Detailed Analysis

• Author: Peter Jamadar/Elron Elahie/Richard Jamadar
• Pages: 42-76

42

DETAILED ANALYSIS

Changes in general awareness, specific foci

These general indications of increased awareness were corroborated by the responses to

more specific and focused inquiries. As explained above, we consider this significant. The

7-point Likert scale choices were: always aware, very aware, often aware, sometimes aware, not

usually aware, rarely aware, and never aware. We repeat, change is premised on choice, and

choice is facilitated by awareness. Thus increased capacity for awarnessing, increases the

likelihood of choice-making aligned with intention or purpose, and hence growth and

development towards building greater degrees of integrity.

Internal Dimensions

In relation to thoughts, the awarenessing of which can allow a judicial officer to take stock

of what they are thinking about in court and exercise choice to make changes, the data is

very promising. With increases up to 65% and 29% (from 60% and 20%) respectively,

participants reported being very aware and often aware of their thoughts. Significantly, no

one of the 20% who reported being always aware of their thoughts in the entrance survey

(or any others), maintained or asserted that position in the exit survey.

Before practicing Intentional Awarenessing several participants believed that they were

always aware of their thoughts. However, after the practice period these participants

realised that this was not so. This in fact appears to show an increase in awareness

brought about by the practices: the practices led to increased awarnessing, which in

turn led to the realization that participants were not actually always aware of their

thoughts. This conclusion is supported by the fact that in the entrance survey no one

believed that they were ‘sometimes aware’ of their thoughts or any of the other lesser

degrees of awareness. However, on the exit survey 6% stated that they were sometimes

aware. Again, reflecting an increase in sensitivity to the degree of awareness after the

practice. Fig 15 graphically represents this data.

43

Fig 15

A reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this data, is that in the internal

individual dimension, the capacity for awarenessing of thoughts was increased as a

consequence of the practices.

Similar results were shown in relation to awarenessing of emotions, bodily sensations,

and inner reactions to changing circumstances. However, the increases were quite

substantial: increases for emotions, bodily sensations, and inner reactions, up to 70%,

41%, and 65% (from 45%, 25%, and 35%) respectively for being very aware; and in the case

of bodily sensations and inner reactions, increases from 20% to 53% and from 20% to 24%

respectively for being often aware. Figs 16-18 graphically present these findings.

Fig 16

44

Fig 17

Fig 18

Taken in the round, the increased awarenessing shifts in emotions, bodily sensations, and

inner reactions were remarkably higher than for thoughts. This may be explained by the

fact that judicial officers focus dominantly on cognitive processes while in court, and less

on the other aspects of their experiencing. They are therefore probably actually and

habitually more in tune with their thoughts. Hence, with specific practices designed to

heighten inner awareness with a focus on non-cognitive phenomenon, sensitivity in these

domains increased as indicated. This further points to the potential efficacy of the

practices for the purposes of increasing levels of inner awareness in judicial officers, with

a potential application while in the courtroom.

It is important to pause and reflect on an aspect of this data. That is, the relatively low

levels of awareness that judicial officers appear to ordinarily have (without any

intentional and conscious development) in relation to emotions, bodily sensations, and

inner reactions to changing circumstances. Could this be the result of an occupational

de-sensitization, an under-development in these areas as a consequence of

disproportionate emphasis on cognitive functions? Whatever the causes, if procedural