Thank you so much for the detailed reply.

TL:DR is at bottom for your convenience.

​

​

>I'm hearing two questions - lmk if this is correct:
>
>As an atheist, how can you handle containment with solo IFS? (Re. asking that which is greater than us to contain us)
>
>2Whether to allow whatever arises to arise, almost like a free-for-all, given that this feels it'd lead to overwhelm

The first one, yes. The second, I was more so indirectly asking if that's what you meant by your way of dealing with the containment dilemma, rather than what to do if that WAS the case.

I can see that you clarified what you meant though in your reply. Regardless, your answer for #2 is interesting to me.

>Second, you don't have to believe there's something greater than you to make the invitation. I'm curious: If you went ahead and asked something greater than you (going through the motions), even while knowing you don't believe in that, what could that be like?

I guess it would feel like asking/talking to someone that isn't there, while in an empty room. Essentially nothing would happen.

>When we make this invitation, we humble ourselves and name our own inability to contain ourselves as a separate entity (Ex. therapist) would. This is a symbolic act which communicates through layers of the psyche. It's a willingness and acknowledgement that we're not "in charge" in a managerial way.

To make sure I understand this right, you're clarifying that asking "that which is greater than us to help contain us" is essentially saying to acknowledge and accept that we don't have the ability "contain" ourselves, aka internally keep track of the IFS process within?

And to also acknowledge that there is no way for us to "lead" the process of IFS?

If so, alright, I understand now how this can be unrelated to God or spirituality in general.

I also *think* I'm already doing that since I do understand why and how it's impossible for us to do so.

Another response that comes up from my mind is "I intellectually understand why and how we can't lead or track the process in IFS, but the alternative sounds like what I feared regarding letting the chips fall as they may."

I see that you responded to that fear though in the quote below.

>For #2:
>
>Great question. So what we're actually going for in solo IFS is to be the Regular You. I don't know your name, let's pretend it's Lee. So in solo IFS, we'd want the Regular Lee to be showing up. This is distinct from Self, and it's distinct from parts. It's basically who you are in regular day-to-day life, your normal state of consciousness, when you're not blended with one part. Don't overthink it. It's just you, the person you feel you are, the person who will close the journal after your session and move on with your day.
>
>The Regular You is a mixture of parts all swirled together in your consciousness. The key difference is that you're not blended with one part, because when that happens, when one part is behind the wheel, there is no room for anything else - aka no room for Self. When you're in the Regular You, there is space, and it makes it possible for Self to get in naturally as the solo session progresses. Without striving to have Self come.
>
>Not only is the Regular You the only state from which we can really approach authentic parts work on ourselves, but it's also the bridge between IFS work and your regular life.
>
>So as you become comfortable with the concept of being able to meet your parts from the Regular You - knowing that you don't have to be in that altered state of Self - it becomes easier to be in contact with these parts in day-to-day life. And that means that you can access IFS more easily. You won't need to pull out an official session just to connect inside.

So hopefully I understand this: You're saying that what we're shooting for in IFS is not to let whoever comes up comes up in a literal sense, but that whoever is here RIGHT NOW is the person to direct your attention on?

If so, well that's good to know we're not just letting inner bombs go off, but I also suppose this is confusing me again, because if I think "who is the 'regular me' that is my current everyday Self?" I see that as the me right now typing this message to you trying to figure out the answer to these issues. This is the same person that attempts IFS too.

If I went more in depth, it would be me saying in a journal "I'm currently afraid to do IFS haphazardly due to overwhelm, but I also am confused how to move forward and address this fear when I also am getting in my own way trying to keep track of the process to ensure I don't trip a wire and become overwhelmed. I'm aware that I exist doing this right now and I don't know what to do about it, because to not do it could mean blindly walking on a bomb."

So the person who appears in my internal IFS session, is the person here right now confused on what to do.

So I feel confused because it's like, wouldn't that be redundant and put me back in the same situation I'm in now?

---

TL;DR:

So overall, I perceived you saying that by asking "that which is greater than us to help contain us" you're saying we want to acknowledge and accept that we don't and can't have control in the internal IFS process.

I perceived that you're also saying that this doesn't mean "letting go" in the sense of allowing anything to come up, but instead asking "Who is here RIGHT NOW, and what is it you'd like to speak on?"

To which, I feel confused because the person "here right now" in the IFS session is the person typing this.