Process mindset, release of expectations, peripheral vision, problematizing documentation · 20 July 2008
All those terms have the same meaning here.
A client who is also a personal coach says she chose me as a teacher in part because I have a “process mindset.” This disposition “makes everything ok,” and turns experimentation and “failure” into play. It doesn’t give a shit about accomplishment. Doesn’t think about “results.”
This student, who describes herself as “fixed mindset” and “goal oriented,” has the, well, goal of becoming process-oriented. Because it seems like someone goal-oriented is less able to experience flow, does not experiment or learn very much from foul-ups, is less happy in general, and is more attached to getting things.
Ok. This is a useful conceptualization. Process and fixed mindsets. And I guess for YOGA practice, a process mindset is pretty helpful.
But what if you’re a writer? What if you’re a scientist? What if you want to contribute something for godsakes?
Not so helpful: this spontaneous, flow-oriented, “screw accomplishments” sensibility. Let me just confirm that.
Should I really be immersing myself in a practice that makes me even more process-oriented and even less interested in objectifiable results?
There’s the rub. This whole personality-definition just legitimates my endless playfulness. At a time when fixating on results would particularly annoying and painful.
Here’s what I’m thinking. If I can generate results as a byproduct of happy but sincere action, staying in process-mind is possible and—this I can verify—way more fun. I don’t swear off or denigrate results, but as long as they keep coming, they can stay parenthetical. They can be at the periphery of my field of vision. Just like my body parts when I put them in an asana. This is ideal, though. An anti-goal that is really a goal. I'm not there, when it comes to the writing-practice. It means being good.
Here is what else I’m thinking. Of the blogger called CP. Cody Pomeray, Dean Morarity: alternate names for the man who catalyzed a whole movement of obsessive thing-creators. But what did Neal Cassady himself create? Enthusiasm, relationship, life. His life was his art. That it got documented is an accident: how many other artists- detached- from- product never made the history books? What unwritten, unpraised current lies there?
But then… getting praise isn’t the point, in that current.
Posted by (0v0)
Categories: arbitrage
, astanga yoga
, science
, social theory
, spirituality
Previous entry: Between ADD and OCD / Next entry: Yoga Journal: Lowering the Bar, One Deep Thought At A Time
Comment
Commenting is closed for this article.
it’s easy to find the path (in my experience) if you let go of goals completely and silence the mind through mindful meditation and pranayama. the answers just come, the direction is laid out for you by a higher power. we just have to learn to listen to it.
maybe that’s too hard to wrap one’s head around, but i believe it’s the true path to success. (however you define it)
Posted by: bindifry · Jul 20, 04:52 PM · #
Have you turned your student on to “Flow,” by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi?
Our interest in making “things” is about defining ourselves to ourselves, no? Perhaps somewhat akin to wanting a particular outfit or car to “show who you are”?
Here’s some Hongzhi (there’s lots in zen literature about not leaving a mark):
Responding without falling into achievement, speaking without involving listeners,
The ten thousand forms majestically glisten and expound the dharma.
All objects certify it, every one in dialogue.
Dialoguing and certifying, they respond appropriately to each other;
But if illumination neglects serenity then aggressiveness appears.
Certifying and dialoguing, they respond to each other appropriately;
But if serenity neglects illumination, murkiness leads to wasted dharma.
When silent illumination is fulfilled, the lotus blossoms, the dreamer awakens,
A hundred streams flow into the ocean, a thousand ranges face the highest peak.
Posted by: karen · Jul 20, 05:11 PM · #
Oh SHIT. That is WONDERFUL. I have never heard this and the only Hongzhi I know is from you.
I feel like there is an identity element to making things—the Existentialists were brutally honest in relating the creative drive to recognition that we die. BUT... for me I feel like it’s less philosophical and more a result of living in the world. The publication imperative, which is a direct outgrowth of results-oriented nonprofit management and accounting, which itself results from the migration of the capitalist ethos into non-business institutions.
The irony is that I LIKE the publication imperative. It holds academics to some standards and kicks out the ones who are trying to exploit the institution as a haven from (harder) wage work. But… I’m a childlike intellectual. I want to play at the margins, not rehearse and etch into stone my perfected lines. Playing the edge in this environment means staying on the crest of what is new… it is certainly process-oriented, but sometimes I feel like a bit of a hungry ghost. Addicted to the edge.
Posted by: (0v0) · Jul 20, 05:26 PM · #
I have actually not read Czik’s book, but I think my client has. He seems to have spawned a whole subfield in psych recently, but there’s a little old thread on the sociology of happiness as well (e.g.). Shouldn’t sociologists be a little more involved in this question?
Maybe not. Most would say discussions of “the good life” are merely philosophical. Whatever!
Posted by: (0v0) · Jul 20, 05:34 PM · #
um, i think i wandered into the wrong party
sorry
Posted by: bindifry · Jul 21, 01:08 AM · #
I want to make a stand for goal orientation. This discussion is particularly relevant for me because lately, on and off the cyberspace, I’ve been surrounded by non-scientists that have, well, felt differently than I do about my kind of work.
Creativity is also a big component of science; we just try to POINT that creativity towards a certain goal. I admire artists who create “stuff” seemingly out of nowhere, or from different, often disconnected bits and pieces of inspiration. But there is also value in wanting to go somewhere specific and trying to find the different ways and ideally the optimal way that will take you there.
Playfulness is great; adventure is fabulous; and sometimes, the X marks the spot and “making it happen” can be a great adventure. Let’s not deny the pointed focus; it has its value, particularly when a strong action is required.
Posted by: V · Jul 21, 02:39 AM · #
Well, it doesn’t hurt to remind yourself that the publishing imperative is just that, an imperative. Parameters within which to pursue the sport of the exploration(s).
And arbitrary.
So if you are playing and part of the play is responding to an arbitrary mandate, no problem. :-)
Creating likes and dislikes around play/not play, edge/not edge, science/art, goal/no goal — well, there you might start running into more problems.
Posted by: karen · Jul 21, 03:38 AM · #
I always guessed that my alter-ego was just brimming with energy. Somehow his presence was irresistable and intoxicating and he inspired his friends to write about their mutual experiences. But you’re right – his art was just in living life and we wouldn’t even know of him if not for the beats, the pranksters and the Dead.
Posted by: cody · Jul 21, 08:05 AM · #
Are you talking about publishing your sociology work? Maybe you don’t yet know how you are to spell out your piece. It seems like everyone has an intuitive pointer that keeps them attuned to certain things — the things from which they take their insights, and about which they form their contributions. It takes time to settle out the sediments and clarify on those things though. In the meantime, there’s plenty of experience to be had.
Posted by: Carl · Jul 21, 08:31 AM · #
There are many people dealing with this now. U Theory – Flow – The Inner Game of Tennis, and the much older works.. Zen – your life as practice – living with Dual and Non-Dual in ‘harmony’. And the grail quest itself – the path of individuation (as Jung and Campbell teased out of the myths…).
It must be obvious by now that we need to do both – be present to what is in front of us (drop off body/mind), and to be present to our intention (body mind fully engaged again). The practice seems to come out of a real understanding of when to do either appropriately.
Posted by: Gregor · Jul 21, 09:51 AM · #
BINDI! Not the wrong party. You are talking about getting quiet in order to let the impulses to action leak in and take over. This is my modus operandi.
And it’s what I imagine for myself. Every discipline from songwriting to Physics has some legend of the muse, intuition or higher power that comes in to guide creative discovery.
But does the idea that this is how I get to operate as a “scientist” presume a level of mastery I just don’t have in that arena? My intuition there is just not that refined.
I wonder if I am doing myself a disservice by assuming I can have the same drama-free flow at an uncertain, unmapped, stressful point in my profession as I do in a secure, joyful asana practice.
On this subject, I have been mulling over V’s words the whole morning. You know what you are talking about. And what’s the difference between a visualizeable goal and a visualizeable asana—even if I’m such a supposedly “non-visual” person? Maybe I can play with the idea of goals imaginatively in a way that doesn’t feel like it threatens my capacity to be present. Why not?
Posted by: (0v0) · Jul 21, 11:13 AM · #
Carl said, “Maybe you don’t yet know how you are to spell out your piece.”
Yes. I know how to do yogamind just fine, but am not sure of the optimal mind for writing a descriptive- analytical book. It’s got to be something other than “Oh my god I’m so alienated”-mind that most PhD candidates experience.
I have such a love for the slower mindstate of meditation and asana, and tend to believe that all my best creativity lives in that place. But I’m not a visual artist! I’m a writer! Writing happens very often in discursive mind. Not the addictive, peaceful, intuition-led theta, but the active, intense, focused beta. It’s ok. Writing mind has many different colors too—from Goldbergian “writing down the bones” stream of consciousness to hyper-analytical logical banter.
Posted by: (0v0) · Jul 21, 11:14 AM · #
Gregor, hi! Yes, the individuation process; and recognizing that everything is not Non-Dual mindstate. Finding the structure/agency, or will/surrender dynamic? That was my idea with the Grail Quest tag, though few but you seem to get the joke! You’re already an ashtangi!
Some integralists and Buddhists hate the positive psychology movement—see at as so much grasping and surfacy pursuit of trite happiness rather than inner peace. (Similar to the way we interpret the IX of Cups in the Owl House… look at the old, puffed-up Rider-Waite depiction for a sense of that.) Whatever. Flow states are deeply blissful, and creating bounded conditions in which to experience and even USE them doesn’t seem so trite or sacrilegious to me.
Really, this is leading to the kernel of the Apollonian/Dionysian puzzle. Dual and nondual, intellect and subconscious… learning the refining of each and perhaps playing not the outer edge of flexibility or strength so much as the edge between the two.
Posted by: (0v0) · Jul 21, 11:15 AM · #
You mentioned Apollo and Dionysus enough times now that I had to go and Google it. Wiki says it’s used in lit forms to indicate the dichotomy between pursuits of individuation and of eradication of the self. The implication is that the two are opposite endeavors. I don’t see why the two are opposite endeavors. Why are they opposite endeavors? Why are they not both coincidental attributes, such as might be described on a Cartesian plane? One axis describes individuation and the other describes self-obliteration. Any given experience can be described with a pair of complex coordinates.
According to a particular system thought that comes to mind, individuation must be attained first and then self-annihilation can follow. Self-annihilation can’t happen until after you know what the self is, they say. It would seem that, in this view, a sort of partial derivatives are obtained to get at a linear process of discovery, rather than a perpetual, random conflict across the whole plane.
Posted by: Carl · Jul 21, 01:15 PM · #
You still haven’t read The Birth of Tragedy?
Geez Carl. No wonder you’re lost in flatland.
Posted by: (0v0) · Jul 21, 01:51 PM · #
Also, Wikipedia is demented. Dionysus may be the big cuckoo, but it’s not exactly annihilation of self. Too much conceptual blubber, all binaries losing their true edges. Meh. Bad internet!
Posted by: (0v0) · Jul 21, 01:54 PM · #
I’m still just a discrete point in Lineland.
Nietzsche is just too enamored with his own writing voice. He drops too many names and he’s a rambler that says in a thousand words what it takes a normal person to say in 40 or 50.
Posted by: Carl · Jul 21, 02:11 PM · #
Actually I don’t think Nietzsche’s Apollo/Dionysus thing is THAT far from Carl’s Wiki-two-cents.
Also, my favorite SHORT bit from Nietzsche is his dismissal of Descartes, which runs something like this: “Posits a thought before the thinker! Bad grammar! Dismissed!”
:D
Posted by: patrick · Jul 21, 05:54 PM · #
It’s funny but to me, Astanga is THE most goal oriented yoga practice of them all, just because of the nature of consecutive series and a linear progression through them, along with the concept of primary vs “advanced”.
But then isn’t the whole theme of Arjuna’s quest in the Bhagavad Gita to be learning to engage in action with attachment to results.
It’s a bit of a dance. I mean, if you didn’t really WANT to learn to do trick things like invert your body in a balanced position, what would be the motivation to get up at 5am and try?
Posted by: boodiba · Jul 22, 01:21 AM · #
And then there is the more obvious this to consider.
We need a 7 dimensional model, or something, so many layers interacting!
Posted by: Gregor · Jul 22, 03:09 AM · #
“But then isn’t the whole theme of Arjuna’s quest in the Bhagavad Gita to be learning to engage in action with attachment to results.”
Freudian slip ;-)
Ashtanga CAN be the most goal-oriented practice, or it can be the practice that most effectively shines a light on the absurdity of goal-orientation. After all, no matter what you do today, you’re gonna hit the mat tomorrow and do exactly the same thing, except it won’t ever be the same. No matter how linear and “same” we try to make it, over the long run, everything is going to change. Even if you achieve what appears to be a pristine, linearly-progressive practice for decades, you are eventually going to have to deal with the effects of aging and various circumstances of “real life.” So no one who practices long enough will escape the eventual realization that all the goal-seeking is/was not ever the point.
And yes to introvert rights! About damn time.
Posted by: karen · Jul 22, 03:53 AM · #
Ashtanga: The Practical Joke That Lasts A Lifetime.
(Patrick… I’m trying to get him to read Nietzche instead of Wikipedia! But ok. More on Dionysus to come….)
You people are all great. This is a good convo to wake up to. Thanks. I got a big day starting now…
Posted by: (0v0) · Jul 22, 04:23 AM · #
LOVE this tagline.
Have a good big day, Owl.
Posted by: joy · Jul 22, 04:44 AM · #
“Should I really be immersing myself in a practice that makes me even more process-oriented and even less interested in objectifiable results?”
OMG. Yes.
Silly.
:)
Have a great day!
Posted by: Susan · Jul 22, 07:04 AM · #
Owl, to read Nietzsche’s book, I’d have to first read a stack of other books which, if my intuition is correct, are all kind of dry. And then I’d have to refer back to them constantly while I read Nietzsche. What ever happened to people just writing down stuff that they have to say? Why do these “philosophers” have to endlessly respond to one another and weave themselves around each other’s words?
Posted by: Carl · Jul 22, 11:52 AM · #
kind of like comment threads that refer to other comment threads in other blogs, eh, carl?
(p.s. I’m a wiki-nietzsche guy myself, natch!)
Posted by: cody · Jul 22, 01:44 PM · #
“Philosophers” like to philosophize.
That’s what they do. And they like to discuss philosophies with others, it’s called philosophizing.
And bloggers like to comment, and people like to comment on the comments and and then comment on previous comments and on and on and on…
Posted by: Susan · Jul 22, 03:35 PM · #
So should we have Carl read the philosophical canon from Descartes to Hegel?
That’ll keep him out of trouble for a while.
Posted by: (0v0) · Jul 22, 03:41 PM · #
Carl. Dude, I am with you on the philosophers. Me, I like poetry — all the great thoughts without all that tedious logic. Blah blah blah, philosophize, philosophize, philosophize. Bah!
Posted by: karen · Jul 22, 04:25 PM · #
I don’t think I can handle the philosophical canon unless it is long and has a big hole at one end, from which I can make things shoot really far.
Posted by: Carl · Jul 23, 09:56 AM · #