Thank you for this piece! It's causing me to think about it!
There are certainly different tempos for our various "brains," or modes of perception. I appreciate how you distinguish the visual from the somatic.
My question enters with the thoughts of what's possible to change? Where to act from?
How you write the piece gives the impression that the visual, "first image," of something is not the "right" impression to take, but that a person should exercise patience and receive the somatic impression as well, which would be "right." How much slower does the second impression take? Is it really that it's slower, or just that my cultural education has conditioned me not to notice it?
If I am in a more aware state, can I acknowledge the possibility that's "seen" visually and also the hesitancy at the somatic level and not go in to either as the sole truth, but rather simply two modes of perception that can be taken in together?
Thank you for this. You're reading with your whole system, not just your eyes. I can feel it.
And you caught something important: the piece isn't saying "visual bad, somatic good." The visual isn't wrong. It's fast. It registers possibility, attraction, narrative, what we want. The somatic isn't morally superior. It's relational. It registers what it costs to actually live inside that want over time.
So the distinction is function, not truth vs. falsehood.
Your question about time is the one most people miss. The somatic signal often feels slower not because it inherently is, but because we were never taught to catch it early. We're culturally trained to privilege speed, clarity, visual coherence. So we override bodily information until it shows up as a symptom we can't ignore anymore. The body was speaking the whole time. We just weren't educated to listen until it started screaming.
And yes. What you're describing as "the more aware state" is exactly the point.
Maturity here isn't choosing one perception over the other. It's holding both without collapsing into either. The problem isn't seeing the image. The problem is deciding from it alone. The problem isn't feeling hesitation in the body. The problem is interpreting that hesitation as fear to be overcome rather than data to be read.
So the work isn't patience in the passive-waiting sense. It's integration. Let the image speak. Let the body respond. Let action arise from the relationship between the two.
That's where discernment actually lives. Not in speed. Not in delay. In coherence. 💎
Thank you for this! I knew I had gotten some things wrong but I wasn't sure why I fell into the trap. You explained that I was starving and I identified with that. It helps me be kinder and less judgmental towards myself, which is a good thing anyway, because judging myself doesn't make me feel any better or help me make better choices. I just got your book and I'm enjoying it so far. Kudos to you.
"Starving" reframes everything, doesn't it? Suddenly you're not stupid, you're not broken, you're not someone who "should have known better." You're someone who reached for what looked like food because you were hungry.
And the part about self-judgment not helping you make better choices — that's the whole thing right there. Shame never made anyone wiser. It just made them smaller.
Thank you for reading. Thank you for letting the book land. And thank you for being kinder to the version of you who was just trying to survive. She deserved it then. You deserve it now. 💎
The body doesn't lie the way the mouth does. That's the whole point of reading from tissue instead of presentation. Your gut already knows who's pretending. Trust the read. 💎
Heraclitus and Terence in one comment. My nervous system just sat up straighter.
"Veritas odium parit"…truth breeds hatred. Yes. Especially the truth that arrives through the body, the one that bypasses the con artist's script entirely.
The nose knows what the ears can be talked out of. Smell is the oldest sense. It doesn't negotiate.
But here's where I'd gently push back: "virtually no one's word can be trusted" is a conclusion the nervous system reaches after too many betrayals. It's accurate as data. It's dangerous as policy.
Because the work isn't learning to trust no one. The work is learning to trust the body's read faster, before the ears have been charmed, before the eyes have been staged for.
Con artists don't fool the tissue. They fool the mind that overrides it.
So yes, sniff. But also: feel. The body has data the senses can't always catch. And sometimes the foul smell isn't in the room, it's in the gap between what someone says and how your chest responds.
Thank you for bringing the ancients into this. They knew. 💎
Thank you for this piece! It's causing me to think about it!
There are certainly different tempos for our various "brains," or modes of perception. I appreciate how you distinguish the visual from the somatic.
My question enters with the thoughts of what's possible to change? Where to act from?
How you write the piece gives the impression that the visual, "first image," of something is not the "right" impression to take, but that a person should exercise patience and receive the somatic impression as well, which would be "right." How much slower does the second impression take? Is it really that it's slower, or just that my cultural education has conditioned me not to notice it?
If I am in a more aware state, can I acknowledge the possibility that's "seen" visually and also the hesitancy at the somatic level and not go in to either as the sole truth, but rather simply two modes of perception that can be taken in together?
Thank you for this. You're reading with your whole system, not just your eyes. I can feel it.
And you caught something important: the piece isn't saying "visual bad, somatic good." The visual isn't wrong. It's fast. It registers possibility, attraction, narrative, what we want. The somatic isn't morally superior. It's relational. It registers what it costs to actually live inside that want over time.
So the distinction is function, not truth vs. falsehood.
Your question about time is the one most people miss. The somatic signal often feels slower not because it inherently is, but because we were never taught to catch it early. We're culturally trained to privilege speed, clarity, visual coherence. So we override bodily information until it shows up as a symptom we can't ignore anymore. The body was speaking the whole time. We just weren't educated to listen until it started screaming.
And yes. What you're describing as "the more aware state" is exactly the point.
Maturity here isn't choosing one perception over the other. It's holding both without collapsing into either. The problem isn't seeing the image. The problem is deciding from it alone. The problem isn't feeling hesitation in the body. The problem is interpreting that hesitation as fear to be overcome rather than data to be read.
So the work isn't patience in the passive-waiting sense. It's integration. Let the image speak. Let the body respond. Let action arise from the relationship between the two.
That's where discernment actually lives. Not in speed. Not in delay. In coherence. 💎
❤️
Thank you for this! I knew I had gotten some things wrong but I wasn't sure why I fell into the trap. You explained that I was starving and I identified with that. It helps me be kinder and less judgmental towards myself, which is a good thing anyway, because judging myself doesn't make me feel any better or help me make better choices. I just got your book and I'm enjoying it so far. Kudos to you.
"Starving" reframes everything, doesn't it? Suddenly you're not stupid, you're not broken, you're not someone who "should have known better." You're someone who reached for what looked like food because you were hungry.
And the part about self-judgment not helping you make better choices — that's the whole thing right there. Shame never made anyone wiser. It just made them smaller.
Thank you for reading. Thank you for letting the book land. And thank you for being kinder to the version of you who was just trying to survive. She deserved it then. You deserve it now. 💎
💎🙏🏼
The body doesn't lie the way the mouth does. That's the whole point of reading from tissue instead of presentation. Your gut already knows who's pretending. Trust the read. 💎
Heraclitus and Terence in one comment. My nervous system just sat up straighter.
"Veritas odium parit"…truth breeds hatred. Yes. Especially the truth that arrives through the body, the one that bypasses the con artist's script entirely.
The nose knows what the ears can be talked out of. Smell is the oldest sense. It doesn't negotiate.
But here's where I'd gently push back: "virtually no one's word can be trusted" is a conclusion the nervous system reaches after too many betrayals. It's accurate as data. It's dangerous as policy.
Because the work isn't learning to trust no one. The work is learning to trust the body's read faster, before the ears have been charmed, before the eyes have been staged for.
Con artists don't fool the tissue. They fool the mind that overrides it.
So yes, sniff. But also: feel. The body has data the senses can't always catch. And sometimes the foul smell isn't in the room, it's in the gap between what someone says and how your chest responds.
Thank you for bringing the ancients into this. They knew. 💎
This is so true Dea. I have seen this in my own life. Seeing through the matrix - can't be unseen.
Can't unsee is the whole initiation. Your nervous system upgraded. No refunds, no regrets. Glad you're in it. 🔥
This essay has floored me with how insightful it is. It's so on point. Excellent writing.
This made my day. Thank you for reading it the way it was meant to land. 💎
I just got your book in the mail, Mechanics of Mystic
SHE'S HOME! Your nervous system just got 600 pages of backup. Let me know what lands first. 💎