body connections are, most of these questions go away. Or at least, they feel a whole lot less important. You see, the kinds of things which can happen to us in these situations are pretty much set within the first encounter or so. The tone of them anyway. And this holds true even for us older folk. You know, the "no fool like an old fool" situations and all that.

So how can knowing about mind body stuff tell you what may happen to you? Can it tell us how well we'll be able to connect to others? And what happens when we fail to connect? For instance, when we feel like people are not listening to us? Is it our words? Is it our timing? Is it even us?

Let's start with something simple. The idea that there are only three interpersonal mind body states wherein we can actually connect to someone.

What can be confusing here though is that, in two of them, we can connect and still feel hollow. Not because we've failed to connect, but rather because we did connect. But only half way.

What are the two states?

One. We connect to someone mind to mind, but not body to body. "He's handsome, intelligent, and perfect on paper but I just don't feel any chemistry." This is what it's like to feel physical hollowness.

Two. We connect to someone body to body, but not mind to mind. "She's gorgeous, sweet, and thoughtful but she's not the brightest bulb on the tree" type of hollowness. This is what it's like to feel mental hollowness.

So okay. There are two kinds of hollow connection we can make. Mind to mind, and body to body. What about when we do manage to connect in both ways, as in person to person contact?

In many cases, when this happens, we make a connection for life. Or at least, we make one for some significant amount of time. Moreover, while the nature of these encounters is that they often end up being significant romances, even when they don't, they still have the power to change our lives. Often in ways we never thought possible.

Obviously, these person to person connections do not come along very often. Nor do they always last in a meaningful way. You see, while person to person connections are the heart and soul of realness, there's obviously a lot more to having a lasting relationship than connection.

For instance, say we feel a strong person to person connection but you both have too much unfinished business. This becomes what I call the "starter house" relationship. Here, because you have a great person to person connection, you feel close right away and may think, "this is the one." Unfortunately, because there is the matter of the unfinished business, you also right away begin to struggle and hurt.

What happens then? The Mayan death grip. You love them and hate them and cannot leave. Thus, even with a great person to person connection, being healthy and continuing to work on yourself is much more important than say, an ever present physical connection. Not that this connection is unimportant. It's just that there are things which are more important. Finishing unfinished business is more important.

Whatever the case, even in the best relationships, we all need courage to keep a connection going. Fate alone (the mind body state) is never enough. And yes, there are people we can feel "fated" to have met. I've felt this feeling a few times myself. The soul mates at first sight kind of thing. However, in hindsight, and with a lot of years and failures behind me now, I more know these feelings to be the signs of a strong person to person connection than any predictor of meant-to-be-ness.

I suppose the thing to remember here is that even soul mates argue. And need lots of TLC at times. So yes. It's wonderful to have that special connection. But I wouldn't sell the farm until you learn to see past the person to person glow and into the other person's darkness.
All kidding aside, my point here is, person to person connections are never enough to sustain a relationship. Let alone make it a good one. Certainly, these feelings are often enough to get one started though. But then. so are the other two kinds of mind body connections; mind to mind and body to body.

Know we'll be looking at all three mind body connections later in this chapter, when we take a closer look at The Three Interpersonal Mind Body Connections. What they look and feel like, and how they affect our lives.

What else will we be looking at in this chapter?

For one thing, the three mind body situations wherein we fail to connect. The one's I've drawn in the diagram you see above. I call these three situations, The Three Interpersonal Mind Body Disconnections, as, in most cases, they result from people having tried and failed to make one or more of The Three Interpersonal Mind Body Connections I mentioned a moment ago.

Why do these failures happen? Before telling you, let me tell you a few things that are not true.

What is not true is that we fail to connect because we have nothing in common. We all have things in common with everyone. But we can't know this if we fail to connect. Thus, while we do have more things in common with some folks, this "more" is more likely a function of how good the connection is than a measure of how much we have in common.

What else is not true? It is not true that we fail to connect simply because we fear getting hurt again. And yes. People can and do feel afraid to get hurt at times. We all do. Often, very powerfully. Even so, if a strong person to person connection comes along, this reasoning evaporates very quickly.

Ironically, feeling strong connections is what gets us over these fearful feelings. Which makes learning to recognize and use mind body connections a heck of a powerful personal skill.

What about the idea that we're just not ready? The fearful therapist's mantra? Is this ever true?

The truth? Life is the one who decides when you're ready. Not your therapist. Nor you. And yes. You may be in the middle of sorting out a whole lot of garbage. Baggage. Issues. Whatever. Still, when you find yourself feeling any one of the Three Interpersonal Mind Body Connections, then you know life is saying, you're ready. Ready to be with "the one"? No. Ready to be with "the next one."

Which brings us to the next point. Is there always a "next one"?

Yes. There is always a next one. However, when I say there is always a next one, I do not mean, there is always someone better. Or that we should leave out present relationship. I mean only that life's way of getting our attention is to allow us to connect. We do not create these opportunities. We only say yea or nay. And if you're already in a relationship, then nay is the proper response.

The whole point here is, despite the psychological reasons some experts offer us for why our relationships fail, for the most part, they fail simply because no one teaches us about the Show First- Tell First Cycle. To what am I referring? To the two ways in which all people can communicate and reach the other person. The Show then Tell method, which works best for the Body First people, and the Tell then Show method, which works best for the Mind First people.

What makes knowing about this cycle so important?

The fact that the two most common failed attempts at connecting; Mind to Body failures and Body to Mind failures, occur, not because people do not try, but rather, because a Mind First person and a Body First person do not, by nature, know how to connect. And they can connect. And stay connected. But only if they use the Show First - Tell First Cycle.

What is especially sad here is that the thing which prevent these folks from connecting is so simple, that many times a lasting improvement can occur between two people in a single therapy session. We'll talk about how later in the chapter.

So what do we have so far?

We have the three ways in which we can connect, mind body wise; [1] mind to mind, [2] body to body, and [3] person to person.

We also have the three ways in which we fail to connect, mind body wise; [1] mind to mind, [2] body to body, and [3] person to person. Is this it then for the ways in which we can and cannot connect?

Actually, no. There are two more to mention. The times wherein we make, or fail to make, an internal mind body connection. Thus in this case, we are not talking about interpersonal relating. Rather, we are talking about those times in which we try to feel a connection between our own mind and body. What I call, a "personal connection."

The thing to know here is that, because no one teaches us what the mind body connection is, most of don't even know what we are trying to achieve let alone how to live this way for any length of time. Thus despite the fact that many folks have a genuine willingness and desire to learn, unless you know the nature of mind body connections, these effort fail despite these good efforts.

What's the problem here then? In other words, where have we been going wrong?

For one thing, when people advice us as to how to make mind body connections, most of them discuss these connections additively. Rather than simultaneously. What I'm saying is, most people who teach folks about mind body connections teach that if you cover all your bases, mind body wise, that your mind and body will somehow connect in the process.

Oh, were it only this simple. But it's not. Why not? Because this advice actually causes us to disconnect, mind body wise. And for the same reasons all three of the interpersonal failures occur. Because the efforts they tell us will help us to connect within ourselves are based mainly on mind body arithmetic, not on mind body holism. In other words, you can't add mind plus body and get a connection. This only results in some kind of mismatch, some wrong signals between our mind's way of connecting and our body's way of connecting. Thus the jagged red arrows in this chapter's first diagram.

What is going on here though? Basically, just this. We each have a mind and a body. And they each have a separate brain. Physiologically. And psychologically.

In addition, both these brains function within a different range of speeds. Body is in the slower range. Mind is in the faster range.

Thus, in many ways, we function like two great runners. One is a sprinter and the other, a long distance runner. Now can you imagine these two runners running on the same track and trying to have a conversation?

Please know, this analogy, as odd as it might sound, reveals the very worst part of the mind body connection problem. The mismatched by nature speed problem between the body and the mind. Moreover, the entire solution to mind body connection problems is to learn to notice and make corrections during the race. Similar to how these two runners would have to adjust to each others speed. Or not and not connect.

We mostly do not. And do not connect. Even within ourselves.

In a very real way then, we live life as if we were two separate people. A quick running, mind based person. And a slow but steady, body based person. Moreover, because we fail to notice and honor this difference, we more times than not fail to connect mind body wise. Moreover, this holds true even internally as we are subject to the same limitations which exist between two physical people. More so if the two literal people are a Mind First person and a Body First person.

Okay. I admit. I've just thrown a whole lot of information at you. Far too much to expect yourself to fully comprehend. The thing to know though is that, even if you understood very little of what I've just said, if you make an honest effort to learn it, you can learn to make mind body connections. Albeit, it may take you a bit of practice.

Given the effort and perseverance though, you can connect. Or at least know the real reason you failed to connect. Not all the psychological mumbo jumbo reasons. The real reason. The feeling I've been calling, "hollowness."

Can you see now why I've titled this chapter, Hollowness in Relationships. It's the entry point into the entire cause of failed connections. And yes. Learning to read and use mind body connections can literally take a lifetime. However, acquiring the main skill; learning to recognize hollowness, can be learned rather quickly.

Okay. Time for a recap. Up to this point then, I've mentioned eight mind body states. The three ways we do manage to connect. The three ways we fail to connect. And the two ways connect internally. The good news is, that's it. Eight states. And before we delve any deeper into what these possibilities are like, allow me first list them all for you once more. Beginning with the four ways in which we fail to connect. Mind body wise. Then followed by the four ways in which we do connect. Mind body wise.

The Four Ways We Fail to Connect

• A Failed Mind to Body Connection (a hollow mental attempt)
• A Failed Body to Mind Connection (a hollow physical attempt)
• A Failed Person to Person Connection (an extended interpersonal hollowness)
•  Failed Personal Connection (an internal Mind to Body hollowness)
  

The Four Ways We Successfully Connect

• A Successful Mind to Mind Connection (a physically hollow connection)
• A Successful Body to Body Connection (a mentally hollow connection)
• A Successful Person to Person Connection (an extended interpersonal Mind to Body connection)
• A Successful Personal Connection (an internal Mind to Body connection)
  

Click here to read the rest of Hollowness in Relationships - More Mind Body Connection Stuff]

In this chapter, we're going to look at an aspect of addiction rarely discussed. The mind body influence. To do this, we'll touch briefly on the cliché addictions; alcohol and drugs. As well as on a few of the other addictions; sex, gambling, and exercise. Food? We'll be leaving that for the next chapter. And yes. There are addictive qualities to overeating. Wolfing down a pink of Cherry Garcia can be pretty compulsive. And painful. But is overeating food the same as snorting heroin? Do the differences even matter? And what can a talk therapist do to help people with this stuff anyway? You want answers? Well, okay. You're about to get them. At least, the one that counts the most. In this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy.

Addiction - The Bane of Mind First People
"Bane." Do you know this word? My visual thesaurus says it's "something which causes misery or death." And yes. Most addicts don't die from their addictions, albeit, a lot of them wish they would. But the "misery" part? Absolutely. I know. I've been addicted myself. To what, you ask? To a lot of things. From drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes to buying clothes and playing pinball.

Alcohol? Cigarettes? Spending? Okay. But playing pinball? How the heck can someone get addicted to playing pinball?

My answer? God knows. One day a friend asked me to play one game. Then somehow I ended up playing everyday. Often for hours at a time and with money I did not have. Eventually it reached the point where even my family began to suffer. Can you imagine? Playing pinball became the bane of my existence. At least during this portion of my life.

Why tell you this? Because years later, when I faced a serious drinking problem, I was surprised to find in myself the very same behaviors as when I had been hooked on pinball. The same lies. The same guilt. The same shame and selfishness. Except that, instead of playing pinball at a bar for hours while I had a beer or two, I was drinking beers at a bar for hours while I played a game of pinball or two.

So am I saying that for me, being addicted to pinball was the same as having alcoholism? In part, yes, I am saying this. And yes. I realize there are important differences here. Still. When it came down to what I would do to get my fix, in many ways, these differences became moot.

Bull dinghy you say. Alcoholism is much worse than playing pinball. You stagger. You swagger. You boast and you brag. You crack up cars and you roil with guilt. You lie. You steal. You sneak around. All this and more. So yes. You're right. Alcoholism is pretty awful. However, when playing pinball had me by the balls, other than staggering, I had every single one of these symptoms. Including that I cracked up cars.

Cracked up cars? Well, actually, only one car. I was so guilty that night and in a such hurry to get home that I never saw the accident coming. Thus my point; when I was addicted to playing pinball, I did and felt a lot of the same things as when my drinking was at its worst. Including lying to and stealing from my family.

Where is all this going you ask?

Well if you were a therapist and had a guy come in who told you he was addicted to playing video games, would you feel the same sympathy for him as for an active alcoholic? The truth?

Probably not.

And if this same fellow then told you he was also addicted to looking at porn; that he looked at it every night while his wife was asleep, would you feel drawn to focus on this man's video game problem?

Probably not.

The thing is, with the momentum in society today towards helping folks who have alcoholism, folks with drinking problems can find lots of support. And good information. And encouragement. And understanding.

And with today's trend toward valuing honest disclosure, if you admit to having a sex addiction, porn in particular, while some folks may scrunch up their faces, cringe and run, others will extend you a sympathetic hand. Along with a meeting list and some heart felt compassion.

However if you tell people you are addicted to playing video games, while they may look at you strangely or even chuckle a bit, they will also likely give you one of the classic human "looks." Which one? The "what the heck is wrong with you? Didn't you ever grow up?" look.

Okay. So there isn't much support and sympathy for folks addicted to video games. But if you, the reader, were this man's therapist, where would you begin? On his alcoholism? His porn addiction? His video game problem?

The truth is, there is only one main focus in treating addictions, and it isn't any of these three things. You see, if you treat the addictions before you the man, then at best you offer him temporary help. And yes. This kind of temporary help is necessary at times. And loving. However, if you focus on this man's drinking, or on his porn problem or video addiction, then you are treating the man's symptoms not the man himself.

What would treating the man himself before the symptoms be like?

After getting him, as best you could, to be present in his seat, you would focus on his lack of psychophysical awareness.

Psychophysical awareness? What the heck is that? And why would I even suggest such thing? Wouldn't convincing him to go to AA or SA be a better place to focus?

Actually not. Thus while convincing him to go to AA or SA would be a good thing to include, if you were to focus on the man, this would not be your main focus. Why not? Because recovery from addiction begins only after you address the fundamental problem. And yes. Doing acts of damage control, like getting him to stop drinking, should be part of his therapy right from day one. AA and SA included. However, if you, as a therapist, want to do more than simply help this man to get things under control, then you must address his real problem.

And what is his real problem?

Again. The psychophysical nature of his addictions. Specifically, his inability to psychophysically sense the onset ramps and release ramps of each of his addictions. The psychophysical experiences which fall below his threshold of perception, mind body wise.

Yes. I know. Onset ramps. Release ramps. Psychophysical experiences. Isn't this just more psychobabble?

The words? Perhaps. But my telling you to focus on this man's missing mind body experiences? Hardly. You see, with additions, this focus is the heart and soul of recovery. Form cocaine to the Mario Bros.

Still unclear as to what I am suggesting you do? It's simple really. Especially when you know that everything I've just said derives from but a single idea; that what renders one vulnerable to addiction is your default mind body preference, specifically, being Mind First, combined with a high threshold of perception. This is the heart and soul of recovery from an addiction. And yes, there are Body First people who get addicted to things. But none who do not have a high threshold of perception in and around this addiction while at the same time, being in a Mind First state.

What's the big deal here?

The idea that making the mind body connection the pivotal focus in addictions treatment significantly improves a person's chances for a recovery. How? By addressing the person's actual nature, rather than just his symptoms or behaviors.

How exactly do you achieve this focus? Before we tell you, I need to briefly touch on something else. The idea that we can have whole areas of life, such as eating, spending money, sex, and so on, wherein we deviate from our default mind body preference. Not just temporarily, mind you. Rather, for long periods of time. Sometimes for a whole life.

What am I saying?

I'm saying we have exceptions to our default mind body preferences, similar to how we have exceptions to being right or left handed. Thus with handedness, most of us have a clear preference. Either the right hand or the left is dominant. Moreover we usually denote this dominance based on which hand we prefer to use when we reach and write and wave.

Despite our having this clear preference though, we each have a number of exceptions to this preference. Situations wherein we prefer the opposite hand. For instance, while I feel more comfortable writing, waving, and reaching for things with my right hand, when I hold my hands behind my back, my left hand is dominant, meaning, my left hand holds my right wrist. And when I fold my arms in front of me, here again, my left arm is dominant, meaning, my left arm is on top of my right.

On most handedness tests then, I score about 65 / 35, right to left. Which means I have quite a few exceptions to my usual right handed preference.

Similarly, I have exceptions to my Mind First preference as well. For instance, as a kid, I sang on records and very much preferred singing melody over lyrics.

What does preferring melody over lyrics have to do with one's mind body preference? Melody is a Body First activity. As is performing music in general.

Lyrics, on the other hand, are a Mind First activity. Writing them. Singing them. And even liking them.

The thing is, based on my natural Mind First state, these preferences should have been reversed. I should have preferred singing lyrics over melody, and singing lyrics over performing music in general. Clearly, I did not.

So can this anomaly be an injury? Actually, I'm pretty sure it is not. I didn't hate lyrics. I only preferred melody.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure my having this counter preference actually led to my getting an injury. How? At age twenty three, after having sung on a number of released albums, I sang at an office party and forgot the lyrics. After which I never sang in public again. Ever. I did however continue to sing in studios and in fact, sang in them for many years. But sing in front of a crowd? After that incident? I never sang in public again.

How do I know, though, that my forgetting those words wasn't what caused my mind body preference to switch?

My answer? Because before this injury, I sang in front of crowds many times without this fear. All with this same counter preference. In fact, I once sang acapella while standing at the head of a four city block long line. At the time, I was waiting for a Doo Wops acapella show to open, and a few of the fellows who were performing that night and I spontaneously sang. With me singing lead no less. In front of several thousand people.

What makes this even more certain is that I had never even met these fellows let alone practiced with them before. Yet I sang with them and felt no fear whatsoever. In Midtown Manhattan. With hundreds of folks crowding in to hear us.

What's the point to this story? Actually, I am making several.

• Point one. That we have mind body counter preferences. By this, I mean, we each have situations wherein our natural mind body preference reverses. Moreover this is similar to how we each have situations wherein our preference for right or left handedness reverses.
• Point two. That experiencing these counter preferences may make us more vulnerable to injury. Similar to what happened to me the night I sang in front of my coworkers and forgot the lyrics, never to sing in front of people again. Especially if the counter preference is a Mind First counter preference.
• Point three. That there may also be times wherein experiencing a mind body counter preference may protect us from injury. Especially if the counter preference is a Body First counter preference.
  

As for points two and three, I have a story which may serve to illustrate them a bit.

To begin with, I, with certainty, by age fifteen, had alcoholism. I have no doubt about it. All the signs and symptoms were there. In spades. By age fifteen.

I also, by age fifteen, sang in a band regularly. And clearly, when I did, I felt the counter preference I've been describing here. The one wherein I preferred singing melody to reciting lyrics. The one wherein my mind body preference switched to Body First.

What makes me certain of this? Among other things, because my favorite way to sing at the time was to scat sing. And for those for whom this word is unfamiliar, when you scat sing, you use your voice more as an instrument than as a way to sing lyrics. In other words, with scat singing, you mainly sing melody with nonsense sounds. And if you do use words, you use them more as percussive sounds than as lyrics.

Okay. I have two things here I'm certain of. One. I had alcoholism by age fifteen. And two. I also had a mind body counter preference which resulted in my being Body First when I sang.

Now recall what I've said renders one vulnerable to addiction; having a Mind First mind body preference combined with a high threshold of perception. Which means what exactly? Which means that being Body First should render one less vulnerable to addiction.

So does it? Yes. And in my case, the proof for this is clear. You see, while I am certain I had alcoholism by age fifteen, and while I am certain I also had a Body First counter preference when I sang, I never ever drank or drugged when I sang in public. Not before my lyric forgetting injury. Nor after. In fact, this situation, singing in public, was one of the only situations wherein I did not drink during my active alcoholism.

Conversely, the same was true for me as well. What I mean is, while I never drank and sang in public, when I sang in studios, meaning away from the public, I had no reservations about drinking. I also remember having to work really hard to get out of my head when I sang in studios. Which means when I sang in studios, I did not have this counter preference. My mind body preference was Mind First.

What's my point?

It turns out that an additional proof for the idea that having a Mind First preference makes one more vulnerable to addiction is that having a Body First preference is one of the main factors in not being vulnerable to addictions. Including to alcoholism. And yes, genetics and social exposure of course also play a role. However, plenty of folks who have the genetics and social exposure to alcohol do not get alcoholism. Or any other addictions for that matter.

Can this be true? Can having a Mind First preference actually render one more vulnerable to addiction? And can having a Body First preference render one less vulnerable to addictions? Moreover, is there any theoretical evidence for this being true?

Yes, there is. And this is what we'll be looking at next.

[click here to read the rest of  Addiction and Recovery - the Therapist's Role]