Part X: Mel May: Comparing an outsider's DES to the originator's DES
In this extraordinary set of interviews, we have the opportunity to compare DES-as-read-about-and-implemented-by-an-outsider (Julian Bass-Krueger) to DES-as-written-and-practiced-by-its-creator (Russ). We enlisted Mel May, who had volunteered to be a DES participant....
Julian Bass-Krueger and Russ have never met. Julian had become interested in DES in about 2017 and several times over the years had contacted Russ, who had given him some suggestions. Julian became a Master’s student in cognitive science at the University of Vienna, completing a thesis using DES as he had learned it from Russ’s books, articles, and web materials. The thesis also included an extension of DES that Julian called dDES (dynamic DES). In 2020, Julian sent some of his results to Russ, who responded critically--Russ was skeptical of Julian's results and doubted that dDES could be successful.
In 2023, Julian contacted Russ inquiring about supervision, and Russ suggested the possibility of conducting joint interviews of a DES participant and then candidly discussing any issues that might arise. That might provide the opportunity to compare DES-as-read-about-and-implemented-by-an-outsider (Julian) to DES-as-written-and-practiced-by-its-creator (Russ) which might be a win-win: Julian might learn something about DES, and Russ might learn something about what he should do to make his DES materials more effective.
At about the same time, Mel May, a video producer, contacted Russ saying she loved the videos in the 'Do I have inner monologue?' series and would like to produce some sort of media piece that would be much shorter than the 80 or so hours that are on the site.
Russ suggested to Julian that we might enlist Mel as a DES participant; and Russ suggested to Mel that she might wish to experience DES from the inside. Each thought that was a good idea, and this series of interviews was born.
The interviews were conducted by Russ Hurlburt and Julian Bass-Krueger. Their back-and-forth commentary provides significant insight into how to investigate inner experience--like a series of DES masterclasses.
This is the initial meeting between the three participants. Russ had sketched out the possibilities to Julian and to Mel separately, but no specifics had, as yet, been agreed to....
The conversation was not scripted, and so wandered around the topics of interest. They introduced themselves and their interests in the procedure. Mel said she believed that her experience mostly involved unsymbolized thinking, and that she thought that people were very different from each other. We agreed to videotape everything, but not to release it without unanimous approval. Russ said he might want to put it on this website; Mel and Julian each had interests in producing a shorter form account of what might happen. They agree that Russ will send Mel a beeper, and that eventual Russ and Julian will interview Mel about her beeped experiences. Other than that, the details will need to be worked out.
Here, for reference, is a rough outline of topics covered:
The beeper has arrived, and they discuss how to use it....
They begin with Russ giving a short history of the construction and operation of the beeper. They end with some discussion of the philosophy behind DES investigations. In between are the DES instructions themselves.
The instructions are not scripted. Here is a rough outline of topics covered:
This is Mel's first sampling day. We discussed four of the six samples she collected and issues about the DES process that arose. ...
In commentary inserted in the transcript, Russ distinguishes, metaphorically, between diamonds (bits of pristine experience) and glass (generalities, theories, self-concept), saying that DES is about diamonds and tries to avoid glass. And we begin discussion of what will become a recurrent theme: ‘DES is not about the words’. There is substantial commentary about genuineness in the DES process. Furthermore, these samples begin the discussion of whether Mel has nothing in her experience at the moment of some beeps, which will turn out to be another recurrent theme.
In general—sampling day 1: All DES interviews are some combination of iterative training (so that future sampling days can be more skillful) and description of experience. The aim of the first sampling interview (or the first several sampling interviews) is almost entirely iterative training. First-day sampling interviews appear to be inquiries into experience, but their fundamental aim is to facilitate discussions of how to do DES more skillfully. DES recognizes that participants on their first sampling day are not skillful, so DES routinely discards first-day descriptions.
Mel's samples:
Sample 1.1 [2:48]: [Mel was in the process of doing kitchen tasks. She had watered the plants and] at the moment of the beep was about to grab kitchen spray and wipe the kitchen. (She may or may not have directly experienced this about-to process.)
Discussion of DES: Diamonds vs. glass [0:10]
Discussion of DES: It’s not about the words [4:21, 10:28, 11:35, 12:53, 20:06, 47:21,57:10]
Discussion of DES: Not instructing Mel [12:39, 17:18, 32:55, 47:21, 48:55, 50:01, 1:05:48, 1:11:35, and the COMMENTARY ABOUT SAMPLE 1.4 ARISING AFTER THE INTERVIEW]
Sample 1.2 [20:50]: Mel was vacuuming. Nothing about the physical act of vacuuming (sound, sight, kinesthetics, etc.) was particularly experientially present . (There may have been a relaxed contentedness about it, but this may have just been Mel describing her mood or context during the overall period.)
Sample 1.3 [34:34]: [Mel was on the couch drinking tea.] This act wasn’t so present in her experience. (There may or may not have been a contentment aspect—a light relaxedness. But this may have been Mel’s way of characterizing the absence of negative feelings, or her impression of her general mood at the time.)
Sample 1.4 [45:20]: [Mel was reading a book about creativity.] At the moment of the beep, she was rereading / absorbing the meaning of a passage / or was not experiencing anything. [This may have been more her way of describing her general reading process than a description of experience at this moment.] (Mel wasn’t particularly focused on any one word, or the meaning of the text in particular. The experience was probably more automatic. This was similar to the automaticity of her vacuuming or cleaning experience, though the 'absorbing' component of reading may lend the reading a different quality.)
Conversation after sample discussions [1:04:20]: Don't tell participants what to do; words don't matter; discriminating between experience and all else.
Commentary arising after the interview [in the transcript but not on video]: On 'Mel described herself'.
This is Mel's second sampling day. She described many samples where nothing or nearly nothing was experientially present; we worked to clarify what she intended by those descriptions. ...
In general—sampling day 2: All DES interviews are some combination of iterative training (so that future sampling days can be more skillful) and description of experience. The aim of the second sampling interview is a combination of experience description and iterative training.
Mel's samples:
Sample 2.1 [0:56]: [Mel was looking at a picture of a Steadicam online and was, broadly speaking, forming what to write in an email.] There was something of this present in her experience. (This process wasn’t clear and articulated. There were no words present. There wasn’t a clear thought with clear content. There wasn’t the visual experience of looking at the picture. But there was some experience present.)
Discussion of DES: Subjunctification [4:47]
Discussion of DES: Theory / abstraction [4:47, 9:41]
Discussion of DES: Presuppositions [4:47, 21:34]
Discussion of DES: Meta-experience [6:45, 10:12]
Discussion of DES: Russ uses the first person when describing Mel [12:46, 25:30]
Discussion of DES: Not about the words [13:22, 21:34]
Discussion of DES: Ignorance [13:22, 21:34, 33:00]
Sample 2.2 [14:07]: [Mel was writing an email related to the Steadicam and was halfway through a sentence]. She had some experience apparently in some way related to the emailing, but there wasn’t any clear even slightly differentiated content. That is, her experience was more than nothing, but not much more and not more in any straightforwardly discernable way. [The level of nothingness was much less in 2.2 than in 2.1: In 2.1 there was definitely something experienced, even though it was entirely inchoate. In 2.2, there was not nothing experienced, but not as much as in 2.1.]
Sample 2.3 [21:36]: [Mel was on her phone and had just closed Instagram]. There was nothing in her experience. [We questioned her carefully but found no signs of any aspect of experience. Mel referred to her experience as being "dormant." She carefully and seemingly confidently distinguished between the more-than-nothing experience of 2.1 and the nothing of the present sample.]
Sample 2.4 [28:30]: [Mel was making a cup of tea and walking to fill up the kettle]. Mel was not experiencing anything. [There was apparently no distinction between the nothing of 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. Those samples are, however, more completely nothing than either samples 2.1 or 2.2.]
Sample 2.5 [33:45]:[Mel was getting changed and pulling off her hoodie] There was nothing in her experience. [There was apparently no distinction between the nothing of 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. Those samples are, however, more completely nothing than either samples 2.1 or 2.2.]
Sample 2.6 [44:25]: [Mel had made lunch and was about to sit down to eat it. She was also chatting with her sister and was probably mid sentence] There was nothing in Mel’s experience (including, apparently, the talking). [In the interview Mel was not sure whether she or her sister were talking; either way, it apparently didn’t make its way into Mel’s directly apprehended experience. There may have been no distinction between the nothing of 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5, and the present sample.]
Conversation after the sample discussions [53:32]: Focus directly on the experience, not on the context, etc.
This is Mel’s third sampling day. We discussed five samples, of which four were shades of nothing or close to it. There was one experiences thought (the unsymbolized thinking of sample 3.1)....
In general—sampling day 3: All DES interviews are some combination of iterative training (so that future sampling days can be more skillful) and description of experience. The aim of the third sampling interview is a combination of experience description and iterative training.
Mel's samples:
Sample 3.1 [7:45]: [Mel was looking at movie times on her phone and specifically for the movie Killers of the Flower Moon.] She was wondering: should I see that movie this afternoon. The main emphasis was whether she should see it this afternoon as opposed to on a different day. The content of the thought was clear, but there were no words, images, or feelings accompanying this thought. [Visually looking at the phone was not in her experience.] [This is an example of what DES calls unsymbolized thinking.]
Sample 3.2 [20:22]: [Mel was applying to a New York residency card form online, reading and filling in information.] Nothing was in Mel’s experience (even though she was actively reading and filling in the form).
Sample 3.3 [25:00]: [Mel was still filling in the NY residency ID form and reading the screen.] Nothing was in her experience.
Discussion of DES: Is sample X like sample Y questions [26:22]
Sample 3.4 [39:01]: [Mel was looking at her bank statement online]. Nothing was in her experience. [There was some discussion of differentiating different degrees of nothingness across samples; this one may have been an even more nothingy nothingness than the previous two. But ultimately we weren’t sure and left further clarification up to the iterative process.]
Discussion of DES: the iterative process [43:10]
Discussion of DES: too much about the words [47:37]
Discussion of DES: about nothing in experience [55:47]
Sample 3.5 [57:56]:[Mel was shuffling through her mail.] The shuffling was was autopilot-y (which is apparently a bit more than nothing and may have included a seeing aspect).
Mel seems to experience a range of nothingness: From full nothing ("as if asleep"), to autopilot-y (a task is being engaged in), to a bit of something that is happening being passively present. We are still trying to work that out....
There is substantial conversation about meta-experience, and about presuppositions and how presuppositions cannot be defeated by generalities but only by particulars.
There is substantial discussion about "absorption," and it seems that when Mel is absorbed in a conversation, it doesn’t matter whether her friend Milly is talking or Mel herself is talking—the experience is the same.
In general—sampling day 4: All DES interviews are some combination of iterative training (so that future sampling days can be more skillful) and description of experience. The aim of the fourth sampling interview is a combination of experience description and iterative training.
Mel's samples:
Sample 4.1 [2:32]: [Mel was looking in the mirror; there was music playing.] She was in a positive/happy/light vibe/state that was somehow experienced (but was less than a specific feeling). (She may have peripherally experienced the music, or the vibe/whatever may have been the experience of the music.) [Her eyeballs were aimed at herself in the mirror but without experience.]
Discussion of DES: too much about the words [8:30, 14:09]
Sample 4.2 [16:11]: [Mel was about to head out of her apartment and was looking at herself in the mirror and touched her hair.] She was not experiencing anything. [During the sampling there was substantial discussion about too-much-about-words and that words should always be understood as pointers useful in a manner of speaking.]
Discussion of DES: too much about the words--syat [20:08]
Sample 4.3 [20:29]: [Mel was in a café having a conversation with a friend Milly. Milly was talking]. Mel was absorbed in the conversation. (Mel not experiencing anything else–no cafe sounds, no bodily sensations, no meta-experience of herself as being absorbed.)
Discussion of DES: meta-experience and over-theorizing [25:48, 34:38, 39:12]
Sample 4.4 [36:46]: [Mel and Milly were still talking. Milly was talking at the moment of the beep; the content was dating in NYC]. Mel was absorbed in the conversation. (Mel not experiencing anything else–no cafe sounds, no bodily sensations, no meta-experience of herself as being absorbed.) [This experience was indistinguishable to her from the previous sample.]
Discussion of DES: presuppositions, delusions[41:17]
Sample 4.5 [41:37]: [Mel was still mid-conversation with her friend Milly. This time Mel was talking.] Mel was absorbed in the conversation. (Mel’s experience was perhaps indistinguishable from the previous two, even though here Mel was talking.)
Conversation after sampling discussions [48:26]: Meta-awareness, exercise for the reader (words vs. experience), iterative process, Russ wore the beeper for a year, Russ wore the beeper one time since then, diamonds vs. glass
CONVERSATION AFTER SAMPLE DISCUSSIONS
[48:17]: That we have not resolved Mel’s absorption, and the importance of the iterative process
[49:46]: About presuppositions about meta-experience and consciousness
[49:46]: More about it’s-not-about-the-words
[51:01]: Mel says that today’s conversation seem more authentic
[54:21]: More about the necessity of the iterative process
[57:38]: Mel wondering whether her experiences are different from others’
[1:00:29]: Russ’s history of wearing the beeper for a year and creating DES
[1:03:27]: On the importance of bits of specific experiences (diamonds vs. glass)
[1:05:41]: What causes experience? Nature? Nurture? Why are people’s inner experiences so different?
[1:12:45]: More about diamonds and glass
EMAIL EXCHANGES AFTER THE INTERVIEW
Sample 4.3 and the meta issue
About the use of pseudonyms for sample 4.3 and the impediments to fidelity
About sample 4.5 and experience being not much more than nothing
We are still sorting through the distinctions between nothing, empty, autopilot, and something in experience. There were two samples today where experience was clear, which leads to the conclusion that when the beep occurs when something is experienced, Mel is willing and capable of describing it, even if that experience is somewhat embarrassing. ...
In general—sampling day 5: All DES interviews are some combination of iterative training (so that future sampling days can be more skillful) and description of experience. The aim of the fifth sampling interview is a combination of experience description and iterative training.
Mel's samples:
Sample 5.1 [1:55]: [A few days before, Mel had purchased a tote bag; when it arrived, she had taken a pic of it to send to her sister. Now, Mel was waiting for coffee, looking through her camera roll, and had arrived at the tote-bag pic.] She was admiring the (pictured) tote bag.
Discussion of DES: meta-experience [2:20, 2:46, 3:08, 7:58]
Sample 5.2 [8:42]: [Mel was walking down the street, somehow imagining a conversation with Matty Healy, singer of the group The 1975, as if she met him on the street; she would be seeing The 1975 in concert in a few days.] She was somehow contemplating that she might say to him, I love the performance art and cultural commentary you’re doing at the moment. It was not clear whether this was in words or was conceptualized very specifically so that those exact words (and no others) conveyed the concept. It was not in a voice (inner or outer), and not visual.
Discussion of DES: iterative training [12:13]
Discussion of DES: bracketing presuppositions [13:11]
Discussion of DES: on transcripts, fidelity [14:58]
Discussion of DES: on Russ criticizing Mel [22:00]
Sample 5.3 [22:46]: [Mel was in her apartment scrolling through Twitter]. She was scrolling on autopilot, experiencing nothing in particular.
Discussion of DES: too much about the words (as abstract entities; footlights of consciousness) [27:06]
Sample 5.4 [29:57]: [Mel was putting away laundry with music playing.] Folding the laundry and listening to music were both part of her experience, but nothing was prominent. (The music was The 1975, a favorite group whose concert she would attend in a few days, but the specifics of the music were not salient. Some tactile aspects of the laundry may or may not have been present.)
Sample 5.5 [37:08]: [Mel was packing her suitcase preparing for a trip to see The 1975; as she packed, she was singing along to The 1975, which she had playing on her speakers.] She was "bopping along" with a happy vibe. (Her experience was not empty, not nothing; there was something of the happy vibe that was present to her (more present than sample 5.1) but not very sharp or clear. It didn’t have an experienced bodily aspect. The packing, music, and singing are only slightly (if at all) experienced).
Discussion of DES: too much about the words [42:21]
Discussion of DES: meta-experience [44:40]
Sample 5.6 [45:36]: [Mel was looking in a mirror about to pluck her eyebrows and singing along to music; the current lyric was "change and pressure."] Mel was probably experiencing singing with a slight positive/happy vibe.
We are still sorting through the distinctions about nothing, and presuppositions regarding it....
In general—sampling day 6: All DES interviews are some combination of iterative training (so that future sampling days can be more skillful) and description of experience. The aim of the sixth sampling interview is a combination of experience description and iterative training.
Mel's samples:
Sample 6.1 [0:04]: [Mel was looking at a recent photo on her phone of her and her friends in Melbourne.] She was absorbing/soaking in what she was looking at.
Discussion of DES: on meta-experience, skepticism, presuppositions [0:50, 1:14, 2:03, 2:30, 2:41, 10:59, 14:14, 16:52, 23:32]
Sample 6.2 [18:48]: [Mel was talking to her sister, who was speaking.] Mel was absorbed/taking in the conversation.
Discussion of DES: not about the words [20:32, 28:35]
Sample 6.3 [25:06]: [Mel was putting away clothes]. She was not experiencing anything (or barely anything).
Discussion of DES: Thought experiment (pretending) [28:21]
Sample 6.4 [31:31]: [Mel was looking at Instagram on her phone, which displayed a picture.] She was seeing the picture, taking it in slightly [but not nearly the level of absorption as described in 6.1].
Sample 6.5 [35:40]: [Mel was standing, typing a message on her phone.] She felt a sore, throbbing, tingling sensation in her glute muscle region. It was not particularly strong. The typing and its content was at most a small part of her experience (it may have been that the words were merely coming out of her fingers).
Sample 6.6 [53:28]: [Mel was cooking, about to turn the frying pan on.] She was not experiencing anything.
