Comment Permalink

Makes sense, I'll see if I manage to get there in time.

Seems like your approach is cohering across perspectives while including more aspects into conscious awareness. Seems more likely to lead to integration/wholeness instead of dissociation/lost purposes.

edit: I'm also curious about your background/experience of meditation, if you are open to sharing.

See in context

8 Sapir-Whorf Ego Death

by Jonathan Moregård

18th Mar 2025

3 min read

8

This is a linkpost for https://honestliving.substack.com/p/sapir-whorf-ego-death

A surreal yet grounded meditation scene featuring a person lying down comfortably, eyes closed, immersed in a peaceful state. The image blends organic textures with abstract symbolism, evoking introspection. Gentle waves of light and energy subtly ripple around them, representing sensations arising and dissolving. Muted, earthy tones with deep blues and warm neutrals set the atmosphere. Dreamlike elements merge with conceptual metaphors, capturing the tension between rationality and mysticism. The background is soft and fluid, emphasizing presence without a defined observer.

Meditation can be tricky. I’m by no means a skilled practitioner, but I did make a fair bit of progress with my focus meditation recently. This post is about the realization that helped me up my meditation game. Enjoy!

When I meditate, I often spin away into reflections and judgments about how the meditation is going.

“I should focus on the breath.”

“It’s going quite well—oh wait, I should not make this into a performance—damn, I got stuck thinking about how I meditate. I should focus back on the breath—wait, reflecting on how I reflect is not the same as focusing on the breath, damn it—[…]”

Some time ago, I realized that the perspective "I want to focus on the breath" is self-defeating. It uses a third-person perspective that includes me as an object of evaluation—no wonder I spin off into reflection. I want to let go of self-evaluation, yet my very mindset starts with an “I.”

A More Helpful Intention

The problem with "I should focus on the breath" is that it assumes a self who is monitoring, evaluating, striving. Realizing this, I started framing my practice differently. Instead of directing myself to focus, I tried a perspective that didn’t include a self at all:

"Sensations of breath are arising."

This simple shift changed the texture of my meditation. Instead of a little homunculus in my mind trying to herd attention back to the breath, there was just the breath. No watcher, no judger, just sensation appearing.

Note: When trying this at home, you might mistakenly adopt the mindset "I should think 'sensations of breath are arising.'"—your brain habitually sneaking a self into the way you view things. Resist this impulse, and stick to the simple phrase "Sensations of breath are arising."

No commentary.

The Effect: Letting Go of the Observer

By letting go of this outer layer of reflection and just being with the breath, I found it much easier to meditate. The usual looping pattern—focusing, noticing I’m focusing, judging how I’m focusing—started dissolving.

Another small intervention helped, too: I stopped trying to sit like an experienced yogi. Instead, I lay down comfortably. Without the distraction of physical strain, the whole thing flowed more smoothly. At some point, I started slipping into absorption, the kind of effortless concentration that used to feel impossible.

I’m not an advanced meditator, so take this advice with a pinch of salt. But if you tend to overanalyze your meditation, this might be worth a try.

The Sapir-Whorf Connection: How Language Shapes Thought

The reason I decided to try this mindset shift is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the idea that the structure of language influences cognition. According to this hypothesis, language isn’t just a tool for expressing thoughts; it also shapes the way we think.

When I used self-referential language in framing my meditation—"I should focus on the breath"—I reinforced a mental model in which there is a separate “I” that is monitoring and correcting.

By shifting to "Sensations of breath are arising," the “I” was removed from the frame. This change in language avoided reinforcing the idea of a self who is managing the meditation, allowing for a more direct experience of the breath.

An Invitation to Experiment

If you tend to overanalyze meditation, this shift might help you step outside the loop of self-monitoring and just be with the breath. No effort, no performance—just experience unfolding.

So far, this shift has made a difference in my meditation practice. But what about the rest of life? Would a general commitment to no-self langage reduce baseline default mode network activation? I haven't tested it fully, but the idea lingers, and with it, a quiet curiosity.

I’d love to hear from others who experiment with this! If this resonates with you, give it a try and see what happens. Let me know what you discover.

MeditationPractical

Frontpage

8

Sapir-Whorf Ego Death

New Comment

7 comments, sorted by

top scoring

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 12:33 PM

[-]jimmy9d118

Some time ago, I realized that the perspective "I want to focus on the breath" is self-defeating. [...] The problem with "I should focus on the breath" is that it assumes a self who is monitoring, evaluating, striving.

It often makes sense to talk about "I". "I" makes sense. I am writing this, for one. You know exactly what that means, it is clearly true, and there is nothing that noticing this requires you to flinch away from.

"Should", on the other hand, falls apart very quickly and is usually functioning to preserve a disconnect from reality. Valentine talks about it here, and So8res talks about it here.

You say you should focus on your breath. Why? Why aren't you already drawn to your breath, if that's what you want to focus on?

Sensations of the breath are arising, yes. And so are many other things. If those sensations are interesting and worth attending to (according to you), then simply noticing that they're there is enough. If it's not, then "I want to focus on the breath" is empirically shown to be false -- so now you have a question of why you're trying to force yourself to do a thing you don't want to do.

The lack of "self language" when talking to oneself comes straight from maintaining connection to reality instead of BSing yourself. I might tell my wife I want to eat lunch, if that helps coordinate with her. But if I'm telling myself that I want to eat lunch, then with whom am I attempting to coordinate? I'll just eat or not eat. It's not that there's never any such thing as a "self" that has enough coherence to become a useful model, it's that when you're saying "I want to focus on my breath" and then choosing not to, there's clearly no coherent self wanting to focus on those sensations.

There can be though, if that's what you want.

[-]Jonathan Moregård9d10

I initially wrote another comment, that was written hastily. I decided to delete it, and want to give you a proper response.

--

>It often makes sense to talk about "I". "I" makes sense. I am writing this, for one. You know exactly what that means, it is clearly true, and there is nothing that noticing this requires you to flinch away from.

Agreed.

>"Should", on the other hand, falls apart very quickly and is usually functioning to preserve a disconnect from reality. Valentine talks about it here, and So8res talks about it here.

Agreed, I generally like the advice in replacing guilt.

>You say you should focus on your breath. Why? Why aren't you already drawn to your breath, if that's what you want to focus on?
>Sensations of the breath are arising, yes. And so are many other things. If those sensations are interesting and worth attending to (according to you), then simply noticing that they're there is enough. If it's not, then "I want to focus on the breath" is empirically shown to be false -- so now you have a question of why you're trying to force yourself to do a thing you don't want to do.

The post is in the context of focus meditation, where I practice my ability to sustain attention/focus for unusual amounts of time. Untrained people (and semi-trained people like me) can't sustain focus for extended amounts of time—even if I set my mind to the breath, it will slip away.

Sustained focus can be practised through a process of self-conditioning:
1) Try to sustain focus on the breath
2) Realize that your mind has wandered (auto-switch)
3) Catch yourself and refocus on the breath

>The lack of "self language" when talking to oneself comes straight from maintaining connection to reality instead of BSing yourself. I might tell my wife I want to eat lunch, if that helps coordinate with her. But if I'm telling myself that I want to eat lunch, then with whom am I attempting to coordinate? I'll just eat or not eat. It's not that there's never any such thing as a "self" that has enough coherence to become a useful model, it's that when you're saying "I want to focus on my breath" and then choosing not to, there's clearly no coherent self wanting to focus on those sensations.
>There can be though, if that's what you want.

I'm not sure I follow this part of your comment. I agree there's no coherent self, I do not understand what you mean with "There can be though, if that's what you want". Do you mean "It's possible to will/train yourself to have a coherent self"?

[-]jimmy9d20

Untrained people (and semi-trained people like me) can't sustain focus for extended amounts of time—even if I set my mind to the breath, it will slip away.

What I would say is that untrained people don't sustain focus on their breath for extended amounts of time. When you introduce the word "can" you're claiming more than just what is observed and making claims about what they would do in other counterfactuals too. If we're careful with those counterfactual choices, I think the claim that they "can't" turns out to be false.

The difference between "trying to try" and "trying on the object level" can be the difference between struggling for months and succeeding in seconds.

I do not understand what you mean with "There can be though, if that's what you want". Do you mean "It's possible to will/train yourself to have a coherent self"?

Something like that, yeah.

Like, you might want to go get Chinese food but not spend your money. Your desires for Chinese food and money are tugging you in different directions rather than in one coherent direction. But it's possible to make up your mind and coherently want to pay for the Chinese food or else not want to eat it. You have to recognize that you can't have the food without paying the money, and figure out which of your new options you prefer.

Do this enough, and you become relatively more coherent.

[-]Jonathan Moregård8d10

I'll answer to both your replies here. Sorry about any confusion that the deletion of my first reply caused.

It seems like your argument is roughly:
1) There's a difference between "wanting to want" and "object-level wanting"
2) If I manage to create a strong object-level want, I will boost my attention without needing to coerce myself

With some extra ideas:
* Having mistaken beliefs about what you want—ones not connected to revealed preference—is harmful, since it leads to self-delusion and stuckness.
* Actually-viscerally-motivated people can sustain attention to a meditation object, even without much training

If my understanding is correct, then we are largely in agreement. You are highlighting coercive tendencies in my post, and I do believe that there's great value in anchoring my wants in something visceral. My usage of "should" might point to an inner conflict that's useful to resolve, and I will look into this.

However, this wasn't the key thing I wanted to focus on in the post - I was more curious about how the difference between a third-person and a first-person perspective affects my meditation.

I'm also convinced that actual-visceral motivation isn't sufficient for an untrained person to sustain attention to the breath for a long amount of time, even if it is (roughly) necessary—or at least very helpful/useful.

Finally—you ask why I am attempting to do such an unusual thing. For me, meditation is connected to wellbeing, the amount of conscious awareness I can bring to my everyday life. I notice when I skip meditation, similarly to how I notice when I mess up my sleep or skip workouts. These factors lead to me treating it as important—in the "wanting to want" sense. Turning that into an actual-visceral motivation is part of the challenge of meditation—it's a practice arena for challenging mistaken beliefs about my wants and turning them into actual-visceral motivation.

It's similar to my just-woken-up self after a period of poor sleep hygiene—my momentary "revealed preference" is to stay in bed, snoozing. Giving in to this preference perpetuates the poor sleep hygiene spiral—akin to addiction. When this happens, I have a "wanting to want" (stepping out of bed when I wake up) that I ideally are able to transform into an actual-visceral motivation, similar to the move that is useful in my meditation practice.

Thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully engage, I appreciate it.

[-]jimmy7d20

2) If I manage to create a strong object-level want, I will boost my attention without needing to coerce myself
[...]
I was more curious about how the difference between a third-person and a first-person perspective affects my meditation.

This is what I'm talking about. Defaulting to the third person perspective and forgetting about the first person perspective causes a lot of trouble. It's not just "here's an unrelated hack for making it easier to do meditation", it's that it completely changes your meditation.

You notice that your third person "I should focus on the breath" is missing the point, and redirect to the first person perspective of "Sensations of breath are arising", but in doing so you no longer even have a claim to the relevance of the breath. So now you have an experience of attending to sensation of breath for no reason, because of fairly handwavy third person reasons.

I'm pointing out that you can use meditation as practice for bringing more conscious awareness to your everyday life by bringing more conscious awareness to your practice of meditation itself. It's a very different experience when you know in first person why what you're attending to is the most interesting thing at the moment, and in third person knowing that you're right to think this is what's worth attending to.

That doesn't mean you "give in" to first person perspectives and give up awareness of your third person perspective, just that you don't give in to third person ideas either and give up or attempt to disconnect your first person perspective. It's practicing being aware of both, and noticing when your behaviors don't make sense according to your own perspectives.

[-]Jonathan Moregård6d*10

Makes sense, I'll see if I manage to get there in time.

edit: I'm also curious about your background/experience of meditation, if you are open to sharing.

[-]jimmy9d40

When I practice focus meditation, I train myself to sustain a focus on my breath, for unusual amounts of time, to unusual degrees.

Right, and to what end? What drives you to want to do this unusual thing? Why isn't that already connecting to a desire that pulls your focus to your breath?

The answer to these questions is what allows you to resolve the conflict between "I want to focus on my breath" and "I am not focusing on my breath".

Your model of things seem to assume that this level of focus is possible to sustain through "really wanting to" [...] I am reading your reply as supporting a model of cognition akin to homo economicus.

Sorta. Yes, I think that you're probably physiologically capable of far more focus than you're currently demonstrating in your meditative practices. And yes, I'm looking at revealed preferences and not buying into people's claims of desiring things that the evidence shows they don't actually desire.

There's no magical law preventing you from being wrong about what you want. How might you notice if you were? What would that look like?

One way to test this would to take a non-meditator and give them a lot of money if they managed to sustain attention for an hour. (In this hypothetical, let's say we have a way to measure this). The way I model this, no amount of money would be sufficient to accomplish an hour of focused attention for a non-practitioner.

Not necessarily. There are a couple assumptions you're making here.

One is that they'd be physiologically capable of doing it, in my view. If we replace "focus on the breath" with "lift 500kg", the answer to "Why aren't you already lifting it, if that's what you want?" is partly that you just can't. Even if you were to try your genuine hardest, it would not lift -- but there'd be real signs that you were attempting to lift it, and it wouldn't at all look like "just not interested in lifting this weight". I do think you're physiologically capable of focusing on your breath to a greater extent, but it's worth noting this requirement because failing because "can't" is different than failing because "don't wanna, so not really trying".

Another is that "offering a lot of money" is enough to make them really want to do it. There's no magical law saying that people will always be motivated by things that you think "should" motivate them. Indeed, people are usually not very good at drawing these connections. Replace offers of money with a gun to the head, and you'll get stronger results -- the reality of the consequences there are a lot more obvious, so it takes a much dumber person to fail to make the connections.

Eddie Hall's 500kg lift is a dramatic example of this. You can watch it and think "Yeah yeah, he's just really big and strong, no need for the overly dramatic music" -- until you notice blood spontaneously dripping from his nose. And apparently his eyes, and ears -- and brain. He says that the most he could do in the gym was 457kg, and that what it took to get that extra 10% was putting himself in the mindset that he was "lifting a car off of [his] kids". It's not that he "couldn't" lift 500kg in the gym, it's that it wasn't worth the risk and he knew it, so he was only motivated to give 90% effort. Give people the motivation to actually try, and they don't get magic powers but they do produce significantly more force because they'll actually try.

Heck, it often takes much much less than that. My favorite example is when my friend was able to tap a big strong guy with a wristlock, and she had to argue with him about whether he was strong enough to resist. He insisted that he was genuinely unable to muscle through it, until she said "Jimmy muscled through when I had both hands on it, so unless he's a lot stronger than you, you can definitely resist when I have one hand on it". Surprise surprise, he was able to after that.

How?

Well, you weigh your options, and figure out what you want.

Instead of "I should do this, but I'm struggling to get myself to do it", you notice that you don't want it, and reflect on the consequences and whether you continue to want them once you realize what you're asking for.

What happens if you don't lift 500kg? You don't get people saying "he broke a record"? Yeah, I guess that's okay. Your kids will die? On second thought, maybe I can try harder. That latter one feels different, you know?

What happens if you don't sit there for an hour focusing on nothing but your breath? Why is that bad? What happens if you do? And what is so appealing about that? Not "come up with rationalizations that sound plausible", but moves you?

It's easy to get very disconnected from what we actually care about, and what we can do. It takes some work to get back in touch and sort out the contradictions, but the path is absolutely there.

Moderation Log