It could be argued that human beings have at least two basic commitments: a commitment to expression and a commitment to understanding.

A Commitment To Expression

The expressive (or aesthetic) commitment refers to the ability to articulate, as a first pass, what one feels. One senses that there’s “something going on inside,” and yet one can’t–yet–express what that something is.

Techniques like Gendlin’s Focusing are lazer-focused on helping one to move from what Nietzsche might have termed “Dionysian energy” to “Apollonian form.” What’s the proper form, or name, for this energy? What is it saying about itself, of itself?

Keen, quiet, attentive listening can reveal what this inner something is.

A Commitment To Understanding

I don’t find the expressive commitment, though necessary, to be sufficient. One really needs to understand what’s happening and what it signifies.

This latter commitment needs to come through “recollection of an emotion in tranquility.” Especially in the context of open, generative dialogue, one can circle about and then come to understanding. One can “sensemake.”

Together, these two commitments enable one to come to a “sense of peace.” The latter is not lasting, and therefore a searching inquiry (atma vichara), along nondual perennial lines, will be necessary to reveal that one’s essential nature is peace itself.