I distinguish two ways of looking at thoughts:
– One consists of analyzing the content to be questioned, the substance of each thought, and the reason for its presence in the mental flow. This is only useful if it leads to the second point.
The following point of observation can, of course, and indeed is desirable, as it reduces the chances of getting lost in psychoanalytic considerations, be addressed directly.
– The other involves directly recognizing the futility of this process as stemming from an energy of disorder, an activity left to its own devices, like incense smoke returning to the ceiling.
This consideration does not mean ignoring or refusing interaction with this flow.
Unlike the first point, this one doesn’t involve further feeding this energy of the mental process (analyzing it tends toward overanalysis and the endless shelling of nuts on the ground, while orchards, meadows, and pastures await us).
The second point doesn’t waste precious time. Let’s remember: this always carries the risk of stagnation in analysis, failing to quickly lead to a consideration of the minor importance of this flow.
Although it potentially reflects a deep mechanism (like distinguishing consequences from consequences, the final stage of a thousand more or less chaotic processes),
Tthe application of the second point is itself a therapeutic outcome, sought with greater emphasis in the first point. This means that by understanding that treatment is useless, the treatment takes effect. By getting bogged down in circular considerations, constructed from necessarily fragmentary debris, we inhibit or delay the soul’s healing process.
Notes & Silence 