Thank you Edzd, yes it’s nice to be back and hobbling about for now 
1 Like
I have been having a pretty fun time finding out how ‘I’ tick, I forgot how fun this can be, to as Peter wrote “hoe into the meal” of investigating anything and everything which stands in the way of enjoying and appreciating life now. Because with each bit of ‘me’ seen for what it is there is always the solid knowing that my life has just got better, bit by bit at a time.
What I discovered today is just how fragile ‘my’ ‘peace’ is… This was actually an unexpected outcome of some other exploration. It is back again to those ‘good’ feelings, which so often fly under the radar. And yet being attentive to what is going on inside the clues eventually come together and the culprit is exposed .
What I see now is that ‘I’ have manufactured a ‘peace’ for ‘myself’, a conditional ‘peace’, a ‘peace’ that depends on the ‘good’ feelings being sustained, a self-centric ‘peace’. And this is where it all starts to unravel… Because this ‘peace’ is anything but that, how can something so fragile, so susceptible, so conditional ever be called peace? The other fascinating part of it is that this ‘peace’ inevitably triggers aggression in ‘me’ as ‘I’ need to protect this fragile construct. Also by the end of it all it has nothing else to turn to but to become a resentment at life not going to ‘my’ demands.
So to summarise, this ‘peace’ not only delivers anything but peace for myself, but furthermore it actively leads to conflict with others, this is where the scare quotes are certainly needed when talking about this construct haha.
And all of the above makes something very clear, that a genuine peace must be rooted in felicity and innocuity. The conditional and self-centric ‘good’ feelings can never deliver a peace, not for the individual and certainly not communally. This last part specifically is so blindingly obvious, how can such a self-centric modus operandi ever work on a community level!? Too many ‘selves’ all with their own demands, expectations etc, it is simply impossible that it could ever work.
The other fascinating part which this highlighted about ‘me’ in particular is in the word “mundane”. I have found in ‘myself’ not only a need to distinguish ‘myself’ as special but an active resistance to that which is mundane. Essentially it means that the pursuit of ‘my’ happiness via the ‘good’ feelings (not the actualism goal) is all about distinguishing and affirming ‘myself’ apart from others, self-aggrandising basically. But this MO it has the very same problems as the above, it could never ever deliver a lasting peace and happiness for everybody and at all times.
Life would be a vale of tears if perfection and purity was only to be found in that which is special, only granted to some, in exempt circumstances. So this resistance to that which is mundane is what locks ‘me’ away from allowing the actual perfection and purity which is here for everybody, and which has no conditions for it’s granting, rather it is simply here.
2 Likes
So I woke up today experiencing this (to borrow Richard’s words) oh-so familiar flavour, this one of a kind magical-enchanted flavour. I don’t know if this flavour is what naivete is or if it is the flavour of pure intent, I guess it’s both really. It’s a flavour which is completely absent in reality, hence reality is dull, empty, static, meaningless etc. Whereas this flavour is like a missing component is added to the very fabric of life itself, where even when doing nothing life is experienced as a magical-enchanted escapade. And this flavour is not generated by ‘me’, it is not of ‘me’ but rather comes from the actual world. And tasting this flavour it leads to re-memorating other times when it was experienced, memories which were up to now forgotten. Like a trip to London with Sonya some time back where it was particularly present. This flavour it always has the effect of galvanising me into action because it is so delightful in this deeply meaningful way that I just have to find a way to allow it more. And that is the crux of it really, I have experienced this flavour many times, and each time it is just as fresh and delightful, but the question is how to live with it all the time? Why these constant reversions away from it, only to then re-discover it once more some time later. And then all that time in-between, without this flavour present is such a waste.
There is something which I can see, I could actually see it happen this morning, that this shadowy construct which is ‘me’ (as the ‘doer’?) has to fade in order to allow this flavour. They cannot both be operant at the same time!
2 Likes
Hi Kuba,
This is a great description of naiveté infused with pure intent.
When I looked at your question at the end, I noticed something interesting. When you talk about naiveté you use the first-person pronoun but then when the doer takes command you describe it in the passive voice, as something happening to you as if you had no control over it, such as “these constant reversions away from it”, “this shadowy construct” like a mere skeleton banned into the cupboard. You put ‘it’ at arm’s length and futilely command it to go away (“has to fade”).
Remember the phrase “‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’”? It informs you that everything you are affectively experiencing is ‘you’. How can ‘you’ command ‘you’ to go away? As I said to João the other day –
Vineeto: Especially when you are looking at the feelings which prevent you from enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive now, the phrase “‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’” is well worth remembering as it can inform you when you are keeping your feelings at arm’s length while attempting from a distance to unsuccessfully shuffle them around, or if you really take on board that you are your feelings from which experience you can then, quite easily, decide to be a more felicitous feeling (link).
From this non-dissociative experience, you can also decide to be naïve and and/or remain naïve. All you need to do to maintain this naiveté, is to be aware whenever the slightest dissociation sets in because of some unpleasant feeling, decline to push it away, and instead naïvely embrace it as some issue which still requires to be looked at. When you don’t push it away you can remain naïve, interested, fascinated, and be a friend to yourself without interruption.
Then allowing the flavour of pure intent happens of its own accord.
Cheers Vineeto
Hi Vineeto,
I have been looking at what you wrote and also I have had Geoffrey’s words on my mind - “When ‘I’ am whole feeling good is a choice”. Those words stuck in my mind because they summarise so well this very common pitfall for me. Which is basically to split ‘myself’ and then have 1 part try to shove around other parts.
I was thinking the past couple of days about how the actualism method is intended to be utilised sincerely ie with ‘me’ as a whole, and how crucial this is. Because the second that ‘I’ operate from that dissociative experience then ‘I’ am no longer aware that ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings, and so how can ‘I’ possibly have a choice as to how ‘I’ experience this moment of being alive. From the dissociative experience ‘I’ can only try to shuffle around parts of ‘me’ and ultimately go round in circles.
It has been almost like a different paradigm altogether, to consider proceeding only as a whole, that any ‘motion’ which happens for ‘me’ is ‘me’ moving as a whole. Initially when I considered this it seemed like trying to work out a muscle I have never used, it seemed all buttons on ‘my’ dashboard entailed splitting up first.
But I have been putting this into practice and then today I was able to re-discover naiveté again. But this time I can indeed see that it is something that ‘I’ am ‘being’. I experienced naivete as a “place in ‘me’” which ‘I’ can visit/become. I also noticed that when ‘I’ allow naiveté that there is this tenderness in ‘me’ which did not exist just prior. It is always experienced as being so right, that this is exactly how ‘I’ should ‘be’, not as a moral command but because it delivers the goods.
2 Likes
Some time ago I took up a different way of teaching BJJ called the “ecological approach”. Which is essentially replacing choreographed non-resistance drilling (of the various ‘correct techniques’) with live games where students are encouraged to discover solutions to problems themselves. By and large this has been a very effective shift, both in terms of fun and learning.
But I have noticed where ‘I’ have been stuffing things up here, because ‘I’ turned it into a belief system and developed loyalty to this new approach. Basically it has been that whatever the question is the “ecological approach” is the answer.
And because I am still getting to grips with this new way of structuring practices there are times when I have come to a complete gridlock, having no idea how I could possibly teach what I intend to teach and still maintain loyalty to this new way of doing things.
And all the above has been seeping fun out of teaching for me!
Then I have been coming to realise that what I do in adopting a belief system is that I actually prevent my intelligence from freely operating. And not only does this create these seemingly impassable gridlocks but it removes me from being involved in the process, which is where the fun is at, fun comes from engagement.
In an ironic roundabout way I failed to realise that my teaching also develops through active problem solving just like what this “ecological approach” is trying to foster in martial arts practice.
And really why this “ecological approach” works so well for students is because it encourages naive learning. It is leaning through full involvement and active problem solving, it is all about looking at each situation afresh without the constraints of the various rights and wrongs. It is working things out for oneself in the moment and thus developing confidence in one’s ability to solve the next problem, and the next etc. It is all about encouraging more and more for one’s native intelligence to operate, and all this can be extremely fun and can lead to some quite amazing results.
But I haven’t given myself the chance to approach learning to teach in that same manner! Perhaps because I believe ‘the coach’ is meant to have it all worked out before hand, rather than having the freedom to learn through error and problem solving - how learning actually happens. As ‘the coach’ I haven’t given myself the freedom to make errors and so learning is stifled. So then I am only left with a Hail Mary of getting it all correct on the first go, and of course in that situation I have to turn to belief systems and then end up in inevitable gridlocks. It’s the loyalty that leads to the gridlocks, as my intelligence and common sense is not allowed to operate.
This actually touches upon one of “my top 5 themes” Which is the need to have it all worked out in advance, and naiveté does not operate that way. But I am getting these inklings that it is actually far better to discover each moment afresh, and to attend to it afresh.