Bill Plotkin - Discussion Thread

[mountainFrugal]

This is a highly interesting set of observations. The more we have explored Plotkin's exercises and described them in various threads on the forum, the more I realize how relevant they are to ERE. However, this is not the only "way" of course. It is a way... that has worked for people that are unrelated to ERE.

One of the major hurdles that Plotkin discusses is overcoming addictions of all kinds through taking these exercises seriously. This includes addictions ranging from chemical substances and modern day consumerism. These are directly in-line with ERE ideas.

Perhaps the more interesting part though, is learning to self learn and course correct by better understanding your own psychology. To really be able to take an outside view on a number of your impulses, decisions, and feelings and figure out might be causing those? This is relevant for the freedom-to portion of post FI. Having a strong understanding of who you are as a person and truly inhabiting that (also see self actualization) you will be less likely to go back to the work *grind*. This is not to say that you will not work. You will be much less likely to go back to the grind.

When doing the suggested Plotkin based exercises, one essentially gets into a mental state of being able to inhabit a different viewpoint (character) from within your own psyche. Plotkin's terminology for this is working with your Subs (see upthread for diagram from his website). By interacting with these characters and seeing their points of view, you become better able to spot when their point of view is dominating your behaviors. Much of Plotkins work is devoted to helping people see these different aspects of you (or characters) interact with one another and ultimately help guide your decisions and behaviors. You may have some dominate Subs that are left over from childhood or previous trauma, or addiction, or various other examples that is guiding your observed behavior. By using your creative imagination to "make characters" out of these different parts of your psyche, you are essentially taking an outside view. In the same way that you would do so for helping a friend see a blind spot, you can train yourself to better deal with your own internal jumble of impulses by naming them and observing them over time. This would help one to self-author their way out of a lot of situations and get things aligned with where they want to go beyond work. Again, work could be part of that, but it is not escaping from it.

More broadly, what @AE describes is also demonstrated elsewhere in a few other domains. It is something that humans are capable of regardless of culture. A few examples are trackers/hunters depicted in The Great Dance: A Hunters Story: http://www.isuma.tv/intezam/the-great-d ... ters-story posted by @theanimal. The hunters have a story of how the animal behaves from many hours of watching, observing, and listening to stories of animals from other hunters. When they are on the trail, they are fully "in the character" of the animal as they follow the signs to a successful hunt.

Another example that comes to mind is really good method actors that are able to convincingly (internally and therefore externally) inhabit the characters feelings, emotions, ideas, worldviews, and physical behaviors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_acting . This can have bad consequences if piled on top of their own internal struggles while simultaneously "becoming" a character that has mental health issues. The example that comes to mind is Heath Ledger while playing The Joker. He died soon after from a cocktail drug overdose dealing with various issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_Ledger .

[ertyu]

What is the function of fasting in plotkin? How does he use it

[mountainFrugal]

Plotkin suggests using fasting in a few different ways, but it is mainly to change your frame of reference. This is often done in a place outside as a way to further get you out of a normal context (i.e. city life). A few days of fasting while outside in a relatively safe, but wild place is a way to answer questions that you come with to the fast through the other techniques. Or another way to look at it, to ratchet up the tension by having first practiced not in those conditions and then fasting to make it more intense. Fasting in these contexts has been used by many cultures and practices across the world for help to shake the psyche out of its normal habits.

[AnalyticalEngine]

An interesting account of this, if you want to read it, is the book "I am Spock" by Leonard Nimoy. He goes over how writing/acting as Spock made the character come to life and then Spock would give him advice on his life. He writes:

The true creation of a being, a character other than one’s self, for me is comparable to a mystical or spiritual experience. To stand in another person’s shoes. To see as he sees, to hear as he hears. To know what he knows, and to do all this with a sense of control, a mastering of the dramatic moment, there must be more than a “natural talent” at work.

It's a pretty short and interesting read.

As for fasting, what the Plotkin exercises are doing, as @mF mentioned, are pulling you out of your default monkey brain perspective and shaking up the neurons in your brain so you can get unstuck from old patterns. If we go back to the paradigm in neuroscience where free will is an illusion and your neurons fire/make choices before conscious "you" is even aware of it, then "you" will never really be able to solve your problem simply by choosing something else. Instead, you need exposure to stimulus outside of that will shake up your brain so new paths can easily form and newer habits can form.

This is what fasting inside of a safe nature environment does. Fasting for days, much like sleep deprivation, can trigger dissociation, and the dissociation can be adaptive if it's dissociating you out of an old pattern and into a healthier one. Plus from personal experience, I can tell you that dissociative states of consciousness may have some therapeutic benefit because they erase "you," and being stuck inside of "you" can limit your perspectives and beliefs about yourself, others, and the world.

That being said, I don't think it's healthy to dive head first into this until you're ready, which is why Plotkin has you do the subpersonality thing before the "dark night of the soul" thing. It helps give you practice confronting your personal demons when your in a state of normal consciousness and gradually eases you into the usefulness of altered states before you jump head first into something extreme like fasting and have a "bad trip."

[ertyu]

Didn't know the Spock book existed, that sounds very interesting

His use of fasting is interesting to me because many other meditation people warn not to fast while on retreat (which is essentially what he proposes, setting up a retreat for yourself) bc it increases the chance of getting a psychotic break and other such

[mountainFrugal]

His use of fasting is interesting to me because many other meditation people warn not to fast while on retreat (which is essentially what he proposes, setting up a retreat for yourself) bc it increases the chance of getting a psychotic break and other such

Apologies if my broad brush stroke descriptions using as little jargon as possible are painting a different picture, but Plotkin is well aware having spent his time in academia while also a practicing clinical psychologist for many years prior to developing these wilderness based methods.

The details of fasting, which are discussed in many places within his books, are usually preempted by something like this (edited out middle section for clarity):

"If you’re in the Cocoon stage or later, a wilderness-based vision fast is perhaps the single most effective method for evoking a soul encounter, especially if your vision fast is guided by others who have extensive experience designing and enacting this ceremony as a Descent to Soul (a relatively rare approach). Having written at some length in Soulcraft about my perspective on and approach to vision fasts... I believe it would be best (deeper and more effective, and also safer, both physically and psychospiritually) if you were guided by people with a long track record with this ceremony.

Plotkin, Bill. The Journey of Soul Initiation (p. 197)."

[AnalyticalEngine]

My apologies because I am sure this has been posted before, but what order do you guys recommend reading Plotkin's books in?

[mountainFrugal]

I think Wildmind has the best descriptions of the different aspects of the Ego (N, S, E, W), the sub personalities, and exercises on how to develop/understand all of them.

[ertyu]

I had the weirdest experience with plotkin -- putting this out there as a data point:

I started reading Wildmind, and I felt a deep, instinctive urge to withdraw. It was almost like he was trying to introduce fragmentation and divisions where there was none; my intuition was almost that if I continued with this, I would be doing damage to my soul (trying to put into words something that was mostly an intuitive-knowing thing; soul here stands for the essence of who I am).

On a libtard level, I also didn't like it. Very suspicious, the qualities he has chosen to associate with east, west, north, south, etc. It's clear his system is an analytical framework designed to be superseded, to make itself obsolete in the process of its application. But I didn't fancy "rutting in" my prejudices and schema even harder than they've been rutted in already. I also didn't like Nature and The Wild, it seemed to me like he was in the business of making conceptual constructions rather than in the business of authentic deepening.

I decided to give him another chance and found a youtube video of some talk or another. Also a very weird experience: it felt like he was sucking in my life-energy, draining me. Yeah I know, weird. The only other person that comes close to giving me this feeling is my mother when she prays.

This thread rolled around again which reminded me -- I figured I'd share, again, to provide a data point. To me, his system seemed as unnecessary superstructure that inserts itself between the self and direct knowing and does damage as it does so. I am aware others find it useful and have reached worthwhile conclusions with Plotkin's system as a useful guide. If it works, it works, I'm not here to argue with "it works." maybe im just not at the right place for it to meet me, if that makes any sense. I am after all less ecologically minded than others on the forum. So what I'm saying shouldn't be taken as a universal condemnation or an objective argument about Plotkin or whatever, it's just a data point provided for curiosity's sake and also, to provide reassurance to anyone else who tries him and ends up feeling like me.

[mountainFrugal]

I had the weirdest experience with plotkin -- putting this out there as a data point:

Interestingly, I had a very similar experience when I read Plotkin the first time over a decade ago (Soulcraft). For some reason these more recent reads resonated with me more, especially after working through some of the exercises and giving them a serious go. I am at a very different place in my life though compared to back then. I do not think he is for everyone, but do think that he has lead people into deeper understandings of who they are so could be a starting place. If you are feeling repulsed, then you should obviously avoid. Thanks for sharing your data point(s)!

[ertyu]

Yeah, seems like Plotkin's work needs to meet one at the right place and that I am not at that place right now for one reason or another. I do respect the fact that many forumites have found his thinking useful.

[OutOfTheBlue]

I had the weirdest experience with plotkin -- putting this out there as a data point:

Thanks for sharing, Ertyu. This does sound like a very strong, almost allergic reaction.

Maybe a Sub sensed an existential danger and stepped in to bring you back to safety. There's a war out there! (hey, I'm half-joking )

Which reminds me of an episode I'd like to submit as well. This summer, back in Greece, I was well into my initial readings of Plotkin's books, and so engrossed/enthralled that I wanted to share this with anyone who cared to listen. My friends, basically. Well, turns out not everyone was too receptive, or maybe I just did a poor job getting the message across. Because I saw a big red warning sign and heard the alarm bells go off when one of my friends, after dutifully listening to yet another attempt at presenting Plotkin's thought, turned to me and asked: "Does this have any scientific basis?"

Slam! Okay, this is not for everyone. What do you even respond to that? (Actually, this is a real question). Is scientific knowledge the only lens through which to experience ourselves and the world? Better be extra careful when sharing this going forward…

Ending with two quotes from a favorite little book, "Poteaux d'angle" by Henri Michaux (translations are edited machine translation, could not find this in English).

Un scientifique sera toujours plus sûr de ses sentiments, lorsqu’ils sont d’un type communément partagé par les lombrics, les ichneumons et les rats. Toi, n’attends pas ces permissions-là. Fais fond sur ce que tu ressens, quand même tu serais seul à le sentir. Les élargissements viendront assez tôt et aussi bien les réductions.

A scientist will always be more secure in his feelings when they are of a type commonly shared by earthworms, ichneumons and rats. Don't wait for such permission. Go with what you feel, even if you are the only one who feels it. Expansions will come soon enough and so will reductions.

La couleuvre qui s’enroule autour d’une souris, ce n’est pas pour jouer. C’est, après l’ingestion qui suivra, pour répondre à la demande de son organisme en graisses, protides, sels minéraux assimilables, etc. Sans doute, sans doute. Mais sûrement la réponse que se donne à elle-même la couleuvre est plus belle, plus émouvante, plus digne, plus excitante, plus cérémonielle, plus sacrée peut-être, et assurément plus « couleuvre ».

The snake that wraps itself around a mouse is not playing. It is, after the ingestion that will follow, to meet its body's demand for fats, proteins, mineral salts, etc. No doubt, no doubt. But surely the response that the snake gives itself is more beautiful, more moving, more dignified, more exciting, more ceremonial, more sacred perhaps, and certainly more 'snakey'.

My apologies because I am sure this has been posted before, but what order do you guys recommend reading Plotkin's books in?

Agreed with mountainFrugal. Probably Wild Mind (as the work that is most directed and useful to "everyone"), then Nature and the Human Soul, followed by The Journey of Soul Initiation, leaving the first book, Soulcraft, last, as much of its content is found in the other books, but it does present some advanced practices in more detail.

In the end, it does not matter too much, though. Especially if you're gonna read them all! One can just go through them in chronological order. Personally, I started with Nature and the Human Soul and found this a great entry point, but listened to it as an audiobook the first time around, and it still represents 25 hours of audio vs 9-10 hours for Wild Mind, which unfortunately is read in a soulless manner that does not make it justice).

Or just share the books presentation page and let the reader decide for themselves: https://www.animas.org/books

Finally, Journey of Soul Initiation features an Introduction (The Descent to Soul) which can be read along with the two next two chapters (Phase One: Preparation for the Descent) that makes for a very good overview of the terrain and necessary preliminary work towards the Descent to Soul and becoming an initiated adult.

[ertyu]

"Does this have any scientific basis?"

Imo it doesn't need to have a scientific basis to be useful. As far as I remember gestalt therapy is a modality that also works with subpersonalities, and it's a standard approach in therapy to assign a subpersonality to eg. your ADHD side, or your eating disorder side, etc. Rational recovery, which for those unfamiliar is a virulently anti-AA method for quitting alcohol, postulates a malignant, malevolent but paraplegic subpersonality which only cares about alcohol and doesn't care if it murders you in the process -- too bad it's paraplegic and can't move anywhere unless you let it. In this way, your addictive thoughts can be assigned to the pathetic paraplegic and externalized as not-you. And so on.

So, in and of itself, many modalities of many types postulate various kinds of subs not bc they're scientifically there but bc working with them is useful

[AnalyticalEngine]

Plotkin is an extension of Jung at his core and his cardinal directions/subpersonalities are basically just Jungian archetypes laid out in another way. Jungian analysis is very NF-heavy, as is Plotkin, so it's understandably off putting in some contexts or if one has had bad experiences with "spiritual bypass" type people in the past.

I can handle Plotkin because he makes no claim to science, but I have read some psych books that have induced the same allergic reaction in me. Most notably, "Symphony of Selves" is a pop psych book that tries to do the subpersonality thing but left me very annoyed because it kept acting like everyone had "multiple selves" but like literally, not just metaphorically. When you start actually trying to define these things, it falls apart quickly. Like seriously, what even is "the self" if we are taking a strictly scientific angle? From that perspective, the brain is only cobbling together your experience on a moment-to-moment basis, which is why "you" can act completely differently in different contexts. It's less "I contain multitudes" and more that "the self is an illusion" if we are talking strictly science.

I notice that psych books that are written by heavy NF-dominated individuals tend toward this angle of "my experience is too special to be able to explain by science" that sends T-types like myself into a seizure. I was more tolerant of Plotkin since I could tell he at least did his research and I did find his techniques very useful. Plotkin's work was a big reason I was able to move past my decades of depression, so I owe him a lot of credit. He helped me start to objectify how I was feeling so I could look at it from a more impartial angle and notice issues that were derailing my life. Also the "bicameral meditation subpersonality" thing I mentioned in the meditation thread is legitimately an extremely interesting subjective experience/state of altered consciousness.

However, one reason I want to get into Plotkin again is I'm starting to suspect my "science triggered" reaction is itself a "subpersonality" that is limiting my happiness. These reactions/subpersonalities start to become like the layers of an onion once you start to notice them.

[daylen]

Science pushes the self as far as it can into the "corner"(*) as a high-dimensional, "random" noise generator that is a "black box". As order is more apparent relative to a back/fore ground of high-entropy, chaotic "nothingness".

(*) or into the "core" of the scientific lens as a vanishingly small point limit.

Spirituality pulls the self as far as it can away from the "corner"/"core" of low-entropy, ordered point pairs (i.e. line-like thinking).

Combined, the "equations" of self and not self come full circle:

classical self = classical not self
classical self = quantum not self
quantum self = quantum not self
quantum self = classical not self

Sorry to physicists for the abuse.

[mountainFrugal]

Plotkin is an extension of Jung at his core and his cardinal directions/subpersonalities are basically just Jungian archetypes laid out in another way. Jungian analysis is very NF-heavy, as is Plotkin, so it's understandably off putting in some contexts or if one has had bad experiences with "spiritual bypass" type people in the past.

Another way of looking at it that @AE and I have discussed at some point during the dark-netting phase of our MMG is to think about it like writing fictional characters that interact with one another. The difference is that you are assigning characteristics to these characters based on thought patterns and subsequent behaviors that play out in your own life (and mind). Observing these patterns over time you can develop them into characters. This allows you to take a third party view of things, or outside view. This is similar to being better able to help a friend because you are better able to see their blind spots. You become more attuned for when these characters are taking over your thought patterns and leading to behaviors. It is just a mental tool. No science necessary. The rituals and other exercises Plotkin suggests are just ways to formalize a way for these different characters to interact. In the same way that you might be more open to ideas or act differently when you are on vacation somewhere, doing these exercises in nature acts as an environmental context switch for all these characters to interact outside of their (your!) normal environments. So instead of "lets have a thanksgiving dinner inside a small space where we bring all of our familiar baggage and try to work out our differences" it becomes... "wow we are all outside for a picnic, lets be more open to listening to one another". One can even make up their own rituals or methods if they do not like all this nature based stuff.

[jacob]

Another way of looking at it that @AE and I have discussed at some point during the dark-netting phase of our MMG is to think about it like writing fictional characters that interact with one another.

Would it stand to reason/argument that this is not just fiction but actually how the mind gets constructed.

Parents, friends, society, culture, ... tells the developing ego what to do, what to think, and what to say. When the developing ego hits the operational stage, which for most humans happen around 10-12, these voices become the internal dialogue/debate that most people carry around in their head that age for the rest of their life. The voices are eventually adopted as seen as the part of the ego rather than a conglomerate of the interpersonal "accumulated admonishment" that the person has heard. The conversations one has had become the data sources of the chatGTP that is the ego and unless that ego has looked into the source material, they do not know why they're saying or reacting in a certain way because they identify the source as themselves.

Subpersonalities make this explicit: This is my "father" subpersonality. This is my "science teacher" subpersonality. "I am the totality of the multiple talking heads in my head." Psychological problems obtain if these subpersonalities disagree with each other or with reality. (Maybe the parent subpersonality said some dumb things that the science subpersonality disagrees with resulting in an internal conflict.)

I think the reason why strong INTJs don't find this exercise useful is that the INTJ brain (or at least this INTJ brain) is constructed differently. For example, during my operational stage, which I consider over, I did not talk to a lot of people (I grew up in the BFE) or rather there weren't a lot of people who talked to me. I did read a lot of non-fiction books but I didn't associate the information->knowledge with the author. Instead ideas were placed in context in an ever developing system based on logical consistency and this in turn become MY ego. If ideas didn't fit the framework of the existing system, they would be put aside, but if they did, they would be added, eventually creating more and more intuitive perspectives of the same system. In modern parlance, that system would be a hyperobject (because many perspectives) with a good 1-1 with objective reality (because nonfiction source construction). In MBTI parlance, this is the Ni. It does not have subpersonalities as the source material and they are not organized as an internal dialogue but rather entirely self-consistent.

My personal chatGTP or Te is essentially just trying to translate this hyperobject into the rather limited format we call "speech" or conversation. If I don't need to talk or write, I do not have an inner voice. This is not how Ni is resolved. It mostly went away when I was in my early twenties. It only activates when I'm preparing to have a conversation, like a podcast. As I'm writing this, I'm just channeling the Ni.

As such the whole subpersonality thing is borderline useless to me. However, I can insert a layer to communicate. Since my self-understanding is based on stack functions and the combination of stack functions have names, like mastermind, inspector, champion, ... I can translate what's really going on into the subpersonality framework even if that is not what's going on under the hood.

[AnalyticalEngine]

Would it stand to reason/argument that this is not just fiction but actually how the mind gets constructed.

Parents, friends, society, culture, ... tells the developing ego what to do, what to think, and what to say. When the developing ego hits the operational stage, which for most humans happen around 10-12, these voices become the internal dialogue/debate that most people carry around in their head that age for the rest of their life. The voices are eventually adopted as seen as the part of the ego rather than a conglomerate of the interpersonal "accumulated admonishment" that the person has heard. The conversations one has had become the data sources of the chatGTP that is the ego and unless that ego has looked into the source material, they do not know why they're saying or reacting in a certain way because they identify the source as themselves.

In the psychology literature, this is called an "introject." An introject is when the mind takes something from the outside world and internalizes it as an internal dynamic. There is actually quite a lot of truth to the notion that your behavior is simply driven by an aggregate of external forces. This makes more sense if you disregard free will and think of the self as empty, then all you are is a bunch of external forces the brain learned from and proceeds to repeat mindlessly in perpetuity.

One of the reasons Plotkin has you mix fasting and social isolation is that both of these things will make the internal voices "louder," sort of like how some drugs (like marijuana) can do this too. Because most people are under the illusion that they exist as a ""one person"" instead of as an aggregate of forces, having these experiences with altered states of consciousness can kick you out of a rut you may be stuck in or help dispel normative illusions.

If you get REALLY good at this, you can actually notice when you "switch" subpersonalities so that one becomes the dominant force in the drivers seat, so to speak. It's a lot easier to notice when it happens if you are under conditions of sensory/social deprivation because your internal experience is a lot more vivid. It feels somewhat like an actual break in consciousness between Subpersonality A and Subpersonality B.

After doing this for about two years, what I've noticed is that my daily life is not driven "by me," it's more like I have a pilot and a copilot operating on a 70/30 split. The pilot (who you could say is the dominant subpersonality writing this post right now) is INTP and the copilot (who is often frustrated the pilot is driving off the rails continually) is ESTJ. Because of the INTP/ESTJ split, I score as an INTJ on the tests.

The Plotkin stuff has helped get the pilot and copilot to play nice together, which personally got me unstuck from various issues in my life. Now if the implication of this is just that I found a useful metaphor or if this is "actually how the brain works" is probably impossible to definitively say from one anecdote.

[7Wannabe5]

As somebody who has spent a good deal of time in the company of very small children, I rather strongly disagree with the "nurture" theory of installing "voices" or "sub-personalities." I think "nurture" often does contribute to how sub-personalities are expressed, repressed, or manifested. But, for better or worse, a great deal of your personality/temperament is apparent to thoughtful others from the get-go. For instance, the baby who is inclined to wiggle off your lap will always have a wiggly aspect of their personality The baby who butts their head against your breast to get more milk will always have a head-butting aspect of their personality. The baby who sings herself to sleep in her crib will always have that sweet aspect of personality. Etc. etc. etc. Identical twins separated at birth studies are not without significant flaws, but I think what evidence there is would back me up on this.

[OutOfTheBlue]

Okay, here are some more thoughts on these matters.

In Wild Mind, Plotkin makes it clear that "Self and subpersonalities are not entities or little people inside people. A better way to think of them is as different versions of ourselves that we experience and enact at different times."

It may seem that Plotkin is "introducing fragmentation and divisions", but in my mind, he does just the opposite.

He highlights that people (by default) experience the world and behave by way of their psyche’s immature, fragmented or wounded parts (Subs), which deprives them from having access to the full range of their innate resources.

In contrast, one can learn to be conscious and act from the perspective of any of the four aspects of the psyche (Self, Soul, Spirit or subpersonalities).

His is not a model of fragmentation, but one of wholeness and integration.

This is why he puts such an accent on Wholing (cultivating or reclaiming essential human capacities/the four facets of the Self) and Self-healing.

As he writes: "In my view, these are the two foremost criteria for an adequate psychological assessment model:
•   It must help us understand the specific restrictions and strengths in a person’s psychological repertoire — in his capacity to embody wholeness and to be in healthy relationships with other persons, society, and the natural environment.
•  It must help us understand what to do to expand that capacity, to cultivate wholeness."

On this basis, he criticizes the most commonly employed assessment system (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM) as failing in both of these criteria.

In fact, at some level, his books and especially Wild Mind can be seen as a sharp critique of most Western psychology (and culture).

Carl Jung is one of the few that escape his critique, although he differentiate himself in some ways and points out limitations in Jungian analysis. In The Journey of Soul Initiation, he maps Jung's own Decent to Soul episodes via an original analysis and reading of Jung's Red Book, which was only published in 2009. Plotkin's model is wide-reaching and encompassing, and you see it in how it is able to follow and explain what Jung himself was discovering and going through.

In his view, the lack of Soul-initiated adults makes it much harder to find help for someone attempting to make the hazardous adulting journey. That book is probably the closest to a non physical guide one can have. At times, it feels as if he describes a real physical canyon and its features in such vivid detail (and with the help of real stories), It's incredible.

Which brings me to another point. Most of Wild Mind and to some extend Nature and the Human Soul can be beneficial to anyone (although the initial or general reaction may vary, and it may not speak or appeal to some at all), but the advanced work and practices are not there to help with psychotherapy or healing.

In his words: "The goal is not healing but something nearly opposite and often counter-therapeutic: the intentional destabilization of the Ego, which supports the encounter with the worldview­ shifting mysteries of nature and psyche."

So while Bill Plotkin's books can be used for some extraordinary inner work and connecting, at a deeper level, they invite to embark on a wild, hazardous and demanding, but deeply rewarding and fulfilling journey that goes beyond personal growth and development.

Beyond here be dragons.

PS: Access to his four books and three audiobooks is possible through a 30-day free trial on Scribd (just remember to cancel the subscription).