Back today from a week on the river, and I have to tell you, and don't anybody take this the wrong way, but I'm kinda depressed. As soon as we rowed around that last bend and I felt the warm air hit me, telling me we were approaching the confluence of the middle and main forks and signaling the end of my trip, I felt like trying to turn the boat around and rowing upstream. It was just that good. I lived for a week in a fantasy, where my days were purposed in every minute by the trying details of keeping my boat off of rocks. My mental energies focused on the conversation I was having with the river. Watching, rowing, keeping my timing.
And of course the water-fights. Can't leave that out. I mean, it wasn't all this zen-like peace-capade with some pan flutes playing on the wind for chrissake. But really there's something great and liberating about the reduction of purpose to just a few simple activities. Having only just a few elements makes it easier to perceive/ establish a rhythm. Wake up early, start the fire, start the coffee. Somebody cooks, cleans. Break your tent down, pack it on the boat and help get them ready, and then go shoot some crazy class threes and fours all day. Hit camp, set up tent. Somebody makes dinner, somebody cleans. Go to bed. All the time in between is play. It never got old.
One thing that I find weird, and that I keep tripping on, is this, and I'm sure I won't express it well so hang in there:
The person I was on the river is different than the person I am off it. The conventional way of thinking is that that being in "nature" kind of scrubs off society, right? Like in "Lord of the Flies". But is the removal of the all the constructs of modern society really a removal? Or is it actually a layering of another fantasy onto that world, the addition of another construct? And so, by extension: is there a "natural" me? Is there an "I" that exists before all the layers of society are placed on me, or am I a bundle of reactions to different situations? Is there a face behind the mask, or just other masks?
I am aware that I build/seek social constructs (camping, Burning Man) that allow me to explore/create different personas. I sometimes wonder if I've ever found myself, you know? Like we were all supposed to do in college or wherever? Because the "self" I find when I look is chimerical. Perhaps the process is never done and that's why I seek these situations? That makes sense to me. Maybe there is some core identity, some "soul" that can only be revealed out of the corner of the eye. By seeing what isn't there like in those puzzles with identical pictures, only something is slightly different.
Of course, Buddhism says no, there is no self. But then why do I have this impulse to search for one? Why should the idea even exist?
So, in "nature" I get to be nature me. I really paid attention to this process this time. At first I was shy and reserved, more so than usual, and then after a couple of days I became more confident, took charge of things more, was more aggressive and more aware of the interactions of the other people on the trip. More spiritual.
Where does this "me" go the rest of the time, and why do I need certain environments in which to express it? ...Dunno....
posted by justin at 7/17/2006 11:48:00 PM |
5 Comments:
I'm always seeing different perosnas myself...
glad you are back. :)
i did a rafting trip for a week on the colorado in the grand canyon. it's an amazing experience. when i'm done saving for the 'eurotrip', i'm going to start saving for the 'rivertrip'. paddling, rapids, laughter, food, sleep under the stars...brilliant!
like buddhist's Lacan believes that the 'self' is fundamentally a 'gap' or absence at the core of our personality. in a sense, this is why we're always looking, because we are by nature incomplete... but it's also what allows us to change and to construct new identities, because a 'perfect' self would be by nature complete and unchanging...
Jung on the other hand thinks that everyone has a natural and complete self, but that it is unconscious and too big to ever be fully expressed, so in Jungian thought, one is on a genuine and achievable goal to reveal as much of one's true self as possible.
I tend to believe Jung when I feel content and relaxed (such as at the cottage or by a river, or engaged in some sort of musical or artistic event) and Lacan the rest of the time.
It's funny how philo. views on diff't subjects can sometimes be reduced to the same differences in thought. These 2 competing views seem kind of like the very fundamental difference between the idea that "the world is all that there is" (Aristotle, right?) and "there is some numinal existance seperate from our world" (like Plato?). Maybe its only easy to reduce these viewpoints because I don't understand them too well....
I remember the story of the broken water jug illustrating how the void of what isn'r inside the vessel defines the vessel's shape. This resonates w/ me somehow.
yeah i've heard the same thing about the space inside a wheel (back when wheels had empty space and a few spokes)
anjd i totally agree with you about parallels in a lot of thought... a lot of Lacan's stuff about 'the real' being an absence, reminds me in a way of taoism and that which can not be named, in that he talks about it as a gap, because it is a failure of language, something we can never possibly access.
Post a Comment
<< Home