Aim.

The aim is a funny thing, especially when what should be an unrelated subject keeps barging down the door and taking attention.

This actually makes me think of something that Victor told me once, a couple years ago, when I was talking about having trouble sitting (something I have been having trouble with again, recently).  I don't quite remember the exact context, but I was describing having trouble focusing on the sitting, and constantly found myself drifting "off topic" in the middle of an exercise.  Victor noted that this was to be expected, especially when one has so little experience in this work.  He also noted that sometimes, if we're able to simply acknowledge that a thought came up and put it away for later, and the same subject keeps coming up, that it needs to be looked at.

This also reminds me of a passage in Bennett's "Creative Thinking", in which he talks about choosing a subject and setting one's self to intentionally not think of it for a period of time.  Impossible, but if we keep at it, then something new might come in.

New Semester.

First meeting of the semester for the Bennett group, last night.  We talked about a few things, as we always do, but a couple things that jumped out:

a)  "Wish is more powerful than god."  The idea being that, moving from "absolute" to "absolute calm" (absolute being "the source" or "the creation" or "that which is highest"), energy begins at a point of highest concentration and then dissipates; it is an involutionary motion.  But "wish" goes against this motion, goes against the grain of time if you will, and moves towards the source.

b)  George being asked about schisms and separations.  His answer dealt very much with overcoming personality issues and working towards a common goal (a greater good, if you will).  It also dealt with how sometimes those issues can't be overcome, sometimes, but how work can still be achieved nonetheless.  Another side to this was the reminder that in the end, we're all the same person.

c)  The general question being asked of the group to look at our aim for our work in the group, and to look at what we're prepared to give up for it.  I got a little uncomfortable when I heard that.

It was also a little ameliorating to talk to one of the other group members (a long-time student of this) and hear him talk about how hard his own summer was.  Indeed, a good number of my friends have seemed to be dealing with life a bit more than they expected, the past few months.  I'm not happy about this, but it's heartening to be in good company.

From Eric Tamm's book. . .

The central paradox, or quandary, of Fripp’s entire career has revolved around the difference between, on the one hand, making art-objects for a product-hungry yet passive audience, and, on the other hand, actually making art with an audience on the basis of a vision of a shared creative goal. Like making love, to make art you need equal partners; otherwise one or the other of the partners becomes a mere art, or sex -object for the other. Fripp may have had such thoughts on his mind when, in 1982, he remarked bittersweetly that in swinging London in 1969, “I began to see how much hookers, strippers and musicians have in common: they sell something very close to themselves to the public.” (Fripp 1982A, 42) Once one has tasted real love (or real art), mere sex (or mere entertainment) may satisfy on a certain primitive level, but a deeper longing remains frustrated.

Focus and centeredness in a storm.

I know that, in times of mental and emotional stress, it is more important than ever to be able to retain a sense of self, to be able to detach and observe what is happening in real time, as opposed to getting swallowed up and becoming my sadness and distress.

But god damn, is it hard.

To be able to think and act lucidly right now is the only wish I can conjure up, right now.

Processes

I have barely posted on this blog for some time, now. Strangely still feels open, though. This is fitting, I think: the informing idea of this blog was to have a place to work out thought processes and theories, especially as they relate to inner work. What I neglected to think about was that this work is primarily experiential in nature and often best worked on orally, in the context of a group. So, having found myself a work group (one that is not GCNE), I've been able to do just that. I still have a notebook that gets plenty of ideas written down, but I just haven't gotten around to posting them. At the end of the day, I'm still quite prone to navel-gazing.

There is also the issue of writing about some of these things in a public forum. I am no Bennett, or Blake, or anyone that is able to easily distill extremely nuanced ideas--ideas that are traditionally presented and transmitted orally--into text. When I write or present an idea, if it is presented incorrectly, then the effort was for naught. Or, put simply, putting a flawed product out is going to cause some problems.

But wait! The point of this blog is exploration! The whole idea is to throw spaghetti at the wall. If I'm not experimenting, I'm not even trying. The real challenge is to see how this stuff works in real life. I should be able to see concepts and ideas in action, if I can conceive them. (Or, 'conception necessarily leads to perception', if it is a right concept.) As long as I can let ideas develop, instead of trying to actualize the goal that I want to see from the word 'go', then all should be well.

Fittingly, I have been quite wary, in recent days, of end-gaining. My experience with the circle's season of Sundays was that of good work finished that produced a much better result than what we had initially signed up for. One thing that did not arrive along with the extremely positive response was any sort of monetary or material gain. In fact, the total donation that we received was barely enough to cover renting the space that we used for one hour. I can count at least six other people that would not have changed that, either: that work, and all this work, was meant for our being, not for our gain.

Ayn Rand actually said something that was very true to this idea: contrary to the popular picture of Rand (which seemed to be in love with money for money's sake), she actually pointed out that money can be nothing more than a barometer. If you do what is right, then money and profit will flow. Her actual application of this idea did eventually get twisted out of shape, but the original sentiment is very much in line with the work that we did and continue to do: right action leads to right results. The true creative approach, however, is acknowledging that the right result may in fact be completely antithetical to any immediate sense of logic. But that's for another time.

Supposedly, the Rapture has happened.

Perhaps the beginnings of eternal torture begin with constant disappointment from within?

Or maybe this is simply another example of who not to believe.

A quick scribble.

Is absurdity inversely proportional to meaningfulness? Is an absurd life two-dimensional?

Can
/---\
/-----\
Is---Is Not