The Doubt Epidemic (Double Barrel # 6 with Chris Guimand) 

Yes, will settle ❤️

I very much appreciate the kind words : - )

Awesome. Yes it’s a powerful process.

Ditto.😅

Personally I think there's very little evidence on the validity of attachment theory (very limited experiments), but the kind of behavioural patterns they call "avoidant" "disorganised" etc are "real" (as in, the behaviour is real, but "avoidant" etc are just labels we project onto that). Many people take it way too far in making an attachment style into an identity "he/she is just an avoidant!" "An avoidant" as if that's the totality of what this person is. Avoidance is a behaviour pattern that might occur in certain situations (or with certain people). Whether this behaviour is rooted in some particular behaviour of the parents when you were a child is really not possible to know for sure I think. It feels good to pretend we can know these kinds of things. But from what I read, the whole initial theory is based on observed behaviour of geese. Humans are not geese! :)

@@snakedogman I agree, it's an observed behaviour/characteristic but not an identity. And they're on a sliding scale, not binary.

Our pleasure!

🤗

My thoughts: Well logically (and experientially) we can see that "something" is aware of thought. That something is itself not a thought. It's the same "thing" that is aware of everything else (sensations). On one level, the source of thoughts is our mind/brain. Just like the "source of breathing" is our lungs/nose/mouth. But we don't really control that, it just happens. Breathing, your heart beating (You wouldn't say "I beat my heart", you heart just beats), thinking. Can you really control what you think? It feels like that but that would mean that there is something before thought that is considering which thought to think or not. Which is already starting to sounds kind of ridiculous. You would be thinking before you were thinking. But then how would the prior layer of thoughts come about? It would lead to an infinite regresssion. It makes more sense that thoughts just arise as a natural (by)product of our brain. I think the other argument is that "whatever is not permanent, cannot be you". And since thoughts arise and fade constantly, they are not permanent, so they are not you. There is only one thing that is always there, never changes. That is the awareness. So I think that's why they say that the "real/True you", is just the awareness in which everything else arises. Of course that (to me) raises some resistance, like "well isn't that boring? Kind of empty? Lonely? Even scary? I don't want to be an empty space of nothingness in which stuff just arises without my control! I want to be someone distinct! Special! I want to have control!" I'm sure those are very common objections. Maybe Angelo can speak to that sometime (or I'm sure he already has at some point).

Do you think it is possible to be so merged that the idea of relationship loses meaning?

beyond the fear of loss of love and loss of control is a goldmine :)