I am indebted to Barbara "Bobbie" Ractliffe Fairhead Coetzee who
inspired this conversation.
This essay,
Inside,
showed up spontaneously one day - as the great majority of them do -
during a
conversation with a
friend.
The
words
which provoked the inquiry outlined in this essay were innocent enough,
innocuous enough. We were talking about my recent travels with
my daughter Alexandra
in
Europe during the summer of August of
2009,
a well thought through venture, months in the planning, which succeeded
(although not surprisingly) beyond our wildest dreams.
My friend
said these results are sure to leave a glow (quote unquote)
"inside" me. It was a generous, heartfelt,
moving
acknowledgement.
In addition to being generous, heartfelt, and
moving,
it also kindled the inquiry "Where
exactly is 'inside' me?".
The more I look, the more I realize while "inside" me is a popular
figure of speech in everyday use, when I come from experience, I
can't find any such location for "inside" me. Coming from
who I really am,
coming from
Self,
no matter how hard I look, I can't find "inside" me anywhere. I suppose
the only situation in which it could be correct to say something is
"inside" me would be if I am my body.
I'm not my body. While I have a body (actually, to say
"while I own a body" is more accurate) for which I'm
responsible,
who I am
is the space in which the events of my life occur. I'm not my
body. Even my body shows up in the space in which the
events of my life occur.
"Since I'm not my body, does the phrase 'inside' me, have any
authenticworld to
word
fit?" I wondered as the inquiry intensified.
One of the proven ways in which
transformation
is communicated
powerfully
enough to be gotten is through a series of well thought
through processes, exercises, and interactions within a group. A
series of experiences are set up, the combined insights of
which kindle the
breakthrough
which allows
transformation
to show up. You could call this access to
transformationaccess via experience. What I have in mind in these
Conversations For
Transformation
is to set up, rather, an access to
transformationvia conversation. This access via conversation
isn't all that separate from the access via experience
except given the tools and the media available to me communicating
transformation
this way via the internet, the access via conversation is
more appropriate.
This essay,
Inside,
is really an access to
transformationvia conversation from within the
question
"Is there really such a location as 'inside' me, or not?".
If you pose the
question
"Where are you physically located in relation to your body?", you're
likely to hear something like "Why, I'm inside my body,
of course!". That's would be typical. And even though it could
be regarded as a conceptually fuzzy response, it's
genuine. But more than that, there's also most likely an implied
"Duh!" afterwards, as in "Why, I'm inside my body, of
course - Duh!". That's the implied "Stupid! What do
you think?".
You can tell by the expressions we commonly use to describe them, that
we locate feelings and emotions inside ourselves, along with what we
call our conscience which we also locate inside ourselves.
Is the
language
of those expressions used with real
rigor?
Or are they simply day to day idioms? Is who or
what we really are inside? Is that
really the experience? Or is inside simply a
concept we use
non-rigorously
to give shape to an experience we have of our being?
Inside ... as in "I feel good inside.". As in
"Outwardly she fakes calmness but inside she's wound up
like a cuckoo clock.". As in "I ate an apple in the supermarket and
walked out without paying as a lark, but inside I knew
better.". As in the
yogi's
ie as in the
meditator's
"Go within" (which by the way is just another form of "Go
inside.").
If it's
language
used with
rigor,
I assert (based on the fact I can't find it anywhere), there's
really no such place, there's really no such location as
"inside". It's arguably a non-assertive,
non-powerful
distinction that doesn't bring forth anything valuable. And unless it's
a
hamburger
patty who stands up, takes the microphone, and shares
"Inside I'm
hamburger
meat",
who you are
isn't
hamburger.
Only
hamburger
meat is
hamburgerinside.
If you take a
close,
quiet
look you'll see what we call "inside" and what we call (as the
contradistinction) "outside" is really one seamless whole. Let's call
this cohesive field "insideoutside". Different disciplines give
it various names, but to call it "insideoutside" is
good enough for
jazz.
Then since "insideoutside" is obviously all there is, let's dispense
with it altogether as a distinction.
There's only experience, and as its communicator, there's only
language
ie conversation.
Another way of saying this is
who we really are
is the
context
for experience, for the conversation.
We experience everything. As the
context
for experiencing everything (and to be totally
rigorous
with this, let's rather say "as the experience of the
context
for experiencing everything"), how can we possibly be inside?
Now, having said all that, our
authentic
locatability ie where
who we really
are
is located, isn't subject to debates or to arguments, and it's
certainly not subject to my
opinions
in essays like this one. That's the thing: to be able to look for
yourself, calmly and
intently,
and see
who you really are,
and see where you really are - without concepts, without
beliefs, without any
interpretive
filters or
epistemological
lenses.
What's that like for you? I'll venture this bet: if you look
intently,
and long enough, you'll notice the distinction "inside", when it comes
to describing your location, isn't generated with
rigor.
It's conceptual and vacuous. It doesn't bring forth, that is to say it
doesn't
languagewho we really
are.