Of all the issues I hear in therapy, no ongoing issue seems to frustrate people more than being overweight. Broken hearts. They mend eventually. Death and dismemberment. A snap. But being overweight? Whew. It's the bane of banes. So now, let me ask you. Has overeating been a problem for you? Have you struggled with your weight? Have you dieted and failed or regained the weight? Is there even a way to manage overeating? These are the questions we're about to explore, in this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy.

"Fat Jokes and Thin Jokes"
As I combed the Internet for this chapter's opener, I came across this obnoxious little bit of weight directed hatred: "When fat people pass wind, if you're caught in the updraft, you lose days off your life ! It's a scientific fact!"

Did I just make laugh? Get you mad or insult you? Do you fear this chapter is already off track? If so, then consider this. My mother was forty eight when she died. At the time, she was 5'6" and weighed all of seventy pounds. And when I walked into the hospital ICU that day, I could barely find it in me to look at her. She was little more than a skeleton covered with skin. To say I felt afraid is an understatement. And what made it worse was how ashamed I was to show this fear. My own mother and I couldn't even look. How sad is that.

What did my mother die of? She died from not being fat enough. Literally. Can you imagine that? And while most thin people will not die from being thin, if you think being overweight and hearing fat jokes is bad, you should feel what it's like to be underweight and hear skinny jokes. This one I know personally. At the the point my mother's anorexia killed her, I was pretty thin myself. Frighteningly thin, in fact.

As you might imagine, I had frequently been the target of jokes during my childhood. And of course, hearing these things always hurt. Interestingly enough though, as I grew older, hearing thin jokes was not what hurt me the worst. What hurt me the worst was hearing things like, "You're so lucky. You don't know what's it's like to be fat." And they were right. I didn't know. But they didn't know what it was like to be too thin either.

Fast forward to my early fifties. At this point in my life, I did know what it was like to be too fat. And had for years. Since when? Since somewhere in my mid thirties. The strange thing is, while I knew with certainty that I had gone from being underweight to overweight, I could not recall a time wherein my weight felt right. Ever. Until my mid fifties, that is, when I stepped onto a scale and in the same moment, felt afraid I'd die of obesity and afraid I'd die of anorexia. Both at the same time. And no. You're not reading this wrong. I felt too fat. And I felt too thin. Both from seeing the same number.

Sound crazy? Hard to believe? Know this then. I'm not the only person who has felt this way. In fact, many overweight people have told me they cannot recall a time when they did not feel fat. Talk about feeling confused.

In a general sense then, this is what we'll be talking about here. Being too fat. And being too thin. And what it feels like to be either or both. As well as the role overeating plays in all of this. And no, this will not be a rehash of what is known about dieting. Nor a food bashing contest either. Rather, we'll be looking at how a lack of mind body awareness, especially in the gut, is the real culprit in overeating.

What about the idea that we eat to mask our feelings? Don't we often feel painful emotions, before, during, and after overeating? The truth? Not really. In fact, seeing feelings as the cause of overeating is like seeing the sky as the cause of the horizon. The sky and horizon simply exist as two parts of the same view.

Likewise emotions and overeating. In other words, obviously painful emotions and overeating coexist. But not because one causes the other. Rather they coexist because they are two parts of the same picture. A painful picture, to be sure. However neither causes the other. They simply coexist within the same picture.

Don't experts tell us we overeat to stuff our feelings though? And doesn't this idea feel true to a lot of us?

Yes. Experts do tell us this. And it does feel true to a lot of us. Regardless of how true this may feel to us though, it cannot be the truth. Why not? Because symptoms cannot cause injuries. They can only be the result of injuries.

Sadly this kind of thinking; that symptoms cause injuries, is one the main errors modern therapies make. Talk and otherwise. Including therapies for everything from addictions and overeating to relationship difficulties and reality problems.

Here then is yet another common talk therapy misbelief. The idea that if we treat the symptoms, we effect a cure. Sadly, many therapies fail because they base their remedies on this misbelief. And it's not their fault either. In many cases, it's hard to tell the two things apart; the symptoms from the injury. Why? Because the nature of injury is such that it always includes a startling onset. And being startled programs our minds to go blank, rendering the cause itself invisible to us.

The thing is, no talk therapy currently teaches this idea let alone the nature of healing. Which means, if you ask your therapist if we overeat to mask our feelings or if we feel these feelings because we overeat, if she's intuitive, chances are she'll answer correctly; neither answer is true. At the same time, she'll likely have no idea why.

Does knowing why matter? Very much so. You see, if you cannot discern a symptom from a wound, how can you heal your wounds? This is why I spent so much of the early chapters of this book focused on the nature of wounds; that they are the suffering we cannot see rather than the symptoms we can see. Metaphorically and literally, they mirror the "bullet hole," not the bleeding.

With regard to overeating then, it is important to remember that while one symptom may exacerbate another, this does not make this symptom the cause. Moreover, the wounds which cause these symptoms always have one thing in common. They are some sort of an inability to notice something. Literally. A blankness which has been programmed into our minds.

What blankness causes overeating then? Our inability to sense the gradual changes going on in our guts as we eat. This is what we cannot see. Thus our lack of awareness that we are eating is what causes overeating. And yes. We may have wounds in and around eating as well. Most people do in fact. But healing these wounds will not stop overeating. It will only make people more aware they are overeating. And less ashamed.

So fine. Our inability to sense the gradual changes going on in our guts as we eat is the root cause of overeating. Moreover, it would make sense that because this lack of awareness is the true source of overeating, that until we focus our energies on becoming more aware of what is going on in the gut, that there can be no long term solution to our overeating. Okay. Fine. But how do we become more aware of what is going on in our gut? Can we even learn to do this?

In a word, yes. We can learn to do this. And in my practice, I've already begun to teach people how. Moreover, before we end this chapter, I'm going to share with you what I've been teaching my clients. A way to begin this very process.

Know that what I'll show you here is but a beginning, not an end. There is much work left to be done on making this process doable. Even so, and with only a brief exposure to this work, a number of people have reported noticeable changes in their awareness. Body wise as well as mind.

Before I show you this though, I first want to elaborate on the nature of what not feeling what is going on in our guts is like. Beginning with what I've previously mentioned about the work of Dr. Michael Gershon. That we have two brains; a brain in the head and a brain in the gut.

[clikc here to read the rest of Managing Overeating with a Mind Body Speedometer]

How would you rate your ability to stay focused, especially on new ideas? Are you quick to catch on, or do you usually need more time? Can you learn from reading, or are you better hands on? And how's your attention span? Are you easily distracted, or can you stay on track? Do you in fact have ADD? This then is what we're about to explore. How getting distracted affects your ability to learn. Including that folks with ADD learn some things better than those who don't have it. Does this surprise you? Does it contradict what you know? Can you guess what I'm referring to? Let's see. In this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy.

How About a Little Less Defining and a Little More Helping Please
"Pay attention, Sidney."

"F off Miss Wordsworth."

"What did you just say!"

"You heard me. F off."

"Sidney. Go to the principal's office. Right now."

"Thank you, Miss Wordsworth."

It's Hard To Treat What We Cannot Define
Many folks today take for granted we know how to define ADD. Yet if you were to Google ADD, you'd find an incredible variety of conflicting opinions. One site says, "ADD is a brain-based disorder that affects all aspects of one's life." Another says it is "a psychological term currently applied to anyone who meets the DSM IV diagnostic criteria for impulsivity, hyperactivity and / or inattention." Another says it is a "neurobiologically-based developmental disability estimated to affect between 3-5% of the school age population." Yet another says it is "one of the most common childhood behavior disorders." And yet another says, "About 35% of all children referred to mental health clinics are referred for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD. It is one of the most prevalent of all childhood psychiatric disorders."

So what is ADD? A "brain-based disorder"? A "psychological term"? A "neurobiologically-based developmental disability"? A "common childhood behavior disorder"? A "childhood psychiatric disorder"? Anyone have a clue? And yes. I know. ADD as a diagnosis is now passe. The term currently in vogue is ADHD with and without HD. Which to be honest, seems a bit convoluted don't you think? What is ADHD without HD? AD? ADHD minus HD? Sitting still but still not knowing what the heck is going on ADD? Argumentative Disruptive Disorder with a side order of stillness?

Obviously, there's something wrong here. These definitions all disagree. Moreover if we cannot agree on a definition, how can we possibly help.

Let's try this. Let's set aside all this technical talk and only look at what is obvious. Starting with that we all get distracted. And lose our focus. However some of us have a harder time getting the gist of new ideas. Especially when they are taught in fast paced classrooms where teachers rely more on words than deeds.

What am I saying? I'm saying that there are folks who do poorly in classrooms wherein fast paced word based learning is the norm. As opposed to slow paced action based learning. Moreover what makes this relevant to ADD is that these folks, the ones who have trouble with fast paced word based learning, are the ones who get ADD labels.

Now let me explain why.

The Two Gifts of Learning
Okay. What I've just referred to, rather abruptly, are the two main styles of classroom learning. Fast paced word based learning. And slow paced action based learning. Moreover, I've just used the first of these two styles; fast paced word based learning, to introduce these two ideas.

The thing is, while some folks will be fine with my having done this and will now be wanting to know more, others will have been jarred by this and may already be feeling lost.

If this is you, please take a breath.

Now notice what you're feeling, not what you're thinking. Your body, not your mind, remember?

Now gently give in to that you got lost, close your eyes and clear your mind.

Now open your eyes and imagine that I have placed two beautiful gift boxes in front of you. Notice the colors and ribbons and such.

Now read the name tags on these two gifts and see your name written there. In beautiful blue and yellow fountain pen ink. Complete with curls and swirls.

These two gifts are for you.

But you have to open them slowly.

Know if you open these gifts slowly, you will get the gifts. And if you hurry and open them quickly, you will likely throw out the gifts with the wrapping.

This is true in the classroom too. Words are the wrapping, not the gift. Remember and you'll get so much more.

Being Body First is ADD
For chapters now, I've been telling you that we all fall into one of two groups. Either you're in the Mind First person group or you're in the Body First person group.

I've also been telling you that there are two main differences between these two groups. The speed at which they sense life; quickly or slowly. And the place wherein these folks first sense life; either in their minds or in their bodies.

Which is which?

Mind First folks prefer to sample life quickly, while Body First folks prefer to sample slowly. Moreover, quickly sensed things become thoughts to human beings, whereas slowly sensed things become feelings.

Who does all this have to do with ADD and with the two styles of classroom learning? Basically just this. Because Mind First folks feel more at home with thoughts expressed quickly, they do best with fast paced word based learning. And because Body First folks feel more at home with physically based learning delivered at a nice slow pace, they do best with slow paced action based learning.

The thing is, because most folks see getting the gist of things quickly as the proof someone is smart, fast paced word based learning has become the norm in today's classrooms. And Mind First students, the stars. Which means what? Which means that Body First folks, those who learn best from slow paced action based learning, get relegated to what are seen as the dumb classes. You know. Home economics. Auto mechanics. Wood shop. Things like that.

So how do we explain putting kids in these classes? With words like aptitude and performing below grade level. And yes, overtly, their not keeping up with the "smart kids" is seen as no ones fault. However, in some ways, this is seen as the kid's fault. He or she just can't pay attention, remember. Hence the label; ADD.

My point here is, because we see speed with words as equating to intelligence, we see Mind First folks as smart and Body First folks as dumb. Or slow, if you use the more vague and indirect reference. Moreover, if you look at the symptoms we use to define ADD, you'll find they all describe Body First people.

So do all Body First folks deserve ADD labels? Absolutely not. In fact, no one does. And when you see how all this stems from not knowing about the mind body connection, you'll see why I'm saying this.

ADD in the Classroom
The upshot of having ADD is, this entitles you to "special help." What does the help look like? You get segregated from your peers. And slotted in with the dumb kids. Not the best of positions for a kid to be in. Then there's the visits to the school guidance counselor, where you get asked questions like, "So Sidney, how's the math going. Did you pull up the english grade? And is the medication still working for you?"

Of course, no one takes seriously your complaints about how you're being taught. Why not? Because they're certain they already know what your problem is. It's some combination of your genetics, your parents, the food you eat, and your bad attitude. Which means what? Which means you have to hear things at home like, 'Sidney, did you remember to take your pill. You know how you get when you don't take it?"

And when you ask how long you'll have to be on this stuff? Why of course. You might have to take it for the rest of your life. Which between this and the segregation and the being patronized, probably kills any desire left in you to even try to learn. Exit stage left the beautiful urges you were born with to explore your world.

Then there's the dreadful blankness you feel in school. Sure you're less restless now that you're on the medication. But what about the pain of boredom? The truth? More times than not, you simply long for the day to end. Or at times, you blurt out answers hoping to find some way to fit in. Even when these answers involve the right words though, more times than not, they make no sense. Or stray off the topic. Or challenge the teacher's authority.

And when you do this, what happens? In essence, everyone ignores you. Or just sighs. Or pities you. Once again. And yes. The whole class knows you just offered a hollow answer. But no one cares enough to call you on it. Too much trouble. So the focus just moves off you and you get ignored and forgotten. Or if the teacher's in a bad mood, then you get seen as disruptive and perhaps, get kicked out of class.

So are folks with ADD dumb?

The odd thing is, if you go by IQ scores, a lot of these folks have higher than average IQs. This I know personally. Some of the smartest folks I know fit this exact criteria. More than you might have imagined.

What's up with these smart but inattentive folks then? Are they smart but bored? Rebellious to a fault? Brilliantly disruptive? Victims of a mystery condition? The truth? It's none of this. In fact, despite all the conjecture about gross brain scan dimness and vaccinations, studies show people with ADD are neither dumber nor smarter than the average bear. They're just people whose minds and bodies respond differently to learning situations. Literally. In fact, the current research shows that in brain scans, less of their brains light up. Which only offers more proof for the mind body differences I've proposed.

Unfortunately the world hasn't caught on yet to that there is a second brain in us. The enteric nervous system. Moreover, even the folks who champion this as being physiologically important fail to look at how this affects learning. This despite the solid evidence that the gut is the home to our intuition and emotion.

Would we find that people with ADD light up more in their bodies than Mind First folks? The psychological evidence overwhelmingly points to this. Whatever the case though, we need to remember what our purpose is here. We are trying to help. Thus I'm not sure we need to wait for this evidence. In fact, I'm sure we do not. We need to do something now.

What can we do? We can start with a better definition.

What Is ADD Then?
Seriously now, so what is ADD?

[click here to read the rest of ADD and Learning - a Mystery Solved]

We're almost done with the book. Can you feel it? Yet as far as discussing talk therapy, we've only just begun. Okay. So yes. You knew this already. But did you also know that these two feelings are what people should feel throughout the course of talk therapy? After all, we are one of the deepest mysteries in the Universe. Human beings. Then again, the real mystery here is where what we think and feel comes from. As well as whether our memories contain what we think and feel. Never thought about it? Well you should. Especially since being asked what you think and feel in therapy conflicts with what I've been saying about the mind and body. Not sure what I'm getting at? You're about to find out, in this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy.

What The F Are Thoughts and Feelings?
In the opening chapter I joked that the standard bad therapist's line, so how did that make you feel?, should be a signal to run for the door. Yet we all know, intuitively at least, that in the service of getting to know ourselves, that we'll need to answer these kinds of questions. Again and again, in fact.

The thing is, despite knowing we'll need to endure these somewhat vapid requests, we're never told directly what we're being asked for; what a feeling is. Let alone where we should be looking for this information.

Imagine if the guys behind the deli lunch counter did this. Or the salesman at the car dealer. Or the customer service woman at the bank help desk. Or the head of sales at the reality office. Imagine what it would be like if they never told you what they need from you. You'd never get what you want. Not sure what I'm saying? Well consider this. Consider how talk therapy usually unfolds.

Tom, the decent therapist: "So Sidney, when your teacher, Ms. Wordsworth, scolded you, what did you feel?"

Here the therapist is asking Sidney what is perhaps the most common question a therapist could ask a client; for the client to recall what he felt in a certain situation. The underlying assumption? That we record, and can recall from memory, our thoughts and feelings. Can we? Common sense observations point overwhelmingly to that this is highly unlikely. As well as to that we probably make this stuff up on the fly. However, because of the way therapists voice this question, we infer they believe the opposite; that we do record our thoughts and feelings in memory. Moreover, because this unspoken assumption is a mainstay of the therapy, the client then responds to this request without ever questioning this assumption.

Sidney, the ADD client: (a long blank pause, followed by) "Well, doc, I don't know. Mad, I suppose?"

Here the client offers the therapist what is perhaps the most common answer a client could offer a therapist; a guess voiced as a question. That this answer is voiced as a question is a sure sign the client is asking the therapist if this is what he should have felt. To which a decent therapist might respond by offering Sidney some help, probably in the form of some possible answers for what he might have felt. A great therapist, on the other hand, would bypass this question by asking Sidney to check in with his body. In other words, to notice where and what he was physically feeling, if anything. His here and now sensations. Tightness. Heaviness. And so on. As well as what he felt about being asked this question.

Tom, the decent therapist: "Well Sidney, when you tell someone to go F themselves, usually you are feeling mad."

Since Tom is a decent therapist, not a great one, he suggests a possible answer. This answer assumes not only that Sidney recorded his feelings in memory but also that his feelings make logical sense. And while this kind of logic is often absent from what people feel, when a therapist suggests a logic with which to frame feelings, people usually feel better. More so when what they say they felt pleases the therapist. Which then prompts the client to say things like the following.

Sidney, the ADD client: "Well then I guess that is what I must have felt. Yes. Mad. That's it. I was mad. Really mad."

Here Sidney the client agrees to say he recalls feeling what the therapist suggested. Including that what he felt makes logical sense. By this point, Sidney may even be feeling this anger in his body as the body often takes it's lead from the mind.

Tom, the decent therapist: "That's great Sidney. You're doing a good job of getting in touch with what you felt then."

Here the therapist rewards the client for fabricating the proper feelings. Decent therapists describe this process as that the "client has gained insight." In reality, there is no way to know for sure this is what the client felt. Or if the therapist has instilled these feelings in the client. We can only know that the client is now sure this is what he must have felt, and that he feels better knowing that what he felt makes sense.

Okay. So not all therapists are this cliche. Still, when therapists ask clients to recall their thoughts and feelings, this is what they are asking their clients to do. And when clients ask therapists to clarify what they are asking for, therapists often have no way to do this. Other than to rephrase the question with different words, or to offer the client logically possible answers.

Why don't therapists have a better way to explain what a feeling is? Over the years I've asked myself this many times.

I've also struggled to find a way to answer these requests. After all, it is me who is asking folks to tell me what they feel. Shouldn't I be able to clarify for them what feelings are?

The truth? I should. But until now, I haven't been able to. So what have I done? I've done what many other talk therapists do. I've danced around the question, with everything from showing pictures of faces labeled with feelings words to long winded dissertations on the nature of emotion. All the while hoping, I guess, that the person would intuit what a feeling is.

How does this usually work out? More times than not, between the two of us, we somehow manage to make this work. Probably because most people are quite willing to fish for their feelings the same way that I do, all the while supposing, I guess, that they will somehow stumble onto the "right feelings." At which point hopefully my face lights up so that we can both assume, they and I, that they now know what it was they thought and felt back then.

Does this fishing for feelings do any good?

In many cases, it does. People get to see how dumb therapists are. And that we're no better off than they are. With regard to naming our feelings anyway. On the other hand, if you were to ask me to seriously consider if this process helps people, in the grand scheme of things, I'd say it probably does as more to confuse people than it does to heal them.

This then has been the state of talk therapy. People asking other people to fabricate feelings on the spot, all the while assuming people store their feelings in their memories. In hindsight, I feel amazed by this. As well as by the fact that we have somehow been helping anyway. This said, I cannot count the number of times I've felt at a loss as to how to teach people what feelings are. As well as worried that what I am saying might be biasing them away from their truth.

So let me ask you. Has this even happened to you? Have you ever felt pressured to put this vagueness we call feelings into words that feel true? And have you ever tried to define for someone else what feelings are only to come up against this very vagueness?

Of course, the proof for this vagueness lies in the very books with which we define our words; our dictionaries. Including my old standby, the massive twenty three volume OED. To its credit though it does offer us our first clue. That the word feelings derives from Greek and Latin words, both of which mean the palm of your hand.

What does this imply? It implies that feelings derive from sensations. After all, palm is an obvious reference to that feeling things means touching things. But touching what? Touching the wall? Touching moments? What do we touch when we feel things? Unfortunately, the OED does not say.

Then there's the vagueness surrounding this word in everyday life. For instance we commonly use the word feelings to refer to what we experience in our heads. As in what we feel about something; our opinions about it. At the same time we also use the word feelings to refer to what we experience in our hearts. What we feel period. Our emotions.

Here then is our second clue; that the word feelings can refer both to our thoughts and to our emotions. As in this word can refer to two variations of the same thing.

Then there is our third clue; that at the same time, we also use these two words, thoughts and feelings, to refer to two separate and distinct experiences. Each with its own set of rules and such.

For instance when the word feelings refers to what is in our hearts, feelings can be neither right nor wrong. As in, feelings aren't facts. Yet when the word feelings refers to what is in our heads, feelings are right. Or wrong. Or both. As in the "right thinking" of Buddhism. And the right way of thinking in politics.

So what is a feeling? A thought? An emotion? And which is it, can they be wrong or not?

To me, these questions define one of the major dilemmas in talk therapy today. The dilemma? That we refer to thoughts and feelings as if they are two varieties of the same thing while at the same time, we refer to them as being two different things. One of which can never be wrong, the other, frequently wrong. Or even inconsequential at times as in, "it's just your opinion."

Now take a breath. And still your mind. Now notice your body while you consider this.

I've just suggested we have three clues as to what the word feelings actually means. One. That feelings derive from physical sensations. Two. That feelings, as thoughts and emotions, are two aspects of the same thing. And three. That we treat thoughts and emotions are two separate and distinct things.

Now consider how what I've just told you so parallels what I've been saying about views of the four philosophers on the mind and the body. As well as the views of more modern folks. Scientists and such.

To wit, I've told you that some folks, the materialists, believe our feelings arise from our bodies. From what we feel in our bodies. Sensation itself. Thus here we have a whole lot of folks who believe feelings stem from sensation. Which explains why we would use the word feelings to refer to sensations.

I've also told you that Spinoza believed that the experiences of the mind and body were two aspects of the same thing. Thus here we have clue two; that our thoughts and feelings are two aspects of the same thing. Which would explain our using the word feelings to refer to both.

In addition, I've told you that Descartes believed our experiences of the mind and body were two separate and distinct things. And if we use the word feelings in the clue number three sense of how we commonly use it to refer to emotion, we can say that Descartes two separate and distinct things were thoughts and feelings. Again, a usage we already use, and the root of our having two separate and distinct rules by which to live.

Now add in that when we apply Herbart's threshold of perception to Descartes and Spinoza's ideas, we see how all these things come together. You see Herbart's line is the threshold of sensation. Above which we experience thoughts and feelings as it they are two separate things, thoughts coming from the mind and feelings from the body. And below which thoughts and feelings turn out to be two aspects of the same thing, a single continuum extending from the mind to the body; from thoughts to feelings.

Finally add in my recent discoveries about the mind and body. That the speed at which we sample our physical sensations is what determines whether we experience physical sensation as thoughts or as feelings and you have solved one of the greatest mysteries in human personality. What a feeling is. So what is it? It's all the things I've just described and a whole lot more. Starting with the ideas we've just discussed, all of which already appear in our everyday language. The ideas?

• That feelings derive from the physical sensations we sense along our spines. This roughly approximates the path described by the existential mystical practice of yoga in ancient India and by doing so, honors many modern day healing practices. Note this does not imply the materialism of modern western medicine; that the body gives rise to the mind. Rather, by including the brain in this vertical path, we infer Descartes mind / body interactionism; the idea that not only does the body give rise to the mind, but also that the mind gives rise to the body. As in we can mentally imagine sensation which then gets physically felt in the body.
• That the speed at which we sample these physical sensations determines which of Descartes two conscious experiences we have. Either mind sensations / thoughts, which are the things we sample at the faster rates, or body sensations / feelings, which are the things we sample at the slower rates. Here thoughts would include all reasons and logic and attempts at reason and logic. Whereas feelings would include all emotions as well as our intuitions and gut reactions.
• That beneath these two experiences this lies a single continuum of sensation, consistent with Spinoza's idea that the mind and body are two aspects of one thing. Expressed as physical sensation, it runs from the top of the head to the base of the spine and includes the rest of the physical body at heights approximating the points at which the limbs and such attach to the spine. And expressed psychologically, it runs from the fastest sensations; pure thoughts, to the slowest sensations; pure feelings.
  

Now add to all this that we can easily observe all these things in ourselves. Including that we each have a default preference for which of these two ways we experience life, either as quickly sampled thoughts or as slowly sampled feelings.

Here then is the thing talk therapists have been needing all along; a way to define what they have been asking us for. And yes, this does not address the ambiguity present in our everyday day language, as far as the word feelings referring to everything from physical sensation to thoughts and emotions. However, it does at least begin to address what underlies this ambiguity.

This then leads us back to the action part of these requests; that we recall our thoughts and feelings. And to my assertion that we cannot do this. That we do not store thoughts and feelings but rather make them up on the fly. As we sense them. Even about the past.

So where do thoughts and feelings come from? This is what we're about to explore. Starting with what to me is a rather amazing coincidence. The idea that this possibility; that we make up our thoughts and feelings on the fly, has been around for a hundred years. Including as one of the main beliefs of one of America's first psychologists. Harvard professor, William James.

What did James have to say? Let's look.

[click here to read the rest of Thoughts, Feelings, and Talking in Therapy]

Have you ever felt unsure as to whether you were dreaming or awake? How about whether what you thought you were seeing was really there? In truth, we all feel things like this at times. And even if all you get baffled by is an odd sounding noise or a hand and finger shadow rabbit, reality can be quite an elusive thing. Especially if you are deeply engrossed in something. A movie. An infatuation. A deep sleep or a dream. In this, the final chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy then, we're going to explore the experience we claim we are looking for in talk therapy. We're going to explore reality. And how what we visualize affects our perception of it. Are you sure what you saw in the shadows was not the boogie man? How can you be sure? Are you really sure? Let's see.

"Getting a Little Movement"
One of the more lasting conversations I've had in recent years was with a man named Tony. Tony is a chiropractor. At the time, I was on his table and had asked him what he looks for when he is adjusting people. His answer? He told me that all he tries to do is to "get a little movement."

Know this chiropractor is one of the smartest men I know when it comes to body mechanics. He also has a masters degree in engineering and extensive training in nutrition. Thus the simplicity of his comment surprised me. What stayed with me though and what has continued to amaze me is how Tony's comment so points to the strong parallels which exist between our two professions. And yes, the focus of our practices is obviously different; Tony focuses on the body and I, on the mind. Even so, when you boil down what we do to its simplest forms, our underlying goals are the same; we both look to get a little movement. Tony, in the body. And me, in the mind.

Where am I going with all this? It turns out that movement is one of the best ways to gauge peoples' progress in therapy. It is also one of the best ways to learn to see the mind body connection. Unfortunately, even knowing this may not enable you to see this movement. Why? Because while most people find it easy to see how the laws of physics apply to physical movement, for the most part, seeing how they apply to what is going on in the mind is not so easy. Unless of course you understand what I've drawn in this chapter's diagram; how the laws of physics intersect at the plane of the eye. In which case, seeing how the mind and body connect is a no brainer. No pun intended.

What does this diagram represent?

Start with this. Instead of focusing on testing for yourself whether these ideas are true, try clearing the workspace in your mind the same way you might clear a physical workspace. Next consider what it is we are about to explore. We are going to explore the mind body connection. How? By exploring how the laws of physics intersect at the plane of the eye.

What skills will we need? We'll obviously need to know a few things about how the laws of physics work. A few of the more basic concepts. Including that all laws in physics can be reduced to one rather deceptively simple category of statements; they are all descriptions of how something moving in time and space relates to and effects other things.

How do these descriptions reveal the mind body connection? It turns out that because our physical sensations are the source of much of what we mentally envision and imagine, that what we envision and imagine is governed by the same laws which govern these sensations. The laws of physics. Thus even when we imagine doing things which supersede the laws of physics, such as when we dream of flying and such, because we are being guided in part by what we physically sense, these laws still apply.

So yes. The laws of physics affect everything. Even what we dream. Not such a hard concept to take in really. What complicates this though is the idea that this process occurs in reverse as well; what we imagine creates sensation. Thus, no matter what we imagine, these imaginings create sensations. And because they do, the laws of physics govern even our imaginings.

This is why hearing a strange noise in the night may convince us someone is in the house. We get awakened by what we believe to be an actual noise. Then we imagine a stranger is in the house. Of course, then, as we strain to discern what it is we are hearing, our imaginations create more physical sensations in us. All of which combine and interact until we become unable to know fantasy from reality.

Here then is the main thing which makes it hard for us to test for reality. Even in talk therapy. Because sensation creates the mind and the mind creates sensation, we can have a heck of a hard time determining what is real. Both out in life and in the world of the therapy room. And lest you think this difficulty is limited to what we experience in our minds and bodies, please know this idea is one of the more debated ideas in science; to what degree does what we think affect the world around us. Including the laws of physics.

The good news though is that there are things we can know with certainty. Including about the laws of physics. The main thing being that these laws are what connect the body and the mind. Which is why you have heard me repeatedly call these laws, the psychophysical laws. Or the "mind body" laws if you will.

What makes this idea so important? Talk therapy claims to be helping us to know reality. Yet in general, talk therapy seems to ignore these laws. This despite the fact that if we accept that these two worlds; the world of the body and the world of the mind, are governed by the same set of laws, then we can begin to measure reality simply by measuring the degree to which the body and mind parallel each other's movements over time.

Not sure of what I'm saying here? I'm saying that while we experience our minds and bodies differently in many ways, in one aspect they never differ. They both ground themselves in physical sensation. Thus they both follow the same laws with regard to space, time, and movement. Moreover, the easiest way to measure this sameness is to observe the timing of when you sense things moving in space. In the body; physically. And in the mind; psychologically.

Interestingly enough, while this idea does not appear in writing until 1860 (Elemente der Psychophysik, Gustav Theodor Fechner, 1860), we can find this same parallel implied in writing several thousand years earlier. In what has become one of the most recanted wisdom's of all times; "as above, so below."

Not familiar with this saying? It is said to have come from something called the Emerald Tablet and is the core wisdom of a philosophy in existence around the time of Jesus. Hermetic Philosophy.

What is the Emerald Tablet? According to legend, it is a tablet said to have been discovered in a cave tomb clutched in the hands of the corpse of Hermes Trismegistus, an Egyptian priest and sage reputed to have been be one of the wisest men of antiquity. Legends differ on who discovered this tablet. One says it was Sarah, the wife of Abraham. Another says it was Apollonius of Tyana. Whatever the case, this tablet was supposed to contain the magical secrets of the entire universe. Inscribed in Phoenician. Unfortunately, while several arabic translations exist and a Latin translation from about, 1200 AD, none of these translations are identical and little on the Tablet appears to make sense.

Why mention this legendary tablet? Because this saying, "as above, so below," does indeed state one of the deepest secrets in our universe. What? The essential quality of what I see to be the consummate test for truth. The idea I refer to as "fractility."

What is fractility? My definition? It is a quality by which something has a geometrically recognizable pattern or patterns which always repeat differently regardless of scale. As opposed to the essential quality of linear geometry wherein something has a geometrically recognizable pattern or patterns which always repeat identically regardless of scale.

Why mention fractility? Because this chapter focuses on how we can know reality. And in our world, fractility is the only authentic test for truth. Thus if an idea is fractal, then it is one hundred percent true. Every oak leaf is a true oak leaf. Every snow flake a snow flake. Whereas if an idea is not fractal, while it may contain a partial truth, at best, it is only partially true. Thus a person may test as competent by getting all A's in school. Yet this same person may be unable to translate any of this into real world skills.

Okay. So if something has fractility, we can know it to be one hundred percent true. And if it does not then we can know that it is at least partially untrue. Doesn't the partial truth contained therein have value though?

Actually, other than as a coarse test for truth, most times, this kind of knowing is less valuable than being certain you know nothing. Why? Because you cannot know for sure which part is true and which is not.

Now take a minute to let this idea sink in.

Now let's come at this from a different angle.

We know with certainty that nothing which occurs in the natural world occurs in a linear fashion. For example, there are no naturally occurring straight lines. Nor are there any naturally occurring perfect geometric shapes. Despite our knowing this with certainty though, oddly, we continue to use linearity as the test for truth in everything from our sciences to our psychologies.

How does the saying, "as above, so below," apply to all this?

It turns out that the parallel I've been referring to throughout the book; the one between our bodies and our minds, is the only linearity in our world. To wit, there is a linear relationship between the laws which govern our physical world and the laws which govern our psyches. In other words, as go the laws which govern the world at large, so go the laws which govern us. Thus, as above, so below.

This means when we say in physics that time is relative to the observer, we are not only saying that moving at close to the speed of light changes how physical time passes. We are also saying that our sense of how long it takes for things to change inside us can vary. For example when astrophysicists posit how we might actually time travel, they are exploring relativity. And when we say there are times wherein being in love makes a minute feel like an hour and an hour feel like a minute, we are referring to the same laws.

Likewise, when we say in physics that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, we are referring to one of the more basic laws of our physical world. But when we say this, we might as well be saying that the laws of karma apply to physics, as in, what goes around, comes around, both for objects and for us.

Why makes such a big deal out of this parallel in a book on talk therapy? Just this. If you rely on a psychological truth for your means to get to know someone, then you are doomed to failure. Why? Because you are assuming the same linearity which makes most sciences fail more than succeed. However, if you learn the laws of physics and then seek parallel images for these laws in peoples' minds and bodies, then you'll be on a path which at least in theory can lead to truly knowing them. And everything else about reality and human nature.

What would be the best way to get onto this path? As I said, by using the laws of physics to find the parallels in how things move over time. Beginning with the first half of this cycle. How noticing physical movement leads to our thoughts and feelings.

In other words, the first thing to master in your journey toward knowing how reality works is to learn how noticing sensation (becoming aware of physical movement) affects what you think and feel. Moreover, this entire mastery begins with one simple idea; knowing how the two worlds, the world of the mind and the world of the body, intersect at the plane of the eye.

Do you think you know how this works already? You may. Just the same, let's look together.
[click here to read the rest of The Eyes as the Window to the Soul ]