Meta mumbling 1: can you pull the mike please

Amsterdam, 25-6-2014.

Dearest Isaac,

There is a lot of thinking about, reflecting on and questioning about seeking, seekership, finding, having found and the role of thinking in life going on.

Part of it is related with, stimulated by, and also projected upon being with you for two weeks twice a year for by now fifteen years in a row.

I will write my musings as open letters to you and publish them on my blog.

Here is the first one:

Cc Meike Schuett and Caitlin Catley.

From here to (t)here,
From me to you,



Amsterdam, June 18 2014
As recently became clear, there is a tendency to hide things that are important to me.

It feels as a sloppiness.

Reason to change this email to my Invitator Isaac into a blog.
(Isaac considers himself not to be a teacher, he considers himself to be an invitation. And rightfully so, if you ask me).

Hello Isaac,

Sometimes you speak about the world in terms that make my eyebrows go up.
Recently I heard you say that first there were only one cell organisms and because there were so many of them there came two cell organisms.
And the one ones were anaerobic and the two ones produced oxigen that was poisonous for the one ones. Or something like that.
This are the moments that I should shout and request a link to a good article about the subject. But we are already so busy understanding what people say and requesting them all the time to raise the mike, or to lower the mike, or to bring the mike closer or to bring the mike to the middle.

For sure my action to request improvement of the mike handling was a momentary bummer for the cosiness in the sangha.
Yet it helped a bit.
Then I wrote you an email about clear use of language. That helped a lot.
The latter days the audibility of the people on the chair has not been so well. Yes, you can!!
(Regret is: wishing that you had started doing this a decade ago).

It was noted that you (your system) blamed me twice for sometimes myself forgetting about the mike.
The first time I just noted and did not respond with ‘that is beside the subject and yes that does happen’.
The second time was when I was on the chair and you tricked me into responding spontaniously without taking time to bring the mike in position.
Maybe it was not on purpose, but it felt so.
(Let’s see if I am still able to make a youtube, will take an hour or so. Yes, here it
is: ).

In my model of the world at this moment up till now, you argued twice ad hominem.
(The second time was  100 % jokingly, yet leaning on the first time, which made for the exploding laughter). Which made me think/ponder that in a field like ‘yours’ the only way to argue is ad hominem. That’s all that’s left: the first thing that pops up from Cosmic Silence is experience and the second thing that pops up is the I-thought. Yet, when there is any effort to limit it to that, ad hominem is the first colourfull Smarty that appears.

I know what I want to express here, yet it is not getting so clear.
At least I am enjoying writing this.

In short it comes down to the growing insight that clear thinking and clear high quality information is more important to me than how it is valued nowadays in Sanghas, ‘your’s’ and ‘other’s’. I find the word sangha a bit creepy for some yet unclear reason.

My favourite philosopher since over a year is Peter Sloterdijk.
I have read his magnum opus Spheres and have just started reading his other main work, the one that made him famous: Critique of Cynical Reason.
From reading his chapter on ideology critisism I am learning a lot about the processes that i see going on in the sangha/ in sangha’s.
When I would give you an example I would expect you to say something like ‘easy, that’s something you can feel’. And then I say ‘Sure, but you feel a thousand times better than I do. I have to get it, you see.’

I am so totally happy with Sloterdijk; when I recently met him after he delivered the Frederik van Eeden lecture here in Holland, I handed him a prepared short letter, a love letter pur sang:

Dearest mister Peter Sloterdijk,

I am a fan of you.
Therefor I have come to the Freederik van Eeden lecture.
As I will not have enough time to express what I want to share with you, if even I would get a chance to speak to you, I decided to put it into words.

The last year I read Spheres, all three parts, footnotes included. It took me almost a year and part 3 was finished in Varanasi in India,
where I stayed three and a half weeks in a row, in a room with Ganga view, with the intention to do so.
I actually finished the book  on my way out, on Delhi Airport: DSC04346

There was a break in the reading of the first parts because I discovered the work of Alfred Tomatis in it.
When I read about it (Viva internet) it gave me goosebumps and knew what to do: I went for the Tomatis Listening Training. It improved my eyes!

When I read Sloterdijk, I feel so seen, so heard, so understood. This is how I spoke and speak about it.
I also said to a friend, in an attempt to summarize: It feels as if I am briefed up to date about what there is known and to know about humanity and about being human.
I love to have met you.
Thank you.



I see a tendency to develop clearity by getting rid of the supposed cause of stuff.
Like you call your relationboat with Meike nothing anymore.
Because there is a lot of old load on the consept relationship, there is reason enough to clear and clean.
But to end up not using language anymore for description of things that at least appear to happen is also a bit silly maybe.
And it does not work: every description that says that something is undescribable is a description. And moreover, a vague one.
Imagine doing the same with the consept flower: we stop calling a flower a flower because of old emotional loads that are connected to the word flower.
This is happening all the time in so called real life, certain words are not done anymore because of supposed or acquired negative connotations. From handicapped to differently challenged. From nuts to differently wired.

Same same with images. Here in the western world is the Swastika almost forbidden, while in India you have Swastik biscuits, etcetera.
The pattern in the gate of German Bakery in Tirvanammalai is swastika’s.
And the myth that Hitler took the reversed version of the Indian one is counterfacted by a swastika in the frontage of the house and the reversed version is in the facade of the house next to it.
Not naming a flower a flower will call for another way or word to mention it.

Yet, becoming fully and more fully and absolutely totally fully aware of the difference between a flower and the word for it is a must for lovers.
Don’t you think so?

A personal note: reading Peter Sloterdijks Critique of Cynical Reason (a title that is clearly connected to book titles of Emanuel Kant as several of the
people that spoke to me about my reading were clearly aware of) was also a way to get quite some reactions from other retreatees. Several of them
were clearly filled with dedain for having thoughts/thinking as such. This does not perse make me feel at ease in this ‘sangha’.

Above I wrote: I see a tendency to develop clearity by getting rid of the supposed cause of stuff.
And there is a bit of a tendency to make the existence of words, the use of language, to at least part of the cause.
From this comes a sentimental longing for a paradise state, or way before that actually, cause in paradise, at least in the story as told in the bible, adam and eve were already talking with god, so there was language.
And as you said, we know for sure that they were not aboriginals, cause then they would have eaten the snake.
Also it was Adam who spoke the first warning to the woman: when he and eve met for the first time he looked down and said to Eve; you better step aside. I have no idea how far its gonna go.
It was a cartoon  that I happened to see that started the writing of this:
'The anaerobic ones are just sitting there, but the aerobic bacteria are doing jumping jacks, sit-up, leg lifts....'







There’s more.
That’s for when later will be now again.

Oh, for the record this email that I have sent you on 20-5-’14:
Dearest Isaac,

The day before yesterday I received a great session from someone. It came because her (boy)friend saw my itching hands and connected me up with his friend. She calls her work SE bodywork.
The session was fantastic.
Then later her friend told me, in secret and meant for my benefit, that she had told him that it took her a lot of time to get me accept suggestions.
I told him bluntly that she was mistaken.
Later my friend from Geneva told me that the lady who gave me the session could not belief that I had found the session fantastic, like she told her.
So I went over to the practitoner and told her how great i had found her session.
Then she blamed our possible miscommunications on her English.
And and and.
What actually happened in my experience was that during the session, for my own benefit, I helped her to make her suggestions as precise as my system needs it. That is really part of my sessions to be succesfull.
Also with Caitlin this happens and it helps.
And she is, like you and Meike are,  feedback sensitive.
With Holger my sessions started with a plain fight. And he was able to stay with me thru this, that made him good (enough), as I have shared several times in the chair.

This morning you were inviting people to pull the mike a little.
That invites people to be sloppy with the mike and they pull it a little.
Better would be to invite to pull the mike upfront their mouth to a distance of 10 to 15 cm.
Short for that could be: can you pull the mike please.
Can you pull the mike a little is unprecise in my experience.



Note. There is something going on in my experience in the group/field/sangha that is yet difficult to put in words. Yesterday I said to someone sitting next to me that I found it a bit bourgois.
I am often totally surprized when people sit up on the chair and they share that they have had terrible days and nights and and.
Yet I have seen them smiling and behaving like normal bar guests in the pyramid during the nights, drinking, talking, chatting, laughing.
And I know those people sometimes for over a decade.

It has to do with this for you new distinction between meeting in the field and meeting in the field personal.
I know all those people mostly only from these deep meetings with you; meeting with your being one + all those skills + your feeling often what people only become aware of when you put it into words.
The difference with all the others is so vast, that I see in many people a unwillingness to meet people with less than your skills.
Yet the field has so quieted down that there are no more rows and fights for the chair happening.
There is something that I can not grasp yet, but happening it is.

cc to Meike and Caitlin



Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in my blog. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Are you a robot ? * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.