The second one, where I'm just describing what's happening without using the "I" word seems truer, more accurate, cleaner in a way.At the end of the twenty minutes compare the two ways in which the experience was labelled and answer the following four questions:
1. Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?
The same things are here and happening without the labels. What is different is how the events are experienced. Without the "I" label, what happens is just happening with less or no interpretation, without being concerned about how the events inmpact the "I". There was a slight sense of relaxation in the head while writing the second time.2. What is here without labels?
It seemed that labelling everything in terms of what I experienced did affect the experience - the mind felt a bit tighter. It was also interesting to notice that nothing much different was happening during both writing sessions, mostly the same experiences, same perceptions, but not applying ownership to the experiences felt lighter, freer. Adding the "I" was really not necessary.3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?
I noticed towards the end of the second writing session that there was a lot of body shaking which is how my body releases energy. That didn't happen as much during the first writing session. Also, as I mentioned above, my mind felt a bit more relaxed without writing in terms of an "I".4. Did you notice any differences in the body?
Thank you, Warissem, for another very interesting and revealing exercise. I think I will try to do this periodically, perhaps not writing, but noticing labelling with and without the "I". I also saw that there was no need to label with an "I", everything was happening without that reference.
With gratitude,
Francesca

