Response to Penelope Young Andrade's
"What the Bleep" article in October's "The Light Connection"
Published by "The Light Connection" November 2004

By Jane Ilene Cohen

Sent as a letter to the Editor in the November 2004 "The Light Connection," and printed with permission

(Both Penelope's article and Jane's response can be found at http://lightconnectiononline.com.)

I feel in alignment with much of Penelope Young Andrade's entertaining and intelligent article, "What's Up with What the Bleep?" last month. However, as a colleague with a different approach to change and transformation, I disagree with some of her points, particularly that the movie was encouraging us to control our emotions.

Although Dr. Dispenza's remark "If you can't control your emotional state, you must be addicted to it," as Penelope pointed out, is easily misinterpreted, I do think he makes an important point. I think he's referring to people unconsciously producing the same negative emotions over and over again. Managing (a better choice than "controlling") emotional states, is a different concept than controlling our emotions. The issue here is changing what we are doing with our minds that is eliciting the emotions.

A new client of mine wanted help in changing the dysfunctional patterns of thinking that were frequently producing angry responses in her, often toward her husband. Because of the movie, she could see how much harm acting this pattern out was causing her.

What seems to be at issue is what the relative roles thoughts and emotions have on our experience. In other words, which leads -- thoughts or emotions? The particular emotions that are elicited, and whether our emotional experience is to our benefit or not, has a lot to do with where we direct our mind, and how we interpret our experience.

I agree with Penelope that repressing our emotions is harmful to our whole being, and can block consciousness. And I also agree that there is immense and generally untapped wisdom that can only be accessed through connecting with and understanding our emotions. Where I disagree with her is what leads. When she described the "nice young man" having feelings of fear and desire in the presence of a pretty woman, she said the problem was not the fear he felt, but the story he had attached to having the fear. While I agree that people's dysfunctional patterns are often compounded by negative interpretations about having particular emotions, most negative emotions are not the result of present-moment experience. They most often result from unhealed patterns of thought, and block present-moment experience. I would describe the young man as having dysfunctional thought patterns that are triggered when he is feeling desire toward a pretty woman. It's the dysfunctional interpretation (elicited by the dysfunctional pattern) that brings up the fear. The fear then causes behavior that reinforces the pattern.

Our emotional state is the indicator of what we are doing with our mind. Our emotions let us know the experience of reality we are creating. Whether emotional expression is helpful or not, depends very much on whether it's a flowing out of emotional energy, or it's an expression of dysfunctional thought patterns, perpetuating a story. In addition, there's also the direction in which the mind is turned, whether it's in a positive, resourceful direction, or whether it's in a negative, disempowering, self-defeating direction. The direction we focus in, positive or negative, produces emotions that support that direction, with its particular paradigm of reality. The movie demonstrates the dysfunctional use of thought and emotion, and its profound effect on us.
 

Further letters from Jane to Penelope in response to Penelope's responses to Jane:

10/20/04

Dear Penelope,

Of course I agree that our emotional responses come before our conscious awareness kicks in.  I'm saying there's something that comes before our primary emotional response. And it's on an unconscious level. It's perhaps understanding what that something is that is where the cutting edge is. My current understanding is it is our immediate and unconscious interpretation of internal or external stimulus.  It is probably never simply an objective response to an objective reality event.  Reality doesn't work that way. It is not fixed in stone, as "What the Bleep" was trying to show.  

We can't directly change our interpretations, as they are an unconscious process. But we can change the neuro-network patterns that give us the proclivity to interpret things the way we do, when that interpretation is dysfunctional, i.e. when it blocks or distorts present moment experience. In the moment all we can do is recognize the emotion, which leads us to what the unconscious interpretation or thought was, so that we can change the limiting decision or unconscious concept of the self that causes dysfunctional interpretations, which in turn causes negative emotions.

Very briefly -- according to the NLP model -- this is what occurred in the first place in the process of making an unconscious "limiting decision:" Before making it (in the area of that particular decision) we were present in the moment, alive, responsive, empowered and flowing with life, in a state of well-being. Very early in life something occurred that was very overwhelming or intense, and that we couldn't make sense of from the perspective of our current development and understanding of the world or life. At that moment the conscious mind, being overwhelmed, stopped functioning and the unconscious mind took over, throwing us into a very malleable trance state. In that state we made an unconscious limiting decision (based on our limited experience and understanding of our selves in relation to life), such as "This means I'm stupid," or "This means the world is a dangerous place." From then on we filter our experience of life through that decision, like an unconscious assumption about us and the nature of life. Therefore whenever anything occurs after that that is similar enough to the original stimulus, instead of responding actually to what occurred, we interpret it in a way that supports the original limiting decision, thus removing us from present moment experience.

In my individual sessions with clients the focus is on clearing the original limiting decision through a very effective NLP process called TimeLine Therapy?. When a limiting decision is cleared, the person is no longer emotionally triggered in that dysfunctional way. Painful or disempowering emotions that were previously elicited when certain kinds of people or situations were encountered, are no longer elicited.  In fact their whole experience of life in that area of experience is profoundly altered, and they're able to be present in here-and-now experience.

The negative "thought loops" you referred to are not some external obstacle in reality. Although they can be effectively dealt with through conscious processes (as you are pointing out), in TimeLine Therapy? once a limiting decision is cleared, it no longer exists. It is not something that needs managing, will power, or motivation. It simply no longer is part of the interpretation of reality, as it doesn't actually exist in the present moment.

I use different processes in different circumstance: individual sessions, interactive groups, and my own personal transformation. What you were describing in your last paragraph about using will power and liberating our embodied life force, has some aspects in alignment with my own personal process for myself. I'm chronically the process of my transformation in one of the books I'm currently writing. I find it to be a very complex, organic process that requires continually following my inner guidance for its unfolding. Sometimes it requires emotional expression and sometimes it doesn't. To transform oneself in this manner takes great motivation, will power, passion and self-discipline (as you were pointing out), which it seems I have. It is much more difficult and takes longer than the TimeLine process I use with clients, but seems to be a part of the contribution I'm here to make, because it brings in much information in the process.

Ultimately really what matters is what works. Presumably what you are doing is very effective, or you wouldn't be so passionately about it. And what I'm doing works extremely well also. So it seems that some methods work better for some people, and some work better for others.

I'm looking forward to our continued dialogue,

Love,
Jane
 

10/25/04

Dear Penelope,

If the scientists say there is no brain registered thought, I accept the truth of that. It really doesn't matter in relationship to what I'm trying to communicate.  

I have never said we can "thoughtfully deter or alter our body/emotional response in the first instance," as I don't believe that to be true.

It's interesting that we both seem to be feeling unheard by each other. Are we coming from such different paradigms? At the same time it seems we are so close to understanding each other.

But I think I'm clearer from your latest response where the communication gaps lies. It's in the area of how to proceed after our initial body/emotional response. It's about shifting our context (as you put it), or our inclination to respond to certain stimulus over and over again in a particular unconscious pattern.

Whatever causes that inclination can be debated. NLP says it got locked in physiologically in the muscle contractions, breathing patterns and neuro-network patterns, when the original limiting decision was made in early childhood, therefore blocking us from present-moment experience.

Where we can't seem to meet in understanding is me telling you that the NLP TimeLine process actually changes that proclivity for most people I've worked with. And that after that process, it is no longer something they have to work at. This is not a theory. It is something I have experienced with my clients over and over again, and which has profound and lasting results.

I hope this response makes more sense to you.

Warmly,
Jane

--------

(760) 753-0733 - JC@janecohen.net - Encinitas, CA

Click to return to "Articles".