What If….The Singular Personal Pronoun Were Used?
A Response to Chris James
Thank you Chris for writing an article that has provided the opportunity to think very deeply about my own personal position in relation to all of the points you made. I find that I learn most about myself through the resonances that arise as a response to my interactions with others (be it face to face or through their words).
In my response I am sharing my own decidedly subjective understanding. It is being shared as a counterpoint to what has been written by you. My intention is to spark possible debate and is not meant as a critique, invalidation, or smear on your understanding, your process, or your beliefs (as if that were even possible)!
Firstly your article seems to be intimating that we need to achieve a state of ‘self love’ before even thinking about working effectively with sound. This is expressed in quite stark terms - an either/or state of affairs. Your understanding seems to suggest that I either love myself totally or not at all – end of story. In response to this I would like to share my own experience which I suspect may be similar to many others. There are aspects of self that I love (humour, intelligence, commitment, understanding, compassion) and aspects of self that I am more ambivalent towards (easy irritation, caustic wit, laziness etc). When working with clients I endeavour to align myself with the loving resonances that I identify within myself and the client whilst bracketing any ‘negative’ projection that may arise (“what a lazy b****”). My experience (through practice, reflection, and supervision) is that the ‘other’ with whom I’m working (be it client, workshop participant, or student) is a simple reflection of ‘self’ and that my imperfection is there to be reflected upon outside of the treatment space. Now, if I were going to wait for my awakening before embarking on any loving endeavour with sound, then surely I would still be waiting when hell freezes over? The truth, as I see it, is that I do my best at all times – even if in somebody else’s eyes that ‘best’ does not come near their expectations of what ‘best’ should be. I am certainly held within the constraints of my own current understanding and it cannot be any other way. Surely then the call is to simply reflect on my own experience – to be a reflective and responsible practitioner rather than to do nothing until I have reached that elevated state of total self love that you seem to be advocating?
I am in the process of waking up (as I suspect many others are as well). Your suggestion that I can only be an effective sound practitioner once I inhabit the elevated position described by your words could be read as a harsh critique - not only of me, but of 99.99% of those individuals currently working within the sound field! It also seems to negate the ‘process of becoming’ that we are all a part of. I find cause to ask myself “what would love really do here?” I think that love would acknowledge, without judgement, my limitations and praise my desire for movement and growth. It would not judge where I find myself right now as being not good enough. Where I am is where I ought to be! Reality or ‘what is’ is truth – not an idea about what reality should or ought to be. There are many of us working with sound that are, through the process of this work, endeavouring to understand more about ourselves and others. This is the gift that sound can give us – the opportunity to become more aware and to move toward love rather than away from it. This is deep and profound learning but learning, as I’m sure you would agree, is a process. It is not an end point that then says “it is deemed that you can now work with sound because you have become enlightened”. There is no end point to learning! Love allows my learning to unfold as it unfolds. Something other than love judges my learning process and suggests that it is invalid.
You mention “an immutable energetic law that sound is either harming or healing” and you suggest that the way that people work with sound is contributing to what you refer to as ‘the illusion’ and this drives that which needs to be healed into the body. This is a fascinating model that you are proposing but it is unsubstantiated in your article. Where are the references, where is the research? Am I simply to take your word for it? Why would I do that? Why would I take on board anything at all that is stated by you (or anyone else on this earth) without it being my own experience? The inculcated, conditioned, unreflective self seems to be the problem you are identifying in your article. But if, as you state, the physician needs to know him/herself, then surely that can begin with questioning all and every concept that has been taken on board that is contrary to ones own experience? Who am I? Who are you? I can’t answer that for myself (yet) but I know that what I am is beyond anything that can be pointed at or identified with. On that note the only illusion that I can identify is the illusion of separation – of an identified self. This illusion (as far as I can see) is perpetuated when we decide that ‘we’ are not good enough, when ‘we’ could do better, when ‘we’ need others to change or be different. You are right - everything is energy – so what of me and you? Where do I start and end? Where do you begin? It seems to me that one cannot judge a part of the whole without implying that the whole is flawed. This seems to be what you are doing and so I find a massive contradiction that I am unable to grasp.
In your article you seem to be giving sound workers / practitioners / therapists (and by extension yourself) an immense amount of power (often to do ‘harm’ as well as ‘good’). I would like to question my (or anyone’s) ability to cause another human being to feel anything at all. What I feel, how I respond, or how I perceive the sound is entirely caused by ‘self’ not ‘other’. If I explore my responses to sound I find that all that has happened is that a resonance has taken place which highlights an aspect of my current experience. This may be perceived as blissful, it may be perceived as painful, it may facilitate release, or it may highlight resistance. Either way the sound is neutral (in a therapeutic context). The story or narrative that I construct around my experience is also mine. With that story I may choose to stroke myself, congratulate myself, beat myself black and blue, or take no responsibility at all. I may even point my powerless finger in the direction of the sound practitioner and try to make them responsible for my experience! The choice is mine, BUT it has nothing to do with the sound practitioner or the sound itself. It does, however, have everything to do with me. You see - there is either self responsibility or victim-hood. We cannot have it both ways. I would suggest that, for me at least, walking the path of total responsibility is more empowering and a healthier movement toward self awareness / self love than victim-hood – a state which you seem to believe is a possibility when you suggest the harm that can be done by sound practitioners.
Another point that facilitated a form of cognitive dissonance was your diktat that “A sound healer needs to be in a constant process of attending to ALL areas of their lives”. Well, my initial response was “how would the dusting get done” and then “who are you kidding – I don’t do the dusting anyway”! But seriously, for me to do that I would need to be so overly identified with my work as a sound practitioner that the greatest gift would be for somebody to smash all my bowls, confiscate my diagnostic bell, and stick me in an empty hut in the Himalayas for a few years. My job, my work, really is not who I am. This is my experience, my truth. If my work were taken away from me tomorrow it would not compromise my sense of self, my worth, or my identity. I would simply come up with another one! It would be, I feel, a mistake to therefore assume that all sound practitioners are as identified with their work as you appear to be through your statements or that sound practitioners give themselves as much power as you seem to do.
Your observation that in order to work effectively with sound we need to give up the fags, cut out the pints, and refrain from the odd joint is strongly refuted by the evidence. The authenticity, potential, and power of sound or music to facilitate powerful transformation and growth within the receiver (regardless of the personal qualities of the ‘giver’) is, if we look for it, overwhelming. Consider great communicators of their art such as Hendrix (drugs), Joni Mitchell (cigarettes), or Billie Holiday (drugs and alcohol). History is littered with less than ‘perfect’ messengers, facilitators, and channels for sound and music. Wagner, Beethoven, Delius, Bach – all flawed according to your ideal. What of them? In many ways it is the pathology of the individual that instigates the genius of their sublime creative acts (see James Hillman). What of the great sages such as Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj? He was himself a chain smoking ‘beedie’ wallah who had a very short temper. Does this somehow negate his message? Do we take his words with a pinch of salt because he constantly had a beedie hanging from his lips? Do we deny our own experience and resonance facilitated by their words and their art because they drank too much, slept around, and smoked?
There is a deeper truth here for me and it is the value and the importance of personal responsibility. Personal responsibility (in my view, the path to freedom) dictates that we are wholly responsible for our process, for our experience – something which you are clearly advocating in the idea of knowing oneself (it seems). My understanding is maybe more radical - but what I don’t understand is how (when acknowledging our responsibility to our own process) it is then possible to ‘heal’ another? Surely I am a mere facilitator? I am nothing more or less than a ‘bowl donger’, a ‘toner’, an ‘overtoner’, ‘drum beater’, ‘Gong sounder’ etc who understands the sublime ability of sound to facilitate personal process. This is something I am happy to be in the midst of this post-modern moment where we are beginning to understand (maybe for the first time) how we create our own meaning, our own understanding, our own reality. Would I want to be a healer? No thanks. I will support your healing process, I will hold a safe and loving space, I will be a compassionate witness - but the decision to heal, to move toward wholeness is yours alone. Would I want to be treated by a healer? No, I’d run a mile. Why would I want to hand over that particular responsibility (that has been so hard won) to another person?
This brings me to my final point: the singular personal pronoun – where was it? You acknowledge your status as a ‘fellow student’ but a statement such as the following:
How long will sound healers continue to use such outdated modalities as the 7 chakra system, (if a sound healer uses this system it is a guarantee that they do not know the difference between spirit or soul,) or indulge in the truly imposing process of ‘sending’ sound healing, (another sure sign that the sound healer knows not themselves) You emanate love and don’t send anything
is so easily read as being judgemental, dictatorial, alienating, separating, polarising, and unloving. It does not suggest by any means your status as a student or learner but as a ‘teacher’. How am I, as the reader, able to identify with such a statement? On the other hand, this statement:
How long will I continue to use modalities that are for me outdated (such as the 7 chakra system)? If I use this system I believe that it is a guarantee that I do not know the difference between spirit or soul. If I indulge in the truly imposing process of ‘sending’ sound healing I feel that it is another sure sign that I know not myself. I emanate love and don’t send anything.
is immediately engaging to me. I want to know more. I am curious about your process and wonder what experiences have caused you to arrive at your understanding. I connect with you and can find my own identification with your process. Even if your understanding is far removed from my own it doesn’t matter. With the singular personal pronoun you let me in. You allow me to witness your humanity rather than causing me (with the first example above) to assume that your words are a defence against it.
This, to my mind, is responsibility.
Clifford Sax
