written by phaedranajones ©2014
CONTROL VS DIRECT EXPERIENCE
Over the last two millennia mankind chose to overpower nature – its very own life source – failing to honor instinct or the body’s inner knowing. Yet there may have been an era when people lived in absolute symbiosis with nature as a whole, with no divisions between the outer flow and the inner flow or the transcendent.
Over the course of evolution the left hemisphere of the brain gradually began to dominate perception through our desire for outer control, as opposed to following a spontaneous awareness of inner knowing.
Hierarchy and externalized control through governments and religion was over time found to be the most effective way to concentrate external power. Eventually this generated negative space between the natural flow of the human experience and the otherwise potentially brilliant structures of the mind.
Psychological studies reveal any perpetual compulsion to control our environment or what happens in it more often than not comes from fear or insecurity that in turn may stem from not being wholly in our power or not knowing fully who we are.
Undoubtedly, the world as we know it today has become increasingly preoccupied with control, safety regulations or regulations in general in the attempt to know exactly what happens, when and why at all times. It is a general tendency to assume that not-knowing or not being in control is of lesser value than knowing or being in complete control. Turning the ‘mind off’ or thinking ‘outside of the mind’ allowing silence to speak are not widely acknowledged in society today.
Yet if true power is power within, it is simply not possible to access that power through purely external intermediaries or systems for they are by their nature outside of us.
Following a set of doctrines therefore of any given, imposed, or chosen form or governing force as the only or ultimate truth, may hold people back from discovering their own truth, or potential in professional terms, creativity in artistic terms, God in religious terms, their original nature/self in existential or spiritual terms. In life as well as in art one ideally strives to, simultaneous to practising a chosen established system uncover inner dialogue, a relationship to self – through which experience the self may ultimately be left behind.
As we apply relational similarity in artistic terms, the dichotomy at the root of this phenomenon appears – while choreography is defined by clear boundaries and being in complete control, improvisation by definition has no boundaries as it is about relinquishing control.
In any highly refined artistic composition knowing why or what is to happen next (as well as what isn’t) makes one feel safe, as being in control lends one a sense of safety as well as a definition.
It is incomprehensible for the mind to conceive of being defined by the undefined by losing a grip on defined motion; as well as a high risk factor for the ego to allow for the possibility of losing control of what it will do or what it will be seen as. Yet improvisation surges through from a place of ‘not knowing’, redefining itself over and over from that place each moment it is engaged, uncovering an internal point of reference.
We do not rehearse synchronicity. It points past us. In the realm of the creative we ask no questions, it is all one big answer.