Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Happy Easter/Passover/Spring/ Naw Ruz/Awakening of the Earth :)
Tami,
I am impressed - in a good way - that you have found a way to have a planned route for walking meditation. I have tried and tried over the years, and my body awareness takes over, and as well, I notice the birds, plants, wind, other things. There is a measure of mindfulness there, yes, but the external environment definitely distracts me from creating that inner peace. I have not been able to establish that "ground of being" that I need to be in/have contact with/sense as my state of awareness when my body is active.
I have heard of people who can walk and meditate or do do other things while they meditate. But I have not learned how to do so yet. I can flow into a fairly meditative state when I am in the studio, losing myself for hours and hours, but it is not the depth of meditation I have when I can shed all but my breath and be within, sitting in stillness.
I like you idea of a planned path, though, and am wondering how I might incorporate that somewhere here, maybe on a mountain trail, to work on meditation with movement.
Thank you for that.
feralfae
LOL, and I totally appreciate your definition of "monkey mind" which I sometimes think of as "gerbil wheel" :)
|
|
L
climber
California dreamin' on the farside of the world..
|
|
Or does meditation have to be physically inactive?
Kath,
Towards the end of the Vipassana 10-day retreats, we were given the option to do a couple of walking meditations in place of sitting. Being an active person, I initially chose one of those.
The paths were so well groomed and manicured, you could walk them with your eyes closed...which I sometimes did, just going to and from class. However, the quality of inner stillness and minute sensory awareness just wasn't the same during the walking meditation as when I was sitting still.
My guess is that movement stimulates the sympathetic nervous system, which is counterproductive to achieving a pure state of inner stillness. Just a hunch.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
The "physically inactive" point is well taken.
My sense of this goes as follows: On another thread there was and still is a lot of talk about "determinism," which to anyone believing in a strictly mechanical explanation of consciousness will insist is entirely true, that all of our actions and reactions are determined by antecedent "causes" or factors, that our actions are in many cases determined by our brains before "we" are even conscious of a decision being mechanically made for "us."
The Sufis are huge on this whole mechanical-model, and most all of their practice is geared toward breaking out, so to speak. However for a meditator, breaking free of determinism is not a matter of trying or "doing" an undetermined act, but rather, letting all doing fall away and for a while at least, experience what life is like while making no effort to "do" anything.
"Doing," however you define it, will always involve impulses, and when one is not involved in efforting in any way, our awareness can simply observe all the determined impulses to do this or do that - neither moving toward or away from any thing or impulse or thought or sensation etc. In this observing space one might find the undetermined and unborn.
Insofar as any walking or moving involves some form of efforting, impulses are involved and followed, which once more introduces determined impulses/actions. So inaction, non-efforting, or pure being is usually the way to go, and most will find that total stillness is the path of choice in this regards.
JL
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
This latest discussion reminds me of a technique that I learned years ago from a Native American. He just called it "the Hunter", and I never considered it meditation, just a method to alter your perception by detaching your attention from focusing to just taking it all in. It is easier to do out in a natural setting, as there are less distractions. I like to be in a forest or looking into water for fish.
You basically just stand or sit really still with your eyes open and slowly let go of your eye's tendency to want to focus on objects. Your ears are not discriminating sounds. Breath through your mouth and nose at the same time, as these senses share some input. Just as in stillness there is that sense of detachment involved. At some point your perception noticeably changes such that what is going on in your periphery is as clear as any other place in your field of vision. The sound integrates with the sight in such a way as you can pick out the motion of the smallest component without actually focusing on the object. The more you do it, the quicker and better you get and you start to notice more of your environment. This is really good for finding game or even mushrooms or fish. It helps if there is not human noise around when you learn but eventually even that is not a distraction.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
The verb "meditate" refers to a range of activities or mental states (look it up on Wiki). I may "meditate" on a math theorem (focused thought), or "meditate" while climbing (focused thought and action), but for most of those on this thread "meditation" means a stillness and unfocused awareness leading ultimately to an insight that few non-meditators attain.
I suppose the question posed by this thread is whether these other kinds of "meditation" should be discussed in this setting.
Probably not.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Largo wrote:
Insofar as any walking or moving involves some form of efforting, impulses are involved and followed, which once more introduces determined impulses/actions. So inaction, non-efforting, or pure being is usually the way to go, and most will find that total stillness is the path of choice in this regards.
I found the above a clear explanation of why total stillness would be preferred by most as the path of choice.
Thank you Largo.
feralfae
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
I have found a number of secular references or descriptions to states and experiences that could look like or could refer to meditative practices and experiences. Flow is the first one I found.
FLOW
In the literature, Flow has been described in the following ways:
Flow refers to “being in the moment,” “in tune,” “in the groove,” “wired in,” “in the zone,” “centered,” and so forth.
Flow has been noted in sports, art, religion, spirituality, education, gaming, and in other pursuits.
The literature has described the experience as a feeling of spontaneous joy, complete immersion, almost mindless concentration in an activity. It’s also been labeled as *operational thinking” as opposed to *discursive thinking*
The literature has sometimes indicated that in flow states there is no self-consciousness, along with a sense of personal control or agency in situations, intrinsic reward rather than extrinsic rewards (e.g, achievement), often solitary, and aimed at self-improvement.
Most of the writing about flow says that it comes about when one’s skill is perfectly suited to a challenge. However, to sustain that kind of match-up leads to greater challenges with spiraling complexity.
The three conditions for flow has been said to be: (i) clear goals and progress; (ii) clear and immediate feedback; and (iii) a balance between *perceived* challenges and *perceived* skills (otherwise boredom or anxiousness arise).
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
MikeL,
I think that is an excellent statement on Flow as I experience in the studio and sometimes in the mountains when my body is humming with the Earth and with the mountain. Or with the clay or canvas or whatever medium I am working in at the time.
There is very little sense of awareness of self or any outer world: all is flowing together toward some envisioned goal (art object) in peace and perfect harmony. But there is no striving: only the joy of flowing synthesis and creativity.
Solving challenges by using creativity is joy and is the process. And that process itself enters into a state of flow when all is in balance. I love being in that state. Whenever I think of being in perfect peace and harmony, I think of times when I am in flow. But there is still body awareness, intentional action, and the ability to stretch awareness to include another human or two, which is where I think it might differ from what I consider my "formal" meditation practice of stillness and losing desire as well as emotions.
But, yes: they are definitely close.
Thank you.
feralfae
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Good post on flow, Mike. It's a feature of gymnastics (many years ago) and climbing (not too many years ago) that I relished. I loved to repeat climbs and problems that were not so hard that I could not abandon myself in them. I occasionally found myself weaving in and out of the rock on longer, easy solo climbs I had established.
This kind of flow is a common experience in which we have all indulged, but obviously it is not the same as the stillness in sitting meditation even though we leave our recognition of "I" behind in the flow.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
My father had a subscription to Scientific American ever since I can remember. I think it was around 1970 that there was an article in there titled, "Altered States of Awareness" if I remember correctly. It really opened my mind up with many questions, even though I found it difficult to understand as a young teen. When I went through my phase of experimenting with mind-altering substances, it gave me a perspective that my peers often lacked. They just wanted to get fupped duck and party. This curiosity lead to other discoveries in the fields of mind and perception and even mysticism and the study of ancient wisdom from as many cultures as I could understand. As I enjoy this thread, I can see that many here have enjoyed this long curious search for higher meaning of consciousness and I find it very refreshing when I can still gain new perspectives on the subject. I just wish we had a better vocabulary and syntax for being more clear in our discussions. Carry on with this worthwile thread, please, and thank you all.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Wayno,
This is a total aside, and I do not want to create a tangent, but "the Hunter" is something I learned from my Algonquin/Scottish-Sioux/French grandmother, when I was a small child. It is as you describe, thank you for mentioning it.
Yes, I also enjoy this thread and its topics. And someone mentioned Wu Wei which was something I studied at 13, and which I think of as a Flow. :) Shoji Hamada, a Japanese potter whom I admire, talked a lot about this experience.
Here, we are slowly developing a shared lexicon, but it takes a while, especially with a practice and state of being as subjective as meditation.
Thank you.
feralfae
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
The second notion in the literature that I ran into in my investigations is called, Psychological Presence.
PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESENCE
Being psychologically present means to be alive—“there.” It refers to being physically involved, emotionally connected, and cognitively vigilant.
The literature concerning psychological presence makes frequent reference to authenticity, which refers to a full expression of one’s feelings, thoughts, and beliefs. Authenticity describes an integrated whole self, bringing the depths of a personal self into *role performances.* It describes people as being vulnerable, taking risks, and feeling conflict.
There are 4 dimensions of psychological presence:
(i) Attentiveness: being open to others, not disabled by anxiety, and defenses managed.
(ii) Connection: the notion of empathy is key here—a sense of giving and receiving.
(iii) Integration: that is, people who psychological present are physically, emotionally, and intellectually grounded; people can call up different facets of the self as needed, and that means that they can switch temperaments as situations require.
(iv) Task / Role Focused: the personality is channeled through the role being played, where neither the personality nor the role assumes dominance.
How can one recognize psychological presence?
—Physically, people are planted—they are there for the interaction; physically they stand their ground.
—In terms of eye contact, present people provide eye contact about 60%-85% of the time; they hold the other “there”; they see who the other is; they exhibit useful non-verbal gestures that communicate.
—They can perform all the speech acts competently: they know how to make promises, offers, requests, declarations, and assertions; their speech exhibit cadence, sing-song tones, laughter, softness now and then, and their voices are filled with personal values
—They can follow conversations; they make sense of another’s talk; they ask questions; they are constantly in search of the *object of conversation* as opposed to intellectualizing it; they do not nitpick
—They are (again) authentic: they work with their real emotions in context of the task situation and in the role that they are fulfilling; they do not dismiss or avoid emotion; they wear no masks; they do not act out; they display what they are feeling and thinking
Why doesn’t psychological presence show up in most people?
1. We are a multitude of voices, ideas, energies, and feelings. That leads to confusion and inconsistency; hence, we cycle in and out of psychological presence, and our theories-in-use split our personhood from the roles that we think we need to wholly assume.
2. Security: we feel vulnerable when we show our real selves; (of course some people are more confident than others); being psychologically present can be totally exhausting: being vigilant effortfully can lead to burnout; it takes a lot of guts / courage—it’s a damned tough act.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Another installment.
A third secular notion that I have run across that provides some insight to meditative states or experiences arises for me out of the distinctions between what’s called “hot” and “cold” cognition in neuroscience, cognitive science, and cognitive psychology.
HOT VS. COLD COGNITION
“Cold Cognition” refers to mental-rational conscious discursive thinking. It tends to focus on content . . . that is, *knowing what.* Most people think of this kind of cognition when they think about mind. When we talk about intellect, cold cognition is what we most people are usually are referring to. Cold cognition is explicit, deliberate, effortful, rational, driven by a sense of autonomy, willpower, and individualism. Cold cognition tends to be slow and oriented to objective, extrinsic rewards (and measurements). This kind of cognition is dualistic and exhibits archaic hedonism (primarily self-interested in a narcissistic sense rather than a stoic sense).
Cold cognition also tends to be flexible, adaptive, digital (clear consequential decisions), and often generates complex modeling. Cold cognition tends to rely upon language, and it is often the basis for the acquisition of new knowledge. Cold cognition appears to exhibit limited capacity (i.e., processing power, otherwise known as “bounded rationality”). It is the basis for free riding, deception, excess desires, artifice, hypocrisy, and strategy.
“Hot Cognition” is more about *know-how.* It is tacit, practical, and cannot be formalized. It tends to be spontaneous, natural, and largely unconscious (instinct). It is fast, semi-automatic, and effortless, often showing up as habits and feelings. Hot cognition looks more analog (than digital), and it often arises out of some sense of expertise. It presents as more holistic approaches in the forms of emotions, images, and reflections. Those who study body language (e.g., Navarro, Eckman, etc.) have documented the different signs of hot cognition that the body presents to others Oftentimes, culture and the arts are mechanisms for social cohesion that rely upon hot cognition.
There are some familiar dynamics that show up in these studies / investigations of hot cognition vs. cold cognition.
Downregulation: those activities that seem to allow the control regions of the brain to become somewhat disengaged (e.g., through dancing, playing, meditation, drunkenness); down regulation makes people less inhibited, more authentic, less guileful, more honest about their feelings; a short-term suspension of self-monitoring. I have friends in international business who tell me that every important deal in the Far East is accompanied by heavy drinking as a social means to discover who the deal is being made with.
High formality (my term): occupying the conscious mind with a high focus on some detail of movement (let’s say here, writing letters on a piece of paper, hitting keys on the keyboard) allows access to the unconscious creative mind; such behaviors open-up a side conduit to the unconscious for expression. (I’ll write something about improvisation later, I guess.)
Thin-slicing: “gut feelings” that result from narrow or few windows of observations or experience. These gut feelings happen quickly. There seems to be some kind of unconscious pattern discernment going on in this.
Categorical inflexibility: the human tendency to be dominated by “mind”; letting the mind be the master; a tendency for socially learned representations of objects to constrain one’s ability to think about them in novel or creative ways.
Trying Not To Try: it’s a paradox that any meditator has experienced. I think it was Yoda who said there is no “try” or “not try.” There is only do. ;-)
Improper application of rationality without hot cognition: unconscious “hot” processes (emotions, habits, implicit skills) play a much greater role in human behavior than conscious “cold” processes would suggest. This includes moral judgements (see the work by recent ‘Neo-Humeans’—e.g. Haidt). The rational tail is wagged by the emotional dog. See also Damasio’s work on somatic markers that he says accompanies representations of the world. Damasio says that objects in the world are tightly accompanied by all sorts of feelings about good, bad, urgency, and what not. Damasio’s research (particular as it is by focusing on people who have lost part of their brains) indicates (to Damasio, at least) that the conscious mind ungrounded by the wisdom of the body is remarkably incapable of taking care of business in daily life. (This he calls, “Descartes’ error.”) People with VMPFC brain injuries (the center of emotion processing) can pass IQ tests, process math, undertake abstract reasoning, and refer to memory, but when it comes to making real life decisions, they are barely capable of functioning; such patients cannot make simple choices or take into account future consequences of decisions. Hence, Damasio says, disembodied reason is incapable of guiding human behavior—especially when it comes to morality. Morality in the real world must be, says Damasio, spontaneous, unself-conscious, automatic, and “hot.”
To sum, cold and hot cognition studies suggest that one should find ways to be relaxed but vigilant—that is, living in “hot cognition,” but ready to call on cold cognition if one gets into trouble.
Finding ways to be relaxed yet observationally vigilant (a kind of paradox) is something that meditation seems to teach.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
An early look at "flow":
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1969) The Americanization of rock climbing. University of Chicago Magazine, 61(6), 20-27.
An ST participant was one of his subjects.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
"Or does meditation have to be physically inactive?"
"It's not easy to get a satisfactory answer to this fundamental question since the resident meditators are all sitters. I've asked this before. I doubt one could experience "no-thingness" while energetically engaged, but who knows? Certainly a moving meditator may leave their "I" for a short while."
These are very interesting and important comments because they represent what one’s relationship is to the practice or meditation. I practice zen so my experience is from a zen perspective. In zen we practice with eyes open when we sit ; this is because we are witnessing. Along with the witnessing I ask “what is I” and generally I answer through the witnessing process (just being). Sometimes I am tired and will close my eyes and then I emphasize to do listening meditation. What is happening right now.
If there is a large “event” happening in my life I will often find myself dwelling about the event during sitting meditation and witnessing that dwelling on the event. When I go on solo hikes or runs I often see my mind churning over dialog about things, so I am present to the mind churning.
Mind churning is not good or bad; just mind churning; and you don’t want to try to control it. This is an important point. If you try to control the churning mind your relationship to the meditation changes from being a witness to trying to manipulate the meditation.
Once you start trying to manipulate or control the mediation you are no longer witnessing but you are trying to get something. That is why the question “what is I?” is so useful and effective it can bring you back from trying to make your meditation something. Who is it that is bothered by the churning mind?
This is all very subtle and as JL says can be a slippery slope. “I” is constantly trying coop and define the experiences. It’s why good teachers are so necessary.
When I sit retreats and especially longer retreats the witness mind when sitting ,eating or walking doesn’t shift much; it all is just a big witnessing event. The sitting helps the mind quiet down and then the activities become more like the sitting. Apparently; eventually there is no difference between sitting meditation and moving meditation (day to day life) and you by natural process are just witnessing.
For me I am still attached to many things and constantly biting the various hooks out there.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
“We are like the spider. We weave our life and then we move along in it. We are like the dreamer who dreams, and then lives in the dream. This is true for the entire universe.” (The Upanishads)
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Next Installment.
ENGAGEMENT
It’s a new and energetic topic in organizational studies. Businesses want to know how to engage people so that they can be emotionally connect to the workplace.
It’s sad, really. 70% of the workforce is either unengaged (only suiting up and showing up, and nothing more), or disengaged (actively attempting to sabotage the operations of the organization). (Only 30% are working toward an organization’s stated purposes.) The incurred losses are projected about $450B-$550B / year by Gallup—which claims 160 million data points from surveys around the world.
Anyway, the focus or definition of engagement revolves around passion, complete absorption, emotion, self-expression, “activation”, being “plugged-in,” creativity, personal voice, authenticity, non-defensive communication, playfulness, and “ethical behaviors.” Millennnials seem to resonate with most of these descriptors. The behaviors of engagement have been described as neither sacrificing a role for a self, nor vice versa. It also describes a promotion of connections to work and others, and innovation and improvisation.
A few threads of commonality can be seen from the descriptions or narratives up to now. I have two more to add, yet, though. Then I’ll try to summarize. The next two are Improvisation, and non-secular Chinese Wu Wei.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
MikeL,
As always, looking forward to your posts. Climbing is certainly a form of flow or of a meditative state for me, especially when I have been on a route that I know well. There is little that provides more sense of being-ness for my entire physical, mental, and spiritual being.
I am especially looking forward to your post on Wu Wei.
Thank you
feralfae
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Thanks, Feralfae. Looks like this thread isn't getting much notice. (Just as well, I guess.)
"I'm sorry I wrote such a long letter; I didn't have time to write a short one" (Blaise Pascal).
IMPROVISATION
I think I mentioned before that some folks from the fine arts department pointed me to improvisation last year, so it’s still a relatively new topic for me. Improvisation taps an apparent infinite number of repertoires that reside in the unconscious. It is intuition-in-action. It’s been said to be pure style. It seems to be connected to expertise and mindless practice. I’ve come to understand that improvisation is about surrendering, letting go.
It’s been said there are 5 different stages of competence. The first stage is (if I were a competent teacher in the area): you watch me do it. The second stage is I watch you do it. The third stage is you do it alone, and then I’ll monitor the outcomes in some fashion. This is the stage that most of us find ourselves in most things. We’re competent. The fourth stage is when you do the work / task, you add your imprint (imprimatur) to it. Others can identify your work stylistically as “your work.” “Oh, yeah, that’s DMT’s work.” The work has something of your individuality, your personality, in it. This fourth stage is known as virtuosity. The fifth stage, mastery, is when you do the work, you do it differently each and every time. You can start anywhere and finish anywhere in the work / task under different conditions. Mastery of understanding here is no longer related content or process: instead, it’s in-the-moment expression. Competence passes to presence. If skill hides in the unconscious, then when the skill is shown, it reveals the unconscious.
Style tends to come out of the minute particulars of body, mind, and speech; these are vehicles through which the self moves and manifests itself. Its essence is original nature. Style comes through every mark one makes. Every person is an intricate design in his or her individuality, personally and transpersonally. There is nothing random about anyone; randomness is impossible.
There is a great deal of attention in the literature about practice in improvisation. Practice, practice, practice. But it’s not “practice making perfect.” That kind of practice looks more like professionalism—rigid forms of skill acquisition and formalized education. (In the East they believe practice reveals the personality, the individual, what is actually there.)
In improvisation, practice is play, and play is practice. Play is not what a player does, but how a player does it. Play is different than game. Play is an attitude—without being a defined activity with rules, playing field, or participants. All creative acts are forms of play. Practice properly performed is without objective or goal other than just play, where there is nothing to gain and nothing to lose. “Funktionlust” (Ger.) looks similar: the pleasure of doing or producing an effect, as opposed to attaining an effect or having something. When practice no longer feels like play, a player is supposed to quit until it is play again. (Some have claimed that without play, learning and evolution are impossible.)
Improvisational practice is patient and thorough. It often looks to so many people like ritual. But understood for what it should be, ritual is a form of concentration and love. Indeed, all artistic players adore their instruments. For example, writing is an art for a person who adores language, when the purpose is not to make a point but to provoke an imaginative or imaginary state. Concentrating on close-order technique (e.g., with the body, gravity, balance, a writing instrument, a drum, a rope and set of protection) leaves room for inspiration to sneak through the barrier between the unconscious and the conscious unimpeded. Then “the player” disappears.
Playing with or preparing with the instruments or tools of one’s activities is ritualistic. It seems players do so to invoke the muse, to clear obscurations and doubts from their minds, to open capacities, concentration, intensify, tune-in, tune-up, turn-on, stabilize him or herself for the challenge that lies ahead. An instrument (even a body) “played,” is a dance with an object. The system of player-instrument-audience-environment (for example) is one indivisible, interactive totality. When that relationship is realized, mastery and control become meaningless. For art to appear, a player must disappear. Practice IS art, much like meditation IS enlightenment, much like climbing IS the mountain. When a climber is “in the zone,” he or she is the mountain. This happens only in real time.
Of course, as all meditators and artists experience, they get stuck in their art or work. Stuckness occurs when a player puts too much effort into the practice. Creative despair, being hopelessly stuck, is simply a symptom that a player is throwing everything she has into her effort. Losing sight of playfulness, work or art becomes ponderous and stiff. Any player may devise a plan of action or an agenda, but when approaching the moment of truth in performance, he or she needs to throw those away. Instead, a player can become what he or she is doing (“out ‘I’ go and there is only the work”). The noun becomes a verb through a samadhi—an absorption in a fascination of textures, resistances, nuances, limitations through some kind of media. A player lets go; does nothing; just lets things happen (Jung).
So many things are improvisational, but we don’t think about them that way. Ordinary speech is improvisational. Every conversation is a form of jazz. Conversation is not meeting another halfway but developing something new to both. Riding a bike is improvisational—when effortless control comes through balance and continuous adjustment to continuous change. (Of course, speaking in complete sentences is not art.) The closer one looks, the more that everything looks improvisational and spontaneous, a synaptic summation, a balance and combination of multivariate complexities in a single flash. Zing.
There are a few particular techniques that are worth describing.
Galumphing Apparently anthropologists have found that “galumphing” is a prime characteristic of higher life forms. Galumphing (e.g., the walk of models on a runway) is rambunctious, inexhaustible, seemingly useless elaboration, an ornamentation of activity, profligate, excessive, exaggerated, uneconomical, and guaranteeing an over-supply of requisite variety. Also referred to as “technique to burn,” this form of play sharpens the capacity to deal with a changing world.
Entrainment Focusing on making small acts impeccable entrains the body, speech, and mind into a single stream of activity. Have one person start a beat, have a second add to it, and then a third. Every player must listen closely and adjust constantly to keep the pulse, but mostly it’s nonstop in-the-moment adjustments, push-and-pull. It’s a trance state. One has to relax to stay with it. Being slightly off from one another makes finding each other exciting. We feel carried away or carried inward by rhythmic, mantic, qualities of music, poetry, theatre, and ritual.
When writing, simply focus on hitting the keys one at a time, or drawing the perfect letter with pen and paper. Or getting up from the chair to go to the kitchen—make those movements flawlessly, perfectly, gracefully. This appears to occupy the discursive thinking mind and allows the creativity to express itself. Meditators should have some experience with this.
Structures would seem to ignite spontaneity. Limits provide artists and players with something to work with, and against. But it’s not like art or beautiful work is thought up in consciousness to be expressed by the hand or feet or mouth. In fact, a player’s feet or hands or voice will surprise him, as if they were creating and solving a player’s problems on their own. Players can often be baffled at how their bodies, mind, and speech show up effortlessly. When that feeling and forms come into a state of harmony, players can almost audibly hear the “click” when both slide into shape with each other. It creates a huge surge of energy, as though it is a recognition of an old feeling that has never quite surfaced before. (As Plato said, we don’t learn . . . we remember.)
Eduction Eduction is a drawing-out of a thing or pattern from reality, something that a player knows. Eduction is an assimilation of an outside pattern, *and* an accommodation to it. This describes a never-ending dialogue between making and sensing (a mutual causality) in a player’s world, something perhaps never seen before—but nonetheless something that is a natural outgrowth of a player’s original nature. Eduction is the dance of a player endlessly projecting, sensing the projections, and amending the projections, and on and on.
Like mediation, improvisation shows us that, against a background that is still, quiet, and stress-free, subtle sounds and movements can have very dramatic effects.
Personal creativity is baffling and paradoxical. *Trying* to control, create, break-free of self-tied knots requires a player to distance him or herself from what he or she is already. Improvisation is a form of surrender, and the surrender needs to be complete, genuine, uncontrived, wholehearted, with hope and fear abandoned, with nothing to gain or lose. Fear-based playing, on the other hand, is *trying* to play while being pre-occupied with self. Not caring, a player plays better. Anytime a player performs an activity for an outcome, he or she is not totally in that activity.
When Miles Davis approached the microphone, he focused himself into a meditative space before playing a note. There would often be long silences between phrases in his playing. Vladamir Horowitz showed absolute stillness and concentration as he “watched his hands” play the pieces. Keith Jarrett said of Miles that his sound came from silence that existed before time, before the first musician played the first note. When players have that kind of connection, they claim their art / work is more like taking dictation (see Mary Watkins’ works). Players should put their hands on their instruments and trust them. Then material plays itself, and it comes out organically as “the player’s voice.” This idea goes so far as to not even caring about being artistically good. Even that must be surrendered. As Miles said (and later Thelonious Monk showed everyone with his music), “there are no wrong notes.” The more a player feels as though he or she can walk away, the more powerful the playing becomes. “Try to imagine as much as possible that someone else is doing the playing.” If you do not have this kind of patience, then stop playing. Keep it light. Let things come to you.
“The way [Great Tao] is not difficult; just avoid picking and choosing” (Seng Tsan).
|
|
pa
climber
|
|
MikeL, thank you for a very very good post....Particularly liked: "For art to appear, the player must disappear".
I have always been drawn to the verb "To acquiesce"...
Acquisition and yielding, all in one fractal flow :))
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!