Filter! 18th April 2022.
He - "So, do we have part 4?"
Me - "We do!"
Part 4.
Above clouds, between the void of space, above the pull of earth. I am drowsy between reality and anxiety.
At times like this when I have sought the glittering edge, I’ve longed for a simple way in; the perfect drug, the perfect word, the instant translocation..[link]
Again, I've not posted the rest here.
He asks me if anything changes because I write.?
Me - "Does anything change because I write. Everything changes, but does anything change because I write. This is - this writing - its like you are talking to the real person, but I'm aware that things must change, but I can't say what changes"
He tells me that it isn't necessary that everything changes...
What, I can keep coming here, we can keep having these one sided conversations - sure - as long as I pay you! I can't say that, I've already said it. I told you that I loved you and I wanted to know you, the real you, otherwise....I'm paying you to patronize me.
I head instead towards a game of philosophy.
Me - "It must do, it is impossible for it not to. It is not possible for things not to change. Things can change slowly or quickly"
He describes my writing as if in almost every sentence there's a reference to something which is implicit, rather than explained.
Yes indeed Kit, of course.
I think basically that all I've said in part 4 is that the plane is going to crash. The imaginary Mr Perls - as quoted and referenced in the text - is reminding me of the Buddhist view (that he probably paraphrased from Trungpa, as they were at Esalan together!).
I wrote this because now more than ever I need to remind myself that the only way I'm going to cope with what's coming (the end of our afternoons) is by escaping into awareness of the present moment. I feel like I'm on the edge of a skyscraper - don't look down / don't try to save yourself/ relax and enjoy the view.
He asks me, about the 'implicit' references, wondering what is it pointing to"?
Me - "Fritz on the plane, criticizes me. The the words were from 'Gestalt Verbatim' but it tickles me that it is the same stuff (Trungpa) but he misses it. And he is treated as a lama. I've always enjoyed writing, yes. A satisfaction in going through the shelves and connecting the dots. I do believe, as I've said before, that everything makes us who we are, so when something goes from your life, then that is part of my identity lost "
When something goes from your life.
This.
You.
Kit starts enquiring about my belief system...
Me - "What's the basis of my beliefs?"
Originally, fallibilism (from Medieval Latin: fallibilis, "liable to err") is the philosophical principle that propositions can be accepted even though they cannot be conclusively proven or justified, or that neither knowledge nor belief is certain. The term was coined in the late nineteenth century by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce [+]
He - "Because for example..."
Me - "The basis? Well behind all of that it is very simple -
May all beings have happiness and the cause of happiness.
May they be free of suffering and the cause of suffering.
May they never be disassociated from the supreme happiness which is without suffering.
May they remain in the boundless equanimity, free from both attachment to close ones and rejection of others
- so if you start with that as the basis then the question is, how is that to be played out? So, one can never know the whole situation or the whole story so one is always going to make mistakes. Therefore, doing the best you can with what you have is the answer and the awareness that you do not, cannot have perfect knowledge. It is as simple as that"
He asks me what is the basis for choosing the specific words I've taken from Perls, because, he says, "We are all accepting and rejecting all the time"
Me - "Are we."
He tells me that 'of course we are'!
And then he is talking about the filter - I'm tempted to say PHilter 'with a ph?'
Me - "I don't know about a filter, there are definitely preferences. Are they filters? Is a preference a filter?"
Breaking the fourth wall now, this dialogue is one of the most insane I've ever had, and because in all our sessions and especially this one, that word FILTER! Well guess what? That I'm tangential and contrary? I'm thinking about filter.
Me - "There are experiences people have that they do not chose or reject. And experiences people reject and then experience by accident, finding out that the experience wasn't what they had imagined it to be. So perhaps there is something like a filter based on a concept of one's identity - the 'I' don't do that - until I do! But more to the point, as a person experiences something unexpected, there is a gap where either the old settings kick in and nothing changes, or new awareness widens the person's 'identity filter'. So the unknown changes us, which is what I was saying in Part 4. Fritz was saying that you can't change anything, though he is saying almost that time can be split into 'dots' or moments, and that in a moment a person is what they do. But a person is changed by going into (accepting) the potential of the experience (rejecting the process of rejecting). So you can block or allow potential. But is there a filter? Surely the filter here is one's concept of identity"
Once more he explains that there is no experience without a filter, without a self to contain it...But I took this trip there and back, dissecting existence/non-existence over the course of a week's worth of teachings with Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche.
I don't believe there can be one, certain, true position.
Being open to all possibilities, remain playful!
Me - "This is the tree in the forest, if it falls and no one sees it, it didn't fall. Obviously the signifiers that describe it's fall are in human language, so one could say it hasn't happened because no one described it. But that's not true. The tree fell!
He thinks I'm totally on the wrong track, that what I've said is not relevant at all to what he is saying!
Me - "But if a tree falls and no one hears it - are you sure this isn't the same argument"?
He -"There is no such thing as an experience without an experiencer"
Me - "It is the same thing, because something happened regardless of being experienced."
He tries again - explaining that his original question was about he basis of what's kept and what isn't kept in my personal, mental reference library.
Me - "Why have I got all this junk in my library - is that the question? Well this is my understanding about the journeys that people make I guess. And the use of fantasy with reality, that interface (writing as an interface). The use of 'virtual', I've always used that "
He asks me if there could be things in my mental library that I'd not want to be there?
Me - "I don't know about that - <I'm reacting to the idea of not allowing a book, an idea, a feeling to be in 'my library'> - all books can have their place."
The Guest House
This being human is a guest house.
Every morning a new arrival.
A joy, a depression, a meanness,
some momentary awareness comes
As an unexpected visitor.
Welcome and entertain them all!
Even if they're a crowd of sorrows,
who violently sweep your house
empty of its furniture,
still treat each guest honorably.
He may be clearing you out
for some new delight.
The dark thought, the shame, the malice,
meet them at the door laughing,
and invite them in.
Be grateful for whoever comes,
because each has been sent
as a guide from beyond.
Rumi - Translated by Coleman Barks
He - "Really"!?
Me - "Yes, I'm pretty sure! Because they are just going to be there, and what I do with their information will be up to me. "
So he asks me if I'd be happy with books about how to commit suicide, or how to kill another person, or how to make home built fire-arms.
Me - "Yeah, I know but"
He seems perplexed, 'But they would be welcome in your library'?
Me - " They are welcome. But if you are asking would I prefer them to be excised, as if, as if I could make the world a pure, perfect place? No, no not at all. No, they can sit there and what I do with their information is up to me. There is no 'getting rid of' "
He asks, if I'd refer to them!
And I question his meaning.
Me - "Why would I want to read them, you mean"?
His logic seems to be, why have them in my library unless I wanted to read them!
Me -"They are a part of the place I am in. They are a part of reality.. I wish I could be simple, I wish! I wish I could see things in black and white. So I can believe that what someone is doing isn't right, but I cannot know. It is a certain 'place of mind', a certain edge of something - I can't describe it. But it is the position I've always taken"
He asks me, 'So are we going to get part 5?
Oh...the arrow in my breaking heart, for how can there be more. I'm never coming back. Why doesn't he see this - this echo's his the statement he made earlier about things not always having to change.
Me - "I don't know"
How can I answer!
He asks me if I'm writing for myself or?
Me - "To bring here because what is there to do with this time? And also it is related to here."
And because Perls was quoted in my writing, I'm describing him as one of the 'Kings of Esalan.
And then we are talking about the original Ark story - Atrahasis, and not Noah...
So, what happened in this session?
To be honest I still do not have a clue. I felt 'tested' rather like Chell in Portal! As if I'd been sent though some kind of philosophical assault course, is the best description. And I can't write it because as GDPR requires, his words and my reply that explains how complex this discussion got - has been cast into the future - to a time when we are both dead.
And this is so, so sad, and this story just is plain so sad...I'm crying as I write.
Comments