Relax.

If the #occupy movement has done nothing else, it has become one of the most effective conversation starters of the past few years. Bring up the subject of thousands and thousands of demonstrators taking part in a mass residential protest, and you'll inevitably find out the opinions of most anyone within earshot. In a very real sense, the protests have already done exactly what they needed to do, which was bring attention to some major social and political issues that just seem to keep getting pushed to the back. In some cases, the conversations can be awkward and heated, but this is unavoidable in politics.

Recently, in an e-mail exchange focusing on #occupy, a friend sent out a video shot by a former Soviet citizen. It's fairly straightforward: our videographer finds a pair of protesters that are holding signs that call for the end of capitalism. Seeing this, he asks them what they might suggest as a replacement. Without missing a beat, they answer back in unison, "Socialism." With this response, the videographer immediately goes after them, asking what might happen under socialism. One of them replies that "we wouldn't have people unemployed," as the videographer sneers over the top of her. From here, the conversation completely devolves into shouting, with the protesters claiming that the people of North Korea are well off, while the videographer bellows that "capitalism, people prosper; socialism, people die."

There are two immediate thoughts that I had when I first saw this video. The first was that the two protesters are simply regurgitating party rhetoric that they've been fed, and that seems clearest when they make their North Korea claim. In terms of being able to hold and defend any sort of point they'd like to make, they are completely ineffective. The other thought I had was that this whole exchange would never have been anything other than a shouting match, simply because of the approach of the videographer. From the outset, his intent is not to ask questions, but to attack*.

The political content of this video is not what I found myself focusing on. Instead, I was immediately struck by the dynamic of the argument, and just how terrified these people really were.

One of the biggest questions about this video is just how different--how newsworthy--it would be, had the videographer approached these, and other, protesters with a more neutral, or less combative, stance**. Instead, he goes in with both fists up; his tone of voice already speaks of his distaste for the protest as soon as he begins speaking. And with the first answer that is given him, he is already falling on top of it with cynicism and judgement, before the woman is finished saying anything. This makes the protesters even more defensive, and puts them in a fight-or-flight state, from where they begin arguing back with the videographer. Soon, all parties are yelling at each other, making spurious claims and refusing to listen to each other. It is the equivalent of putting on earmuffs and blindfolds and shouting.

One thought is that the dynamic of the confrontation is already set for all of them--businessman and protesters--before they've even met each other. The vast majority of coverage of #occupy has had a very distinct "us vs. them" flavor to it, and this sense seems to pervade all debates about the subject. The ubiquitous presence of police at these protests has also heightened the general level of tension, and so there is an extra energy that is not necessarily productive to all these confrontations. As a result, we end up with constant conflict and friction.

My guitar teacher noted that the movement, though it was being touted as "the 99% vs. the 1%", had much more of a "100%" spirit to it: though there is a strong feeling of the very small 1% taking advantage of the 99%, the 99% was trying very hard to relay the message that, on this planet, we simply don't have the time to spar it out anymore, and that the only useful approach at this point is to dispense with any personal claims and wants and to work together to fix and heal the situation. This compassion-based approach does not sell newspapers, but that may be why the movement has largely eschewed mainstream media and self-reported on Twitter, Facebook, et al.

So, coming back to this argument between the videographer and the protesters, the question really seems to be about how it might have played out if even one person had simply not reacted out of fear, and instead acted from compassion.

More on this in coming days.

*My friend pointed out that the man had grown up in Soviet Russia, and very likely spoke from personal experience, so it would be understandable for him to be on edge as he went down to the protests to speak with them. A google search yields a few things on him, but nothing damning: he is simply a former Russian citizen who is now an American businessman with a strong love for capitalism and support for the Tea Party. He's become a bit of a champion for the anti-OWS crowd, by virtue of being exactly the kind of figurehead they'd want to have.

**It is really easy to slip into 4th Way work jargon at around this point, so I'm making a concentrated effort to not use any.

Passings

Today is the 62nd anniversary of the death of G. I. Gurdjieff.  I did not know that this date was that anniversary until two years ago, on the 60th anniversary.

I found this out shortly after having an incredibly wholesome bowl of oatmeal on Raft Island in Washington.   This was the day of the culmination of a week's work with a group of 40 or so people, in preparation for the second Orchestra of Crafty Guitarists.  We had not known until the moment of the inaugural meeting that, instead of being part of a working preparation for the second Orchestra, we were the second Orchestra.

How things change.

So, good wishes are flying to Washington today, from Boston (and from all over, I am sure), as another group of guitarists prepares for a grand-scale performance as part of the final Tuning the Air season.  Two of the GCNE are with them for a couple of days--who knows what they'll find?

Crap.

I forgot to clean the bathroom.

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

A recent e-mail exchange. . .

A. - My friend M., the icon painter I may have mentioned to you, just returned one of my books, and later asked to send her a quote she had bookmarked. I found it, and thought you might be equally... galvanized? Sending you my translation and the original.

The relation of the Creator to the creation (or, the Not-created to the created) is called the Father, the relation of the created to the Creator is called the Son, and their shared essence, the Holy Ghost.

This is from Yakov Druskin's Diaries.

How does this strike you? It really impressed me, since we tend to, it seems, assume that if something is an essence it must, then, be a substance; so we then tend to mistake relations for substances, and that's how we get our overly personal Western God... I have the feeling that we generally have a preference for substances in the West, while Eastern philosophies may overemphasize relations at the expense of substances... But, without going too far afield, I think this is the first interpretation of the Trinity that makes even remote sense to me.

B. - Kind of weird that you sent that yesterday; completely blew the top of my head off, last night. Seemed to be exceptionally appropriate with regards to a subject that came up last night at a Bennett group meeting, i.e. the subject of "what is I" and "what is not I".

The idea of this, in pretty straightforward 4th Way work, is that if one takes one's feelings, thoughts, and body (the emotional, intellectual, and moving centers) and then asks where "I" is in this, it's seemingly impossible to say "I" is here, or there, or anywhere. "I" is not one's feelings, or thoughts, or any part of one's body, even though one might be completely in that part (for instance, getting into an argument and essentially being one's frustration at losing the argument, such as what happened to me a couple of weeks ago). When one is able to separate from that, one is able to observe that thing not being "I". (Making sense so far?)

But then who am I? It becomes increasingly difficult to say who "I" am, or what "I" am. Eventually one might see that "I" can not be seen or found. But one might be able to see action from "I".

So, how does this relate? Well, maybe it's that sort of thing where god has a particular relation to man as creator-->created. Similarly, one would see man:god::created:creator. But we might not actually be aware of the relation outside of a direct observation of action.

What excites me about this is the idea that the action might have a sentience and a consciousness itself, which sort of goes along with a hunch I've had for a bit. ("God" being not necessarily an entity or a condition but an action).

Oi, that's enough. . .

2/27/2011

Well, that was interesting. Just finished the morning sitting. The JGB group here in Boston has been working with an extended relaxation exercise that finishes with relaxing the mind, body, and emotions together as the whole self. I felt it all slot into place, and for not much more than ten seconds was aware of the whole. Then something triggered and I lost it, and was very aware of the thoughts trying to relax themselves, the mind trying to relax itself, and not being able to not identify as the body. That is, I moved from a clean and separated observation of the complete self in relaxation, to a slightly panicked inability to not be my body.

Kind of glad I picked up on that.