Non-self referential thought

How do you distinguish between self-referential (sr) and non-self-referential (non-sr) thought? Is sr vs non-sr the same as embedded versus non-embedded thought? Do you have choices in sr or do you just do things without a conscious choice?

I have been reading how self-referential thought uses a different part of the brain from non-referential thought. I have also been interested in Gary Weber's claims of having no thoughts which he later defined as having no sr..
jack

Jack, the way I have always processed the issue you've raised here is to think in terms of subject-object. Self-referencing is basically setting up a duality in which there is a subject (I/me/mine) that is observing or comparing itself to an object (something other). So if a thought has a sense of either subject or object then it is very likely to be self-referential. There are of course both gross and subtle self-referencing thoughts so you have to practice at recognizing them all.

Would self-referential thoughts not be the sort of internal verbalization/narrative, such as "Oh, I have to get gas in the car. And artichokes. And call Aunt Mary. And what the hell is that bug? Oh, an ant. Damn, my leg hurts. I hate Facebook." and so forth. Which is just sort of a layer of narrative that people tend to think is really critical for survival (or tend to identify with as "me") but is actually irrelevant. I think that's what most people call "thoughts" and wish would go away. I find that is not a constant anymore for me, and there's no difference if it's running or not - the same stuff gets done. I go shopping, I do my work, I answer the phone, etc. The inner narrative is irrelevant to carrying on with life. That said, whether there's inner narrative or not is not something I worry about anymore (it did used to bother me.) It just does its thing, or doesn't. There's a sort of inner silence that is present whether or not there are mental verbalizations running around. Sometimes it's barely there, sometimes it's rather chatty. Helpful? Probably not. Best I can do at the moment.

Yes. Any time a thought contains a direct or indirect reference, or a comparison, to an "I/me/mine"" then it's self-referential.

There are times during meditation when there is no awareness by me of a self. Phenomena arise and pass away by themeselves. Some of these phenomena are thoughts. I think but am not sure that sometimes they would take the form of, "Damn, my leg hurts." No subject but a sentence containing "my" is the object. I will check this later in my evening meditation. I'm not sure the form a thought takes determines whether it is self-referential or not.

If the thoughts were/are self-referential or not, how would that affect your practice?

I think I am going to try a binary meditation with self-referential and non-self-referential noting and see what happens.

Ah, I see. Like the thinking, not-thinking instruction?

I don't think you can have a subject with no object, or vice versa. You can have neither, or both. In my experience the existence of one implies the existence of the other, though it can be very, very subtle. This is one of those areas in practice that can be difficult to uncover all the veils. The mind is very good at hiding the process of creating dualities but any time there is a "me," no matter how subtle or hidden, there is an "other."

Let us know what you find out, Jack.

BTW, this reminds me of Ken McLeod's explanation of the related phenomenon of emptiness. He holds up a cell phone (or any object) and asks his audience, "Where is the experience of this phone?"

Dig it.