Sunday, March 19, 2017
"All teachings are prisons if believed in, but doorways if practiced"
The so called modern perspective relates to models as though they are truths,
while the traditional, organic, animist perspective relates to models,
to spoken words, signs, objects, masks, dances and song
as vectors of experience in the fathomless present
- a dialogue with the invisible.
Without pretending to understand, or to map, or otherwise theorize,
the focus could be on tone, emphasis, impact - function.
Here, Words are used to provoke -
call and response.
So, if we become interested in how tone, rhythm, emotion, and context,
especially relational context affect the model, affect the word, affect the "mind",
we might ask, is it even important to model the "mind"?
is it important to model the "self"?
is it important to "decode the past"?
is it important to model the emergence and resolution of "trauma"?
is there even such a thing as a psyche?
is there even such a thing as an unconscious mind?
is there such a thing as a conscious mind?
can thought ever know what thought is?
Aren't all models of the mind, of trauma, of experience, of identity
... more of less pertinent and penetrative
based on who speaks them, to whom, and how,
in what context, in service of what emotion,
to conjure what experience?
rather than asking,
"What Do I Believe?",
we might ask
"How Do I Believe?"
If somehow we're always lying
perhaps the only question
we can truly ask right now is,
How Does This Feel?