Below is a link to a short video meditation based on a “time” exercise from the Time Space Knowledge vision that seems fit to share here:
Thanks, Bruce. Just had a chance to view the short video.
It’s interesting, on the last hangout (…I think it was, though it may have been us chatting just before going live) Jeremy and I were talking about relating to time as an artistic medium in and of itself. What does Gebser mean by “integrating time”? This idea of “conducting time,” as one might an electrical current or the energy of a dance, resonates.
It’s a topic that’s particularly alive for me, as I always seem to be coming up against the limits of time in my own mind; I’m only barely learning, I feel, how to really work with time, move with it creatively—tensions, contractions, expansions, intensifications, and all—rather than so often experiencing it as competing against itself, if that makes sense.
I’ve always been troubled by the false choice between dance or narrative. Why not both? Many dances are based on narrative and is as symbiotic as a mother nursing a baby, gesture, movement if it is interesting traces out a dynamic intensity. That is the only glitch I felt from this lovely presentation, with the awesome ballerina. I wonder if the current hostility to narrative in Tulku and elsewhere may not come from a break down in communities, where fact to face interactions is always connected to story, anecdote, gossip, touch, taste. Tulku on occasion points out that he is telling a story without a story. Like poetry without words as John Cage advocated. Tulku is a master of metaphor, suggestive, ephemeral, lots of magic. Because narratives get stale and boring is no reason to reject narratives as a major communication strategy. Just a response after being away from TSK for a decade or so. I read all of the books back in the 90s. Probably need an update. Thanks Bruce
Hi, Marco. I’m finding a lot of resonance between Gebser’s reflections on time and the TSK vision, as I expected I would going in to this. “Conducting time” resonantes as an image for me, as well – and relates to what TSK would define as second-level time. Time as the scintillating, open, creative dynamism of any-experience-at-all. In Gebser, at the point in the reading that I’ve reached so far, I find he seems to take a somewhat dismissive stance towards ‘space’ – seeming to advocate a decisive switch from a spatial orientation to a temporal one – and if that’s the case, then something to consider would be that space itself has not been plumbed by mental consciousness, that it may have its own expression(s) for (and as) integral consciousness as well. That is what TSK would suggest.
Hi, Johnny, yes, I agree – I don’t find there’s any need to take a hostile stance towards ‘narrative.’ Are you familiar with Jack Petranker? He was one of the primary editors for several of the TSK books and also teaches courses, and he has a relevant TSK-themed essay on the notion of ‘story’ or ‘lived story,’ which he contrasts with narrative. ‘Story’ is our deep embeddedness in the thick of things, the rich soup of our teeming relations and trajectories, and ‘narrative’ is an abstraction from this – a menu description, perhaps. Narrative in this sense is not to be rejected; rather, recognition of its limitations invites a ‘way in’ to a fuller ‘lived story’ sensibility.
Thanks Bruce, that helps a lot. And yes I do know Jack. I did a TSK
workshop with him many years ago. I am beginning to sense the difference
between’ lived’ or’ re-embodied’ writing compared to the more abstract
narrative. These subtle shifts in meaning are sometimes lost. Recently
reading Owen Barfield along with chapters in Gebser we are covering and
find many resonances. At his best I sense that TSK is a rehearsal for what
Gebser is calling
Aperspectival. I know when I was practicing the exercises I had some very
non ordinary happenings. I wonder what would happen if I went through them
again? They certainly encouraged a different kind of participation than the
mental deficient! Thanks again for the video.