Week 4 Walkabout

De-center the narrative sequence of events in time that usually occupies our attention in favor of the dynamic aliveness that powers that sequence.

Exploring this on several occasions this week, what appeared for me most strongly was the insight that the dynamic aliveness to time is not an alternative to the narrative sequence of events.  It seemed I was able to best appreciate this aliveness, not so much by decentering the narrative, but by centering in the narrative, by allowing the narrative itself to disclose its own depths and dynamism.  Of course, what I am describing is not really an alternative to what Jack suggested either!  My centering-in to the narrative sequence was also a kind of deprivileging of the way that the sequence usually is experienced and held.  And yet it also felt as if there was ‘nothing to change,’ no other arrangement that was necessary…

This entry was posted in General TSK Discussions and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Week 4 Walkabout

  1. Bruce says:

    Hi, Karen,

    Yes, that seems right — there was not much intent during those experiments to experience something special. What I meant by centering in to the narrative was dropping ‘in’ to the narrative, as it was happening, as an experience — touching and merging with the ‘experience of narrating’ in the moment. In the narrating itself, as the narrating itself, was the dynamic aliveness of time.

    Michael, I like the distinction you make: engaging the self’s experiences without taking on the “Self” intentions. Yes. I didn’t feel this as any kind of restriction or requirement to ‘stay within’ the self’s confines; I just looked at what was near, not presupposing that dynamic time must be elsewhere or in some other structure or state.

  2. Bruce says:

    Hi, Karen, yes, that seems right — there was not much intent during those experiments to experience something special. What I meant by centering in to the narrative was dropping ‘in’ to the narrative, as it was happening, as an experience — touching and merging with the ‘experience of narrating’ in the moment. In the narrating itself, as the narrating itself, was the dynamic aliveness of time.
    Michael, I like the distinction you make: engaging the self’s experiences without taking on the “Self” intentions. Yes. I didn’t feel this as any kind of restriction or requirement to ‘stay within’ the self’s confines; I just looked at what was near, not presupposing that dynamic time must be elsewhere or in some other structure or state.

  3. michaelg says:

    Bruce, was your experience of engaging the narrative an example of how our efforts to become less dependent on the self typically have to work within the interests and perspectives of that self? Simply looking at the familiar from a new perspective may be the best starting point for inquiry and possible change. And as you suggest, Karin, perhaps we can engage the self’s “experience” without taking on the “Self” intentions. The former (experience) may be our best source of the riches of time and space, which the latter (the self’s intentions) ties into to the need to have a substantial home in linear time.

  4. Karin Tommack says:

    Bruce, perhaps there is a kind letting go of the self`s intention to experience something special – exciting – in your description: letting go the “doing”??? What does it mean to center-in to the narrative?
    Karin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *