An Interview with Dr. Treyvaud about the Mindfulness Lectures

Cheryl Smith: Do you find that people are increasingly interested in Mindfulness Meditation? It seems to come up all the time in news articles, etc. these days.

Stephane Treyvaud: Yes, its certainly an emerging awareness. The thing about it is that like anything else that becomes an emerging awareness, you have a lot of relatively superficial enthusiasm that accompanies it. I see that a lot of people do a lot of talk about it, but when it comes to actually developing the staying power, to actually engaging in the process that changes the neuro-circuitry of the brain, the number of (those) people who pursue it to those depths quickly shrinks. So thats the part that needs to be worked on. Everyone wants liberation from suffering and everyone wants to feel good, but everyone wants to feel good the easy way. And the thing is that there is no easy way of engaging in that because there are no shortcuts. Thats the atmosphere that I find. But the simple fact that awareness of mindfulness spreads is very important and the fact that theres a lot of interest and (people) come to lectures and think about it and talk about is all good. I dont know how much it will be translated into actual long-term rewiring, because thats the hard part.

CS: I see that the upcoming lectures at CSY studio are all around relationships. Can you talk about your thinking as you were developing these talks?

ST: There is really a fascinating finding in neurobiology and that is that the same circuitry that is responsible for our ability to connect with each other is also responsible for allowing us to connect with ourselves. So at the core of mindfulness training, at the core of meditation training, is (the possibility) of developing a deeper relationship to oneself. You can see, given what I just said about the neuro-circuitry, people sometimes ask, yes but isnt that (just) selfish navel gazing, sitting there paying attention to yourself, taking all this time every day, an hour a day of practice. Isnt that a selfish navel gazing? Well its actually the opposite. What youre actually doing is developing and engaging this circuitry, called the resonance circuitry of the brain, that deepens ones ability not only to relate to oneself, but to another person. This is why at the core of mindfulness is kindness, love and attunement. So thats why I decided to do these lectures, where we are going to focus on this particular aspect of mindfulness, which is a different one than the focus we had in the spring and the fall. There are a lot of interesting things to say about it, so its worth a little series on this topic.

CS: I was intrigued by this last one on the story of your life and the importance of narrative. We do like to have things explained to us through narrative, and we can remember things through narrative as well. Did you want to talk a little bit more about narrative and storytelling? Is it an interest of yours or is it strictly that you like to hear peoples stories?

ST: The move towards health and wellbeing happens when (we) move towards integration, and integration is a process whereby the parts of an organism differentiate from each other and then link. In order to move towards integration as human beings, we have to move towards a wholeness in all aspects of who we are. These aspects can be summarized in nine domains of integration, which correspond to nine major neuro-circuitries of the brain. One of them is called autobiographical integration; (this is) the way that we create our stories out of the non-verbal experiences of life. Because we are storytelling animals, there is no escaping that. The problem is that in that process of developing stories about our lives from the non-verbal experience of living, a lot can go wrong. A lot can go wrong depending on various factors, including what happened to us in childhood and how different parts of the brain (are connected) to each other, such as left and right brain, or the cortex to the rest of the body. What was discovered clinically is that there are different ways that people talk. You can actually sense, by listening to a person, whether that person has shut down this storytelling ability, whether that storytelling ability is so overwhelmed that they cant make sense of whats coming from inside, or whether they are well integrated and able to make sense of whats going on.

So all you need to do is sit down with a person, ( and) you ask personal questions like, why are you here? Whats going on in your life? And then they tell you, this and this and this, Im not happy about this and then you ask, tell me a bit about your Dad, and Mom, etc.. The way they tell the story tells you whether there are issues in the storytelling capacity, from which you can then come to conclusions with regards to the original childhood challenges that shaped them. So thats what this is all about.

CS: Can you give me an example. If you had a patient in front of you and they are describing their parents. What are some of the things you would notice in the way they would tell their story?

ST: To give you a simple example, I would ask you, what kind of a person was your father when you were a child? And your answer might be, Oh he was great.

I would ask, Can you tell me a bit more?

Oh, he was fine.

What kind of a relationship did you have? What do you mean when you say he was great?

He was fine. He was a Dad like all the others. I have no complaints.

I would continue by asking, Okay and how about your Mother?

Oh she was great.

And what made your mother great?

Well, she cooked and cleaned and took care of us.

And what kind of a relationship did you have with your mother.

Oh, a good one.

What do you notice about this persons answers and what consequences can you draw?

CS: Well, its not very detailed or observant or nuanced.

ST: Yes its very truncated, its very schematic. In fact its deeply distorted because no narrative like that can be true because theres no such thing as, my mother was great. People are complicated and complex. So that points to a certain problem with the way that this storytelling neuro-circuitry was affected and shut down, and with a deep lack of access to this persons inner world.

CS: And was that because the person was overwhelmed or bullied? They werent allowed to have thoughts other than those thoughts?

ST: There are several possibilities here. One possibility is that the parents were very avoidant, either withdrawn and absent or (created an environment where) nothing of emotional significance was ever talked about. That would usually be the case. When people have had the opposite, very traumatic parents who were very aggressive, usually the picture is different, the dialogue is different.

CS: Maybe these types of parents are themselves damaged, having experienced the same type of relationship with their own parents .

ST: Yes, of course, its a chain of events passed on from generation to generation which is why the work we are doing is so important because we have an opportunity to interrupt that chain of events for our children.

CS: On another topic entirely, do you find it interesting how popular TV reality shows are today? Were watching relationships being played out on these shows, and they seem pretty fake, but they still have an enormous audience. Why do we like to watch this when weve got our own lives to lead? Are we looking for guidance or role models? Or do we like to feel superior to these people who are often unwittingly humiliating themselves? Or have we always been watching human relationships in the theatre and on TV dramas and this is just the latest incarnation.

ST: Its an interesting question. The immediate thought that comes to mind is voyeurism, that we love to peek into the secrets of others because we are unable to access our own secrets. I dont know why reality shows would be more appealing than a theatre piece with actors, because of course every time you go to a theatre, every time you go to a performance, in a sense, you live through the story and actors, you live a piece of human life, it is very cathartic, it teaches us something. Maybe reality shows are so popular because they give us the illusion of bringing us even closer to ourselves because its in reality its actually happening, its not just play. That aspect may actually be the consequence of a numbing effect in society. I believe that we live in a society that has been profoundly numbed with regards to the earth and the body. Everything has to be bigger, louder, wilder, faster, more intense, more violent, because the decibel and intensity (level) of fifty years ago just doesnt do it anymore. We are so numbed, because we live more and more in disembodied lives. So maybe thats a part of an evolution of why these reality shows are exploding.

CS: Can you tell me a little bit about the format of the Mindfulness lectures, and who you see them being for?

ST: Im aiming it at human beings (laughs). Im just talking about one tiny little aspect of the work that we do, mindfulness and the importance of it, and the connection to the larger social and political processes, so whoever is interested in it

CS: So people who are meditators, non-meditators .?

ST: Anybody will find something interesting here. People will be exposed to looking at the importance of our relatedness and of our inter-connectedness on all scales, from the very personal to the socio-political and ecological. Thats what will be talked about, so anybody who has an interest in that is invited, which should be the whole of humanity!! (laughs) The structure of the lectures is similar to last term again, I will talk and there will be an opportunity to ask questions, as usual. I will also, at the beginning, introduce the sessions with a little meditation practice. In fact, Im thinking that this time, because of the topic, the first session I will introduce with a practice where people will interact.

CS: There may be people who will read this interview on the website, but they will not be able to attend the lectures. Do you want to give some practical advice on how to start a meditation practice, or just one very practical piece of advice on starting a meditation practice.

ST: The first thing that I would recommend to anyone who wants to start a meditation practice is to find a good teacher. Its so essential because we are so complex, and the way our mind works and our body works and our attention when you do it on your own, youll be very likely to very quickly get into a snag. You dont even notice that youre in a snag; all you know is that the thought comes up, oh this isnt helpful, this isnt for me. And you move on (quit meditation). So find a good teacher, thats kind of fundamental. The second thing that Ive come to after many, many years of experience is I absolutely stress and begin with connecting with the body. Thats what I call the somatic practices, learning to pay attention to the body, which of course includes the breath because the breath occurs in the body. How to do that I cant explain. Thats more complex. But bring your attention into your body and explore the connection with the body. Thats just the absolute foundation. From there everything else arises and moves.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

More Blog Posts

Automaticity of the human mind

Human function, action, cognition and behavior under the lens of automaticity

...
Read more >
May 22, 2025

Every novice meditator must understand the mind’s inherent automaticity, forged over eons of evolution to secure survival. The brain, the most intricate structure in the known universe, gives rise to the mind, whose elaborate workings unfold as the most profound phenomenon we can encounter. This complexity reveals our vast potential for self-deception, emphasizing the urgent need to avoid harmful habits early in practice. Cultivating a precise and resilient technical foundation is vital for navigating the mind’s labyrinthine depths. Let us briefly explore the scope of this automaticity, a formidable force we confront as we seek to understand our lives.

Estimating the exact percentage of human action and functioning that is automatic and not conscious is tricky, as it depends on how we define "action," "functioning," and "conscious." However, research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that a significant portion of human behavior and physiological processes operates outside conscious awareness.

1.     Physiological Functions: Most bodily processes—like heart rate, breathing, digestion, and reflexes—are automatic and controlled by the autonomic nervous system. These account for the vast majority of "functioning" in terms of rawprocesses. If we consider all bodily functions (including cellular processes),conscious control might apply to less than 1% of total activity, as most biological operations are involuntary.

2.  Behavioral and Cognitive Actions: When it comes to behavior, decision-making, and cognition, studies suggest that a large portion is driven by automatic processes:

- Psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his work on System 1 (fast, automatic) and System 2 (slow, deliberate) thinking, suggeststhat System 1 dominates much of our daily behavior. Estimates vary, but someresearchers propose that 95% or more of cognitive processes (e.g., snapjudgments, habits, and intuitive reactions) are automatic.

- Studies on priming and implicit bias (e.g., by John Bargh) show that many decisions, from simple motor actions to complex social behaviors, are influenced by unconscious cues.

- Habitual behaviors, like driving a familiarroute or typing, often occur with minimal conscious input once learned.

3.     Conscious vs. Unconscious Balance: While no precise percentage is universally agreed upon, some neuroscientists estimate that 90–95% of brain activity is unconscious, based on the volume of neural processes handling sensory input, motor control, and background cognition. Conscious actions—like deliberateproblem-solving or focused attention—make up a smaller fraction, perhaps 5–10%of mental activity.

Rough General Estimate: If we combine physiologicaland behavioral aspects, roughly 90–95% of human "action and functioning" (broadly defined) is likely automatic and not conscious. Thisvaries by context—routine tasks lean more automatic, while novel or complex tasksrequire more conscious effort.

Copyright © 2025 by Dr. Stéphane Treyvaud. All rights reserved.

What is it like to be a fly?

An everyday journey from existential nihility to radiant emptiness.

...
Read more >
May 15, 2025

I am drawing upon an instance from my everyday life to illuminate for my students how mindfulness practice in general, and the Mindsight Intensive curriculum in particular—which traces the trajectory of human existence through being and nihility towards absolute nothingness and emptiness—invites us to expand awareness in a very practical way as real, lived reality.

A substantial aspect of this undertaking entails familiarizing oneself with the differences between the realities shaped by the left and right hemispheres of the brain—most notably, the profound insight that the right hemisphere directly presents and reveals reality, whereas the left merely re-presents it as a simplified map of what truly exists.

With this understanding, I explored two contrasting linguistic approaches to articulate the experience: the descriptive, technical language of the left brain, rooted in an 'objective' yet inherently limited perspective, and the imaginative, vivid, and richly contextual language of the right brain, grounded in an embodied, more open-ended viewpoint. The single quotation marks around 'objective' highlight a neurophysiological truth: the brain never perceives reality impartially. Instead, its perceptions are shaped by a drive for certainty, manifested through value judgments that prioritize survival.

My hope is that this exploration may deepen my students’ understanding of the intricate human journey toward wholeness.

1. Left brain perspective

For several consecutive early spring days, a single, distinctive fly appeared to relish the bright sunlight illuminating my bathroom. We have grown familiar, coexisting as two entities engaged in our respective routines. I designate her as "she"—perhaps influenced by the feminine grammatical gender of la mouche (French), la mosca (Italian), and die Fliege (German)—an intuitive attribution rather than a biological assertion. She occasionally positions herself on the curtain railing above my bathtub, observing as I shower. More frequently, she rests on the windowsill, tracking my movements as I shave, and at times briefly alights on my hair for a few seconds. I have been aware of her presence throughout, akin to an inquisitive cohabitant sharing this confined space, but today I intentionally sought a deeper engagement.

She was once again stationed on the windowsill, basking in the sunlight, as I shaved. I approached closely, examining her large, compound eyes, and posed the question, “What is it like to be a fly?” Initially, my cognition activated a predictable analytical response, retrieving stored knowledge about her physiology: a head encasing a compact brain; expansive, multifaceted eyes affording a broad visual field; antennae functioning as olfactory and gustatory sensors; specialized mouthparts adapted for sponging or piercing-sucking; a thorax anchoring six articulated legs, rapid wings, and club-shaped halteres for flight stabilization; and an abdomen housing digestive and reproductive systems, concealed from view. Her exoskeleton, black with muted grey striations, bore a subtle, fur-like texture, as though she had ornamented herself for this encounter—a sizable specimen, impossible to ignore.

Yet, I deliberately suspended this intellectual framework, opting instead to engage her in a silent, receptive state. My question became more personal and changed to “what is it like to be you”? I consciously down-regulated the default mode network—the neural substrate of self-referential thought—relinquishing the ego’s persistent drive to assert its permanence. This ego, in its dualistic framework, projects constructed identities onto the external ‘other’, rendering her so alien that I might, without reflection, swat her away, extinguishing a life deemed insignificant, irritating, or even repellent by that limited perspective.

In this shift, a different entity began to emerge within my awareness—not a mere object, but a presence actively relating to me, exhibiting a form of consciousness distinct yet perceptible. Her curiosity, perhaps reciprocal, prompted her to take flight and settle briefly on my hair. I remained immobile, registering the faint tactile sensation of her tentative exploration of my surface—an interaction probing my identity as much as I sought hers. The contact was transient; she soon returned to the windowsill, fixing her gaze upon me. I speculated that she might, in her own unknowable way, ponder a parallel question: “What is it like to be this massive, terrestrial organism, incapable of flight, beyond my capacity to name?” The perceived separation—me here, her there—dissolved into a unified ‘we’, marked by a tangible exchange of vitality through our shared, living awareness. Though our modes of consciousness diverge, they intersect intimately, each of us enacting existence according to our inherent capacities. Together, we participated in a dynamic interplay, a microcosm of the universe’s unfolding, so affecting that tears briefly surfaced, reflecting regret for the countless instances of inattentiveness lost to automaticity.

This encounter with such a remarkable organism illuminated a progression of awareness. Initially, I had navigated the ‘dark night of the soul’—a dualistic state of nihility, a relative nothingness characterized by existential desolation and the collapse of meaning within a self-other framework. Beyond this, I accessed a non-dual absolute nothingness, a broader mode of awareness where subject-object distinctions dissolve into a unified field of being, devoid of relational constructs. Yet, this was not the terminus; it opened into emptiness—the ultimate awareness mode, a boundless, vibrant expanse where the extraordinary manifests within the ordinary flux of daily existence. This state, achieved through direct presence with this fly, surpasses any chemically induced psychedelic experience in its clarity and depth, revealing a profound interconnectedness inherent in the fabric of life, the extraordinariness of ordinary existence. No answer could ever come close to the tantalizing peace of timeless questions.

2. Right brain vantage point

For several radiant spring mornings, a singular, remarkable fly has basked in the golden sunlight flooding my bathroom. We have become familiar companions, each merrily tending to our daily rites. At times, she—yes, she, anointed feminine by the lilting echoes of la mouche, la mosca, die Fliege, a soft intuition humming through language—perches atop the curtain railing above my bathtub, a silent witness to my shower’s misty veil. More often, she lingers on the windowsill, her gaze fixed upon me as I shave, now and then darting to alight for a fleeting instant upon my hair. I’ve felt her presence all along—a curious housemate in this shared sanctuary—but today, I vowed to bridge the chasm between us.

There she rested once more, cradled in the sun’s warm embrace upon the windowsill, watching me wield my razor with quiet intent. I leaned closer, peering into her vast, prismatic eyes—kaleidoscopes of a secret world—and murmured, “What is it like to be a fly?” At first, my mind thrummed with the familiar pulse of knowledge: her head, a miniature cathedral of instinct; those grand, jeweled eyes unveiling a boundless vista; antennae, fragile wands of scent and savor; mouthparts sculpted for sipping or piercing; her thorax, a delicate frame bearing six crooked legs, wings that shimmer with thunderous speed, and halteres, poised like a dancer’s plumb line; her abdomen, a veiled chamber of life’s mysteries. She gleamed, black as night with faint grey stripes, her form cloaked in a gossamer sheen, as though she’d adorned herself for this tender rendezvous.

This time, like as many other times as I can possibly honour in daily life, I let this torrent of facts dissolve, beckoning her to meet me in the hush of silence. The question changed to become more personal: “What is it like to be you?” I stilled the restless clamor of my mind, loosening the ego’s tenacious hold—that brittle self, desperate to cling to its mirage of eternity, casting endless conceptual shadows upon the being before me. So remote she might appear, I could, in a careless flicker, swat her away, deeming her life a trifling annoyance, a speck of disdain. But no—a different essence began to bloom within my consciousness.

A presence unfurled, no longer separate but alive with me, awake in her own cryptic grace, her curiosity a mirror to my own. Suddenly, she soared, settling upon my hair. I stood statue-still, captivated by the faint tickle of her pilgrimage across my scalp, a gentle quest into the enigma of my existence. The moment was ephemeral; she soon returned to her sun-gilded throne, gazing back at me. Perhaps she mused, too: “What is it like to be this lumbering, wingless colossus, a riddle beyond my silent tongue?” The gulf between us—me here, her there—dissolved into a luminous we, tethered by a pulsing filament of shared aliveness. Our ways of knowing diverged, yet entwined, each of us threading life’s arc with singular devotion. Together, we spun a strand in the vast loom of the cosmos, a dance so piercing that tears brimmed in my eyes, lamenting a lifetime’s moments lost to the fog of unawareness.

In that tranquil void, beside this astonishing fly, I brushed against an abyss beyond sorrow—a stillness forged in the crucible of the soul’s dark night, rising into the infinite embrace of nothingness. From there, it was but a tender plunge into the world’s embrace, a surrender that let peaceful nothingness blossom into vibrant emptiness—a radiant field teeming with the miraculous veiled in the everyday. This quiet epiphany, outshining the wildest psychedelic odyssey imaginable, unveiled life’s timeless poetry: unspoken, extraordinary, woven into the ordinary cadence of days. The nameless question remains.

Copyright © 2025 by Dr. Stéphane Treyvaud. All rights reserved.

Searching Everywhere But Where It Counts

Forgetting that we have a mind.

...
Read more >
October 12, 2024

Before you worry about symptoms such as depression and anxiety and how to improve or get rid of them, before you get your blood boiling arguing with people who can't deal with anything beyond their own viewpoint, before you develop and become ensconced in your own opinions, before you vilify who disagrees with you, before you shake your head wondering how seemingly obvious facts cannot be agreed upon, before you assume you have no blind spots, before you despair that crowds never learn from history, before you become bitter at humanity's collective stupidity, before you get passionate about religion, mythology, and archetypes, before all that, wouldn't it make sense to inquire into the source of all of it - these symptoms, views, opinions, thoughts, actions, distortions and, frankly, miseries?

While it does not take rocket science to realize that the source of it all is the embodied human mind, for most, embarking on its exploration is at best a big challenge, at worst insurmountable, non-sensical or incomprehensible. How many times have you heard nonsense like “I don’t believe in psychology”, as if the existence of the moon were a matter of belief? How often do patients enter their physician’s office complaining of being anxious or depressed, and are sent home with a prescription without one question that would try to understand how their mind creates such suffering? Many people, including professionals who should know better, live and act as if they had no mind.

The mind is the source of all subjective phenomena and experiences, and we are astoundingly unaware of it. Our mind’s task is to ensure survival and the propagation of our species, not to ensure we live our best life. To this end, it needs to be efficient, rather than concerned about maximizing its potential. Efficiency results by pairing down information processing to the bare minimum. Embedded in the way mind functions are mechanisms that cause reality distortions, delusions, wild beliefs, and a profound obliviousness of one’s own ignorance. Whether we like it or not, our mind drives our lives like our heart pumps blood through our veins. The universe's natural processes have caused us to evolve that way, and for better or worse, we are stuck with a mind that functions sub-optimally as it creates profound reality distortions that seem at first blush to have successfully allowed us to multiply and propagate towards earth dominance. In the long run, however, it turns out that humanity may end up stampeding dangerously close to extinction. To thrive both individually and as a species we must come to terms with our rather dangerous mind and train ourselves to use it beyond its basic survival mode by accessing its inherent potential evolution has graciously also built into it. That takes work, training, effort and patience.

Our human mind provides the capacity for reflection. The mirror reflects what’s in front of it, meaning that as reality beams itself onto the mirror’s surface, the mirror beams it back to us as an image we can then examine from the outside. Notice how what gets examined by looking at the mirror is not reality itself, but an image of it. Our brain provides a similar process in the form of consciousness, whereby it maps reality in a virtual form we then can observe and manipulate. However, while the mirror reflects reality exactly as it is, the virtual reality consciousness creates is not only a map of reality, but that map is modified into a new creation. The brain as mapper functions as our central relationship organ that enables us to reflexively develop a relationship to reality and ourselves by having access to a virtual, mapped and modified reality we can ponder and manipulate. This is how we are self-aware.

As an aside, the mind is more than the creator of a virtual adaptation of reality we can reflexively relate to and have a relationship with. It can transcend self-awareness, and knowingly experience reality and awareness without the detour of mapped mirroring duality. That is the shift from observation to being, from knowing we exist in a universe to realizing we are the universe. More about that in another context.

The eye has a blind spot where the optic nerve enters the retina, but you don’t see it. You have the impression of enjoying a seamless field of vision without two black holes in the middle, even though the holes are there. The brain manages to fill in the missing information to make the field seem seamless. Extrapolate that to the whole brain to realize that to function effectively for everyday survival our brain adapts our field of consciousness in two ways: It fills what’s missing to provide a sense of continuity and simplifies available information to not overwhelm you. It hides blind spots from you to provide continuity and withholds information to ensure efficiency. Both these mechanisms distort reality to ensure survival, while simultaneously laying the foundations for ignorance and suffering.

We each have many blind spots, but the core blind spot affecting us all is the proclivity to live as if we had no mind. We use our minds without realizing the extent to which our experience of reality is created by our mind. Without our conscious knowledge our brain creates the reality we experience. We don’t notice that the reality we experience is our brain’s creation. We mistake our brain’s constructions for reality. This results in a dangerous situation, in which we ignore the fact that our experience is subjectively constructed. We mistakenly believe that what we see and experience is automatically true, and because it seems true it seems real, and because it seems real it cannot be changed. Our primordial blind spot towards the brain’s constructions robs us of freedom of choice, of the power of clear view, wise discernment, and respectfully compassionate mutual understanding.

Our mind’s constructions seem so real that we hold on to them for dear life and want to shove them down other people’s throats without exploring their veracity. We get strongly identified with what we believe we know, emotions take over, and the capacity to hear each other vanishes. Identification with mind processes is the single most destructive problem in the way humans use their minds. Emotions suffocate the mind’s spaciousness to freely consider, question, doubt and explore, and before we know it, we are in conflict. If we cannot agree on facts, emotions drive us to use force to impose our views instead of inquiring more deeply into the divergent realities, and if necessary, compromising to try to resolve complexities. Force can take the form of yelling and screaming at each other, or legal and physical action.

The reality our mind constructs and we can have a relationship with, is in fact threefold. We first have objective reality, which is what happens in the universe independent of whether we know about it or there is anyone around to witness it. This reality consists of energy flow that is independent of how our brains and minds construct reality, and therefore as far from information as energy flow can get. The black death virus killed thousands of people without them knowing what viruses are or being able to see them. Although this is the easiest reality to agree upon, like in the case of flat-earthers, emotions still manage to cause distortions of objective facts.

Subjective reality is our own private experience nobody else has access to. This energy flow is entirely within as a construction by our own brain and mind. Although it is largely independent of objective reality, it is profoundly shaped by interactions with others. Even if everyone denies that I am in pain, if I experience pain, it is totally real for me. That is a difficult reality to agree upon, because seeing it from the outside requires trust and our capacity for empathy.

Then there is intersubjective reality, which is the reality of stories. This energy flow is deeply symbolic in the sense that language and stories are symbolic, therefore experienced as information flow, and a mutual co-creation with others. It is the reality that emerges through mutual narrative construction and is neither objective, nor subjective. It only exists in the interpersonal realm containing people who are willing to participate in it by accepting the shared reality. One such reality is money, but there are many others such as all collective ideas we can share. Money means nothing and has no reality unless it is shared in the interpersonal space. This is also a difficult reality to deal with, because it depends on the mutual capacity to regulate the multilayered energy flow between our intuition, our emotions and our intellect. When that occurs, empathy and clear insight become possible, allowing a degree of harmony within the intersubjective dance of energy and information flow to emerge. Any dance couple may dance a Tango, but those in conflict will not be able to present a harmonious dance.

To manage these three realities we each have a relationship with, requires a good deal of self-awareness and emotional regulation many people don’t have. Much of the time, the mind remains transparent like air to our eyes, invisible or not known, yet profoundly determining how we relate to real reality and live our lives. Like children playing in a house on fire, we remain oblivious to the many ways our ignorance of mind causes suffering and destruction all around.      

Copyright © 2024 by Dr. Stéphane Treyvaud. All rights reserved.

Latest Blog

Novel ideas and information on what’s  coming straight to your inbox! Subscribe to my newsletter now.