Saturday, May 26, 2007

Individual post

Breathing Like an Individual

The ritual, culture, and politics of breathing

For the last few days I have be contemplating the factional identity politics of class and the comparative difficulties of practicing healthy culture that they seem to involve. In the city (where image and vanity seem to rule especially) and in my own newly arrived at situation, there is a lot of occasion to contemplate such a thing. Having had experiences among "millionares", "middle-class" folks and "the homeless" I have come to the conclusion that they all tend to share sick culture equally, at least to the extent that they identify with such titles, and that they are all more or less equally far from the field of inner and outer belonging that is Individual-Personhood.  But though the disease is the same for everyone wearing a uniform of "class", there does seem to be some distinction in the facility each "soldier" will have in shedding that uniform and entering into an experience of authentic identity. At least my experience is that I don't have to actively maintain some sense of myself as "homeless" or whatever to "maintain" that designation in the eyes of others. "putting on airs" about such a thing is definately more optional than in the more elevated positions (not to say that it doesn't happen"). What I am getting at here is that, from my experience, it is marginally easier to practice healthy culture when one doesn't have to maintain somekind of "elevated" position among ones fellows. Among other things, in such a situation as this, I have more exposure to (or just less distraction from) what we all have In common is individual-persons: the elements, bodies, sunshine, the company of non-human individual-persons, the outdoors generally, the whole "leaves of grass" sense of glorious of egalitarian commonality...

Still, although this being a "tramp" business seems to be more conducive to Individual-Personhood, and to the "us-perception" that is the path to it, to take advantage of such an opening one needs more of healthy culture than just its cosmology and Identity-politics; there is Ritual to consider as well. (I should explain here that I use the term "us-perception" to mean something more a like  "us-and-us"-perception, that is, something I oppose to the normal alienated, "us-or-them" or "me-or-them"-perception that is the norm, though this terminology might be refined in the future).  What I am discovering while walking about downtown Phildelphia, sitting in coffie houses, doing tai chi or playing clarinet in the park (as well as applying for jobs that seem suitable) is that there is an inner "us-perception" as well as an outer one, and that these depend on each other mutually.

The inner "us" is the "us" that comprises the "Individual" aspect of Individual-Personhood and of which I have already written on this blog: the inner animal, inner child, inner adult,and inner elder. These aspects of our individuality have corresponding places on or in the body, and it is possible to use this understanding to assess the degree to which the corresponding aspect of the individual is being repressed or inclusively integrated into the wholeness of the personality in that moment. Specifically, the area of the lower belly is the area of the inner animal, the area of the heart is that of the inner child, the area roughly from the neck to eyes is the area of the inner adult and the area about that trancending the top of the head is the area of the intuition or inner elder.

Now, what I what to share here is that simply Breathing, considered as a ritual (and remember by "ritual" I mean any repeated action that reinforces a cosmology, identity-politics, and infrastructure) is potentially one of the most basic and expressions of being, of participation in togetherness, of welcome and thanks. What I am discovering is that it is possible to breath in a way that "feeds" the animal, child, adult and elder inclusively, and that such breathing means breathing as a whole "individual" and by implication, as a whole Individual-person. Just a little practice of such breathing, (which begins with welcoming inhalation of animal "belly-breathing, and continues with the visualized sense of the air and light feeding the heart, mind, and soul respectively, reversing this order on the exhalation of gratitude), is enough to lead one to diagnose ones own and others degree of alienation from their individual-personhood just in terms of the way they are breathing and standing or sitting (posture is very much inextricably involved with the whole thing and it is impossible to breath like an Individual in certain postures).

Most people seem to alternate (it seems more like a struggle is going on really) between "child" (chest) breathing  and "adult" (throat) breathing and never seem to feed there inner animals and elders at all. I imagine that the chronic hurry and bustle of city life together with the fact that the qualtity of air in cities does not exactly inspire whole-hearted indulgence, account for this tendency even in many of the poor and idle. I suppose in some rural places one might expect more animal breathing, though I can't recall this  from my recent experience in the country. What seems obvious after a little bit of looking around from this point of view is that people are as factional and inhospitable toward their whole selves as individuals as they are towards each other, and that they suffer from this inwardly as unconscious individuals as well as outwardly, as unconscious Persons... 

Anyway, the point of cultivating this form of inclusive breathing as an expression of my full Individuality and  "inner us"-perception, (besides the paradox that "breathing like an Individual" is itself both an individual and a "general", sharable thing) is that it is also an expression of my  "personhood" and so of my outer "us-perception" as well; Feeding the Inner Animal means awakening more to the familial wherever I am; Feeding the Inner Child means keeping alive my sense of my neighborhood; Feeding the adult helps me remain awake to strangers and to my civil responcibilities, and a well feed elder (and here I should say that, in breathing, the elder is fed more at the "cusp" of the in-breath and the out-breath, and that this is more of a psychic thing), keeps alive my sense of ultimate things and of the responcibilty of coming to terms about such things with others. I know that the details of this are not obvious yet but it must suffice for now to say that, In general, as I inwardly affirm inclusivity and togetherness in my very breathing, then outwardly inclusive perception in also affirmed and enabled so that the true Mutuality of inner/outer "us-perception becomes manifest, and the threshold of a consciously shared Individual-Personhood is really reached.

There are subleties about breathing and attention, both in myself and others that I am discovering and that I may add to this post later, but the fact of the situation is that I am writing this in an internet cafe and others are waiting so I will have to take a deep, (inclusive) breath and let this stand for now, but not before challenging myself to keep up this renewed default (a "default only, since life-logically, it must also integrate its opposite) of Individual-personal breathing, and being, for the forseeable future.... 

Welcome and Thanks,

I-P

posted by: piankhy | 17:39 | comments

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Just a quick correction to a word I used in the above post - I meant to use the word "Non-Impartial" not "Impartial".

posted by: piankhy | 21:21 | comments

"Inexperience"

This I-P - Tusti - is in no way "inexperienced" in the ways and wherefores of our sick culture being as I live and work in the "heart" of it. Having studied, researched and worked/ work within the underbelly of our sick culture, I consider myself extremely "street" in every respect. This profound turn of events could not have been foreseen by even the most "experienced" of I-Ps - at least not those I-Ps with a cleansed but "street" soul.  What this was was an accumulation of "isms" all cooked together and stirred with a power tripped, judgemental and impartial immigration officer who had been given unjust laws to use at this I-P's will. Her actions where a culmination of all this - nothing more, nothing less.  What this demonstrates is an accumulation of many components of sick culture all rolled into one which played out into deportation with no right of appeal. Even our Immigration advisor was uncomfortable at what he saw before him with our case and this I-P is used to working with asylum seekers and refugees who have less rights than anyone in our global village yet Piankhy had no rights at all. Not one. I-P  was judged and found guilty in a heartbeat based upon one Immigration Officers lifelong sucking in of filthy sick culture from every corner of our society and is just a symptom of what both Piankhy and I are choosing to help heal (or die trying) within our world.

posted by: piankhy | 20:12 | comments

Citizen of the World Post

posted by: piankhy | 15:18 | comments

Saturday, May 05, 2007

Soul Post

{note: I think my friend Tusti is willing make posts (as opposed to comments) on this blog in i-p's own right only after i-p and I meet and consense more on various things about it. I am not sure we have worked out the technical details of just how that works anyway as yet. As its stands, I will continue to post here as usual but with the implicit invitation that i-p comment in the space provided--or not--as i-p sees fit. --p}

Soul Post

I still have not really found a regular in-person venue in which practice coming-together with people in terms of ultimate things, though it is true that any conversation with me of any real length is going to involve me sharing something about healthy culture and its cosmology or togetherness. There was some healthy culture talk between me and two of my co-managers on a fencing project recently, for example. I was somewhat indirect and I was speaking mostly of other world views and trying to explain them in terms of the assumptions that they seem to share with those of Integral Science, but it felt like a good gesture non-the-less. As I said in a previous post, I am also reading a book of channeled information that has been very influential in the spirituality of my friend Tusti, as a preparation for our further coming-together as souls once we meet. Most recently I have shared some of my world view with a Korean person who is visiting twin oaks with the result of the person wanting me to sponsor I-P in a vision quest before I leave for England. I am looking forward to it. The fact that such conversations and encounters often happen makes me a little less worried about my degree of Life in this "Soul" venue of my Personhood, but I know that ultimately things need to manifest on a much grander scale and a with challenge to—perhaps even a confrontation—with the collective conscious and unconscious loom in the future in this regard. There is a sense that all that I am doing now (especially in the way of reading and research) is preparation for this. Listening…

I do think that I have found a pretty good venue of on-line explorations in this area, and that is “Crossroads of Religion”, which is a “tribe” on the networking site “tribe.net”. It is a pretty no holds barred venue for the discussion of various speculations, beliefs, and practices regarding ultimate things, that includes not only religion, but science and philosophy, whether theistic or atheistic or agnostic. Civility is not always to be expected in these “discussions” but  I often find it interesting reading and have even ventured a post or two myself.

The last post of mine was a copy of the post on “Life-Logic” that you can find on the partner blog to this one. The ensuing exchange lasted for about 50 posts and in places felt pretty tedious, but I am very glad I did it because of the realization (or perhaps it was just more of a strong reminder) of how the assumptions behind logic mirror the assumptions behind the purpose of discourse itself. In other words, it soon became clear how the “either/or”, “true/false” dichotomies assumed in logic are themselves manifestations of the “Zero/Sum”, “Win/Lose”, competitive motive and framing of public conversation itself (which of course just reflects the “competition-crazy” culture of ancient Greece in which such our formal logic has its roots). What got clarified along with this of course, is that the relatively non-competitive and exclusion-transcending assumptions of Life-Logic also imply and involve a default intention and attitude regarding discourse (a different kind of discourse really) that is equally non-competitive; one in which the guiding intention is “win/win” mutual insight and the joint manifestation and experience of Living Truth, rather than the “win/lose” result of the normal public debate.

This of course put me at a distinct disadvantage in the ensuing discussion of my post since at many points I, and at least one of my interlocutors, were writing at cross purposes and (at the beginning of the discussion anyway) this was not really as clear as it should have been to any of us. It is not that I felt participating in “debate” was some sort betrayal on my part, since Life-logic certainly allows this kind of thing when appropriate, but the lack of clarity about the differences between life-logical discussion and debate meant that my departure from the normal rules of such debate (when they did not seem appropriate) seemed like inconsistencies or “cheating”. If I had started with the distinctions between life-logical discourse and normal discourse so far as underlying intentions and assumptions go, and formally invited the others to experiment with the such intentions in the ensuing discussion (or at least to acknowledge my right to do so), then the discussion (at least with my main interlocutor) might have culminated in more of the win-win experience that I was intending. Still I think that the whole thing resulted in some mutual growth and understanding even with that person (though this was not really acknowledged on I-P’s part).

I noticed that those who met my essay with more openness, and more of the intention of mutual learning seemed inspire me to greater clarity than the I-P’s that were more immediately critical. The following post of mine, for example was a belated response to a side exchange between two other participants regarding the “idea” of shared or sharable understanding. I think I ventured my response  mostly because I felt receptivity on the part of the person I was posting to. In retrospect I am not so sure it is a clearer explanation of this aspect of integral science than I have posted elsewhere (for example, in my very earliest post of the partner blog to this one), but I think it takes it a little further. Here is the post:

“Hi Loki, Thanks for your comments and support. I had the Idea of trying to share some of the following during your discussion with Swarm about understanding but didn’t. I think I’ll do it here even though it sort of means opening up a whole can of worms. Tell be what you think:

In Integral Science there is are relative distinctions made between Information (which is relatively abstract hearsay, presumably abstracted from someone’s memory: I have only "information" about Tibet if I've never been there), Knowledge (by which is meant remembered experience of something: I have relative Knowledge of Tibet if I have been there in the past but am not there now), Understanding (by which is meant Actual experience: I have relative Understanding of Tibet if I am actually there now), and Faith (by which is meant various assumptions of the ultimate meaning of my Understanding, Knowledge, and Information: now that I am here in Tibet Faith in the meaning of my being here guides my actions).

Life-Logically it can be just as relevant that each of these four aspects of Living Truth can be relatively distinguished as that they overlap, imply, and grade into each other.

At the level of Cosmology and Logic and other fundamental assumptions, Faith feeds Understanding (because Faith when acted on leads to a present experience in terms of the Faith). At the same time Understanding feeds Knowledge (because present experience becomes remembered experience in time) and Knowledge feeds Information (because Information is the “result” of memory that is abstracted and translated into agreed upon communicable signs). And closing the cycle, Information in turn feeds Faith (in the sense that the Information provides the terms in which Faith (in the cosmology, logic etc…) is affirmed, expressed and justified.

So in terms of Life-Logic, Faith in Togetherness is going to feed the experience (Understanding) of Togetherness, which will in turn awaken past memories of (Knowledge of) of Togetherness. Information about Togetherness will develop from this in the form of terms in which primary Togetherness can be affirmed and explained as Faith etc. The same is true of Faith in primary Apartness: it will feed the experience of primary Apartness (which, life-logically, is always there as Alienation and Fear—just as that of Primary Togetherness is also always there as Belonging and Love) and awaken past memories (Knowledge) of Apartness. This will lead to Information in terms that affirm, express and justify Faith in Primary Apartness. The difference here is that Faith in Primary (paradoxical) Togetherness includes Apartness in a dynamic and integrative way and so allows for a full Understanding (experience) of reality, a fuller Knowledge of it and a more diverse palette of terms (Information) in terms of which it can be expressed, than is the case when Primary Apartness is affirmed.


Anyway, all of this seems to relate to you guys disagreement in that, the only way we can really share Understanding is if we also share Knowledge, Information and Faith to some extent. The good news is that people do all share these things to some extent and that is what makes shared understanding possible. The bad news is the extent to which our own individual and collective cultures of apartness deny this essential common ground in such a way as to accent the non-sharable aspects of Understanding (and Faith, and Information, and Knowledge) and ignore or fail to cultivate the sharable aspects. Paradoxically of course, when this as happening between two people or groups they ARE sharing in a way: they are sharing the culture of Apartness, sharing a Faith in Apartness, Sharing and experience (understanding) of Apartness as alienation, and its associated kinds of memories and resulting kind of vocabulary. But this is sharing on behalf of not-sharing; it is togetherness on behalf of apartness, and as such it is a sign of cultural erosion.

Coming together with a Faith in primary Paradoxical Togetherness on the other hand, leads to a result in which differences are seen to imply (as they do imply) similarities as well (and visa versa: similarities are seen to always imply differences). In this way false and rigid solidarities and inner and outer factions can be dissolved and dissolved in such a way as to reveal and further the experience (Understanding), Knowledge of, and vocabulary for, our true solidarity as Individual-Persons with in the living dance of mutuality and Paradoxical Togetherness that we began by affirming as Faith. When this is happening “Cultural Composting” (that is Healthy Culture) is what is happening and healthy Understanding between Individuals and Cultures can be not only shared but cultivated.

Take Care,

Piankhy”

All in All I think that “The Crossroads of Religion” (It should really be called “The Crossroads of Religion, Science, and Philosophy”), is a pretty appropriate place for Integral Science and its Life-Logical assumptions to be shared online. I think I’ll keep reading, making posts, and starting the occasional Topic, and see what comes of it. At the vary least I helps me feel a little more alive and “Soulful”  in this venue of my Life-Dance.  I don’t however, intend to become complacent with it and so cease to be working my way toward ever more vital (and very likely more risky) gestures in this area.

posted by: piankhy | 17:05 | comments