Franz Bardon's IIH

[Federica]

(2) Thought Discipline

We have learned to control our thoughts. The next exercise deals with thoughts which obtrude within us unwanted and persistently, and with not allowing them to emerge in our minds. For example, we must be able to occupy ourselves no longer with the chores and annoyances of our professional life when we are at home or in our private life. We must avoid all thoughts that do not belong in our private life and we must succeed in becoming a different person immediately. And vice versa: While we are at work or pursuing our profession we must direct all our thoughts towards our work and not allow them to be elsewhere, like at home or with private matters. This has to be practiced until it becomes a habit. Above all you must become accustomed to performing all tasks with complete awareness, whether it be in your profession or in your private life, regardless of whether you are dealing with something major or not. This exercise has to be practiced for the rest of your life, as it hones the spirit and strengthens the consciousness and memory.

Once you have achieved a certain proficiency in the practice of this exercise, you may advance to the next. This exercise is as follows: Retain one single thought or idea for a longer period of time while you steadfastly suppress all other thoughts which obtrusively try to join it. Select any idea or train of thought or any other suitable concept for this purpose at your own discretion. Retain this concept with all your power. Vigorously reject all other thoughts which have nothing to do with the one you are practicing. In the beginning you will succeed for only a few seconds, later on it will be minutes. You must succeed in maintaining and following one single thought for at least ten minutes.

Here, I realize the importance of thought discipline. It is necessary to constantly counter mindless performance of tasks while being somewhere else with one's thoughts, but I don't think this has much to do with keeping the professional and personal spheres perfectly separate. I believe this is an artificial separation destined to disappear. One can be perfectly distracted and undisciplined, execute work tasks with the head in the clouds, and yet remain within the professional life in one's mental wanderings.

The second exercise seems more like a control of thought exercise, rather than a concentration one, since it is question of a train of thought to follow and go around with, rather than a minimal 'thinking surface' like an image or simple concept.

[AshvinP]

Here, I realize the importance of thought discipline. It is necessary to constantly counter mindless performance of tasks while being somewhere else with one's thoughts, but I don't think this has much to do with keeping the professional and personal spheres perfectly separate. I believe this is an artificial separation destined to disappear. One can be perfectly distracted and undisciplined, execute work tasks with the head in the clouds, and yet remain within the professional life in one's mental wanderings.

The second exercise seems more like a control of thought exercise, rather than a concentration one, since it is question of a train of thought to follow and go around with, rather than a minimal 'thinking surface' like an image or simple concept.

Thanks for this comment on the exercise, Federica. Could you elaborate on the bold? Is it something like, if one is working on a particular client file, one can get distracted and wander into thoughts about another client's file? The way I see it, the general theme of exercise is to gradually 'narrow' the sphere of distraction (and conversely expand the sphere of focus). So, if one transitions from habitually oscillating between work and non-work life, to oscillating within the work life or non-work life during those respective periods, that would at least be an improvement. I think one effect of this thought discipline is that we will naturally begin to feel that non-work experiences are also implicitly relevant to and present in our work states (and vice versa), even though we don't need to switch attention explicitly between thoughts about one or the other.

[Federica]

Here, I realize the importance of thought discipline. It is necessary to constantly counter mindless performance of tasks while being somewhere else with one's thoughts, but I don't think this has much to do with keeping the professional and personal spheres perfectly separate. I believe this is an artificial separation destined to disappear. One can be perfectly distracted and undisciplined, execute work tasks with the head in the clouds, and yet remain within the professional life in one's mental wanderings.

The second exercise seems more like a control of thought exercise, rather than a concentration one, since it is question of a train of thought to follow and go around with, rather than a minimal 'thinking surface' like an image or simple concept.

Thanks for this comment on the exercise, Federica. Could you elaborate on the bold? Is it something like, if one is working on a particular client file, one can get distracted and wander into thoughts about another client's file? The way I see it, the general theme of exercise is to gradually 'narrow' the sphere of distraction (and conversely expand the sphere of focus). So, if one transitions from habitually oscillating between work and non-work life, to oscillating within the work life or non-work life during those respective periods, that would at least be an improvement. I think one effect of this thought discipline is that we will naturally begin to feel that non-work experiences are also implicitly relevant to and present in our work states (and vice versa), even though we don't need to switch attention explicitly between thoughts about one or the other.

Yes, I meant something like that. But I doubt that being distracted thinking about another client’s file is any better than thinking about, say, dinner. That the former is an improvement to distraction compared to the latter requires to suppose that there is an (arbitrary) geography of thought contents, and that the supposed position of any thought content in this geography determines a measure of vicinity to the initial thought content and therefore a measure of distraction. I don't think that such spatial reasoning is applicable. If it were, we should equally consider that fancying about going to the city center, while working at that file, is less distracted than fancying about Japan. As you say, non-work experiences are also implicitly relevant to and present in our work states (and vice versa). Doesn't this imply that there's no real geography of thought contents but rather a superposition, and therefore a distraction is a distraction, no matter how logically or associatively close the distracting thought is to the original one?

[AshvinP]

Here, I realize the importance of thought discipline. It is necessary to constantly counter mindless performance of tasks while being somewhere else with one's thoughts, but I don't think this has much to do with keeping the professional and personal spheres perfectly separate. I believe this is an artificial separation destined to disappear. One can be perfectly distracted and undisciplined, execute work tasks with the head in the clouds, and yet remain within the professional life in one's mental wanderings.

The second exercise seems more like a control of thought exercise, rather than a concentration one, since it is question of a train of thought to follow and go around with, rather than a minimal 'thinking surface' like an image or simple concept.

Thanks for this comment on the exercise, Federica. Could you elaborate on the bold? Is it something like, if one is working on a particular client file, one can get distracted and wander into thoughts about another client's file? The way I see it, the general theme of exercise is to gradually 'narrow' the sphere of distraction (and conversely expand the sphere of focus). So, if one transitions from habitually oscillating between work and non-work life, to oscillating within the work life or non-work life during those respective periods, that would at least be an improvement. I think one effect of this thought discipline is that we will naturally begin to feel that non-work experiences are also implicitly relevant to and present in our work states (and vice versa), even though we don't need to switch attention explicitly between thoughts about one or the other.

Yes, I meant something like that. But I doubt that being distracted thinking about another client’s file is any better than thinking about, say, dinner. That the former is an improvement to distraction compared to the latter requires to suppose that there is an (arbitrary) geography of thought contents, and that the supposed position of any thought content in this geography determines a measure of vicinity to the initial thought content and therefore a measure of distraction. I don't think that such spatial reasoning is applicable. If it were, we should equally consider that fancying about going to the city center, while working at that file, is less distracted than fancying about Japan. As you say, non-work experiences are also implicitly relevant to and present in our work states (and vice versa). Doesn't this imply that there's no real geography of thought contents but rather a superposition, and therefore a distraction is a distraction, no matter how logically or associatively close the distracting thought is to the original one?

Generally, yes, I think the aim of such exercises is to energetically work at keeping one's thoughts on the task at hand, and the distinction between professional and personal life is simply a very characteristic demarcation in our flow of experience that our thoughts tend to oscillate between and around. Another such demarcation may be remembered experiences earlier in the day/week and anticipated experiences later in the day/week.

Although there is no spatial demarcation to our thoughts, I think we can speak of more or less proximally associated thoughts. This isn't something that can be strictly counted, measured, calculated, etc., although, as we discussed before, LLM has mapped out these associative thought-networks to some extent. In that sense, the type and 'proximity' of distraction can serve as meaningful intuitive feedback on underlying soul factors. We can speak of a superposition of mental contents in a more metaphysical sense, but when it comes to how these distractions manifest in our experiential flow, making various distinctions will help refine our intuitive self-knowledge. It's not about comparing the contents on a linear scale of "more or less distracted", but simply becoming more sensitive to how these contents point to distinct 'geographies' and currents of our soul life.

[Federica]

Generally, yes, I think the aim of such exercises is to energetically work at keeping one's thoughts on the task at hand, and the distinction between professional and personal life is simply a very characteristic demarcation in our flow of experience that our thoughts tend to oscillate between and around. Another such demarcation may be remembered experiences earlier in the day/week and anticipated experiences later in the day/week.

Although there is no spatial demarcation to our thoughts, I think we can speak of more or less proximally associated thoughts. This isn't something that can be strictly counted, measured, calculated, etc., although, as we discussed before, LLM has mapped out these associative thought-networks to some extent. In that sense, the type and 'proximity' of distraction can serve as meaningful intuitive feedback on underlying soul factors. We can speak of a superposition of mental contents in a more metaphysical sense, but when it comes to how these distractions manifest in our experiential flow, making various distinctions will help refine our intuitive self-knowledge. It's not about comparing the contents on a linear scale of "more or less distracted", but simply becoming more sensitive to how these contents point to distinct 'geographies' and currents of our soul life.

Absolutely, I agree. We can speak of more or less proximally associated thoughts. Which leads us back to the question: can it be said that being distracted by a more proximally associated thought constitutes an improvement in distraction control? Or is it rather that, by noticing our distracting thoughts (whatever their proximity), we improve our intuitive orientation in our soul life?

[AshvinP]

Generally, yes, I think the aim of such exercises is to energetically work at keeping one's thoughts on the task at hand, and the distinction between professional and personal life is simply a very characteristic demarcation in our flow of experience that our thoughts tend to oscillate between and around. Another such demarcation may be remembered experiences earlier in the day/week and anticipated experiences later in the day/week.

Although there is no spatial demarcation to our thoughts, I think we can speak of more or less proximally associated thoughts. This isn't something that can be strictly counted, measured, calculated, etc., although, as we discussed before, LLM has mapped out these associative thought-networks to some extent. In that sense, the type and 'proximity' of distraction can serve as meaningful intuitive feedback on underlying soul factors. We can speak of a superposition of mental contents in a more metaphysical sense, but when it comes to how these distractions manifest in our experiential flow, making various distinctions will help refine our intuitive self-knowledge. It's not about comparing the contents on a linear scale of "more or less distracted", but simply becoming more sensitive to how these contents point to distinct 'geographies' and currents of our soul life.

Absolutely, I agree. We can speak of more or less proximally associated thoughts. Which leads us back to the question: can it be said that being distracted by a more proximally associated thought constitutes an improvement in distraction control? Or is it rather that, by noticing our distracting thoughts (whatever their proximity), we improve our intuitive orientation in our soul life?

That's a good question. It seems intuitive to me that, if we intend to focus on a work task and our thoughts are oscillating within a tighter sphere of work-related concerns, for example, that would be an improvement from oscillating within a broader sphere, from current work to a project the next day, to a comment the cashier made to us at the store, to what we're going to eat for dinner, and so forth , as we periodically return to the task. Our distracted work thoughts would not be what we intended to focus on, but they still fit more closely within the curvature of our intent to remain present and concentrated in a particular work task. What do you think?

[Federica]

Generally, yes, I think the aim of such exercises is to energetically work at keeping one's thoughts on the task at hand, and the distinction between professional and personal life is simply a very characteristic demarcation in our flow of experience that our thoughts tend to oscillate between and around. Another such demarcation may be remembered experiences earlier in the day/week and anticipated experiences later in the day/week.

Although there is no spatial demarcation to our thoughts, I think we can speak of more or less proximally associated thoughts. This isn't something that can be strictly counted, measured, calculated, etc., although, as we discussed before, LLM has mapped out these associative thought-networks to some extent. In that sense, the type and 'proximity' of distraction can serve as meaningful intuitive feedback on underlying soul factors. We can speak of a superposition of mental contents in a more metaphysical sense, but when it comes to how these distractions manifest in our experiential flow, making various distinctions will help refine our intuitive self-knowledge. It's not about comparing the contents on a linear scale of "more or less distracted", but simply becoming more sensitive to how these contents point to distinct 'geographies' and currents of our soul life.

Absolutely, I agree. We can speak of more or less proximally associated thoughts. Which leads us back to the question: can it be said that being distracted by a more proximally associated thought constitutes an improvement in distraction control? Or is it rather that, by noticing our distracting thoughts (whatever their proximity), we improve our intuitive orientation in our soul life?

That's a good question. It seems intuitive to me that, if we intend to focus on a work task and our thoughts are oscillating within a tighter sphere of work-related concerns, for example, that would be an improvement from oscillating within a broader sphere, from current work to a project the next day, to a comment the cashier made to us at the store, to what we're going to eat for dinner, and so forth , as we periodically return to the task. Our distracted work thoughts would not be what we intended to focus on, but they still fit more closely within the curvature of our intent to remain present and concentrated in a particular work task. What do you think?

I'm not sure how important this whole question I raised is. In any case, I think a distraction is characterized by the unwilled derailment of a certain thought process, not by the nature of the associative link of that thought process with the new one. Association is even the mechanism itself of distraction. Distraction is to fall out of a certain path, as its etymology tells. Where one lands is not relevant. It's not willed anyway, so there's no merit in being distracted by another client file rather than by the cashier's comment. It's the same giving in to unconscious pulls. An improvement in distraction would be to reduce its frequency, or to catch oneself sooner, awakening in the distracting thought, to redirect attention, until one sees it coming. As it seems to me, it's the same with concentration. If resistance is not opposed to the pressing thoughts, concentration is broken, no matter the content of the distracting thought. Another Steiner verse is just as bad as the to-do list in this respect. It's more difficult to avoid distraction in concentration than it is to remain focused on a given train of thought, because one can cling to a certain momentum, but the principle of distraction is the same.

[AshvinP]

Absolutely, I agree. We can speak of more or less proximally associated thoughts. Which leads us back to the question: can it be said that being distracted by a more proximally associated thought constitutes an improvement in distraction control? Or is it rather that, by noticing our distracting thoughts (whatever their proximity), we improve our intuitive orientation in our soul life?

That's a good question. It seems intuitive to me that, if we intend to focus on a work task and our thoughts are oscillating within a tighter sphere of work-related concerns, for example, that would be an improvement from oscillating within a broader sphere, from current work to a project the next day, to a comment the cashier made to us at the store, to what we're going to eat for dinner, and so forth , as we periodically return to the task. Our distracted work thoughts would not be what we intended to focus on, but they still fit more closely within the curvature of our intent to remain present and concentrated in a particular work task. What do you think?

I'm not sure how important this whole question I raised is. In any case, I think a distraction is characterized by the unwilled derailment of a certain thought process, not by the nature of the associative link of that thought process with the new one. Association is even the mechanism itself of distraction. Distraction is to fall out of a certain path, as its etymology tells. Where one lands is not relevant. It's not willed anyway, so there's no merit in being distracted by another client file rather than by the cashier's comment. It's the same giving in to unconscious pulls. An improvement in distraction would be to reduce its frequency, or to catch oneself sooner, awakening in the distracting thought, to redirect attention, until one sees it coming. As it seems to me, it's the same with concentration. If resistance is not opposed to the pressing thoughts, concentration is broken, no matter the content of the distracting thought. Another Steiner verse is just as bad as the to-do list in this respect. It's more difficult to avoid distraction in concentration than it is to remain focused on a given train of thought, because one can cling to a certain momentum, but the principle of distraction is the same.

Questions in these domains usually reveal their importance over some time, once they lead in a fruitful direction for examining implicit ideas at work that may need to be illuminated and refined. It's not obvious from the outset what this fruitful direction will be, but in retrospect we can then have a better sense of why the questions arose in our consciousness.

Could it be that the distraction is characterized by multiple factors across multiple dimensions, not only the unintentional derailment but also the nature of the associative links, their breadth, intensity, and so on (perhaps analogously to how physical illnesses, deviations from healthy equilibrium, can be characterized along multiple dimensions)? It is generally problematic to assume any factor of the experiential flow is not relevant. Once we make that assumption, if we are mistaken, we have desensitized to the relevance and thus made it very difficult to discover the error. It becomes a typical spiritual catch-22. Instead, we can remain open that there is some relevance to where we are landing in the distractions, treating it as a research question to be gradually illuminated by further intuitive probing.

It is true that distractions are characterized by habitual associations, but we could consider these as certain 'sub routines' etched into the more natural and organic web of thought-linkages. All thoughts are lawfully connected to each other through the meaningful relations of beings and spiritual activity which we experience and which they re-present to us. The main factor when we speak of distractions is whether we experience the lawful transitions between thoughts as a result of our intentional steering or if they feel to unfold quite independently, while we only dream through the process and focus on the finished content.
 
We can attain more creative participation within the organic web by first becoming more sensitive to the various mental linkages that have formed through our habitual tendencies, since we cannot unwind or refashion them without that intuitive awareness of their existence. That's why it's important to remain open to the relevance of where we are landing in our distracted associative trains of thought - it helps refine our sensitivity to the sub routines that we have etched within the organic and ideal web. If our thoughts are continually bouncing from wall to wall, so to speak, dispersed across all sorts of diverse domains of life, then we can imagine how difficult it is for our spirit to trace the etched patterns. 

In that sense, we can see some of the deeper reasons why these thought-discipline exercises prepare the soil for imaginative concentration, so the latter can bear more intuitive fruit in terms of tracing the associative thought-linkages. If we are concentrated within a narrower sphere of 'landing spots', it seems that can be leveraged by our intuitive thinking to more effectively discern the patterns involved.

[Federica]

...
Could it be that the distraction is characterized by multiple factors across multiple dimensions, not only the unintentional derailment but also the nature of the associative links, their breadth, intensity, and so on (perhaps analogously to how physical illnesses, deviations from healthy equilibrium, can be characterized along multiple dimensions)? It is generally problematic to assume any factor of the experiential flow is not relevant.

As a matter of fact, all the factors you mention do characterize a distraction. Surely, there is a sense in which the distracted thought content has relevance: it is not randomly that a specific distraction and not another one occupies the mind.
When I say that the content is irrelevant, I mean irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether or not one is improving in distraction control. For a being who can read our soul life like an open book, the reasons must be clear why we fall prey to a particular distracted thought. Yet, for the distracted mind itself, that content is not relevant to indicate the level of control of distraction, as if on a scale. Because the whole thing about being distracted is that a moment of unconsciousness is experienced. Connection is lost. The switch to the new thought happens while we are unconscious, not present in the thought flow.

This doesn’t exclude that the nature of the distraction can hold some as-yet undiscovered hints about the soul life. In this sense it has relevance, I am sure, and I can surely keep the research question open: "what is the hidden meaning of the distracted contents?" But nothing points to the relevance of such contents as suitable measure of the quality of distraction control. I don’t think one can say that thinking about the other client is only a half distraction, or a 60% distraction. The mechanism of distraction has played out in full, because if the thought is not willed, it is a plain distraction we have experienced: the slipping out of conscious steering.

The main factor when we speak of distractions is whether we experience the lawful transitions between thoughts as a result of our intentional steering or if they feel to unfold quite independently, while we only dream through the process and focus on the finished content.

I think for it to be called a distraction it can only be the latter option: we are not there when the thought unfolds.

We can attain more creative participation within the organic web by first becoming more sensitive to the various mental linkages that have formed through our habitual tendencies, since we cannot unwind or refashion them without that intuitive awareness of their existence. That's why it's important to remain open to the relevance of where we are landing in our distracted associative trains of thought - it helps refine our sensitivity to the sub routines that we have etched within the organic and ideal web. If our thoughts are continually bouncing from wall to wall, so to speak, dispersed across all sorts of diverse domains of life, then we can imagine how difficult it is for our spirit to trace the etched patterns.

Absolutely. A posteriori, we can introspect and become more sensitive, paying attention to the nature of the distracting thoughts, trying to inquire why we ended up there. That work would probably build some resistance to future distractions. But it’s not that a thought lying opposite to the primary one according to some arbitrary, mundaine, associative geography - as in: "work thoughts live closer together than work and private-life thoughts" - signals a poor control of distraction compared to a “closer” thought. In order to determine the quality of and reason for the distracted thought, it is necessary to uncover the entire path, or network of linkages, and bring the distraction to full consciousness. Succeding in this, we would devoid distractions of their flesh. But what allows us to deem that we are improving if we catch ourselves thinking about another client? It's a different type of soul work that would improve the distracted habits, a work done outside the dynamic of distraction, by which the habitual thinking paths ar enlightened, and the distracted ones are correspondingly estinguished.

[AshvinP]

...
Could it be that the distraction is characterized by multiple factors across multiple dimensions, not only the unintentional derailment but also the nature of the associative links, their breadth, intensity, and so on (perhaps analogously to how physical illnesses, deviations from healthy equilibrium, can be characterized along multiple dimensions)? It is generally problematic to assume any factor of the experiential flow is not relevant.

As a matter of fact, all the factors you mention do characterize a distraction. Surely, there is a sense in which the distracted thought content has relevance: it is not randomly that a specific distraction and not another one occupies the mind.
When I say that the content is irrelevant, I mean irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether or not one is improving in distraction control. For a being who can read our soul life like an open book, the reasons must be clear why we fall prey to a particular distracted thought. Yet, for the distracted mind itself, that content is not relevant to indicate the level of control of distraction, as if on a scale. Because the whole thing about being distracted is that a moment of unconsciousness is experienced. Connection is lost. The switch to the new thought happens while we are unconscious, not present in the thought flow.

This doesn’t exclude that the nature of the distraction can hold some as-yet undiscovered hints about the soul life. In this sense it has relevance, I am sure, and I can surely keep the research question open: "what is the hidden meaning of the distracted contents?" But nothing points to the relevance of such contents as suitable measure of the quality of distraction control. I don’t think one can say that thinking about the other client is only a half distraction, or a 60% distraction. The mechanism of distraction has played out in full, because if the thought is not willed, it is a plain distraction we have experienced: the slipping out of conscious steering.

Right, but such distractions occur in the context of our intentions. On a spiritual path, we are especially attempting to navigate life more and more through our consciously set intentions. As we know, it is about harmonizing our intentional activity, our intuitive movements, with our perceptual contents as much as possible (what we are thinking about what we are doing with our inner activity). So would you agree that, if we intend to remain concentrated on work-related tasks, it would be an improvement if we start out bouncing our thoughts to a dozen non work-related areas of experience and gradually attain a state where we are able to stay mostly within work experience? Then would the content be relevant to how much we have inwardly improved, in the context of specific intentions to remain present in certain tasks?

Absolutely. A posteriori, we can introspect and become more sensitive, paying attention to the nature of the distracting thoughts, trying to inquire why we ended up there. That work would probably build some resistance to future distractions. But it’s not that a thought lying opposite to the primary one according to some arbitrary, mundaine, associative geography - as in: "work thoughts live closer together than work and private-life thoughts" - signals a poor control of distraction compared to a “closer” thought. In order to determine the quality of and reason for the distracted thought, it is necessary to uncover the entire path, or network of linkages, and bring the distraction to full consciousness. Succeding in this, we would devoid distractions of their flesh. But what allows us to deem that we are improving if we catch ourselves thinking about another client? It's a different type of soul work that would improve the distracted habits, a work done outside the dynamic of distraction, by which the habitual thinking paths ar enlightened, and the distracted ones are correspondingly estinguished.

I think the soul geography, the proximity of distracted thoughts, is 'measured' by our consciously set intentions. It is all relative in that sense, there is no objective topographical map of thought-distances that applies to all souls, but neither is it arbitrary. The improvement (or lack of it) is intuited through how well our thought contents are harmonized with the domains of experience we intend to focus on.