Preparing for contemplation:
Voice Meditation
Before starting with Contemplative Philosophy, it is usually helpful to first take a few moments of silence from the noise and hassles of everyday life and adopt a more quiet and attentive inner stance. If our goal is to contemplate from a deeper layer of our being, then we first need to disengage ourselves from our busy mind and to dwell deeper inside ourselves, underneath our chattering and clever external self.
Voice Meditation is a helpful tool for this purpose. In this technique I regard my body—or more accurately, the organs that hold the column of air in my body—as a metaphor for my entire being. As my focus slowly descends from my nose and mouth down to my abdomen and buttocks and even further below, I experience myself descending from my normal superficial stance deeper into myself, into layers of being that are deeper than my familiar everyday self. The result of the exercise is a sense of centeredness which stays with me for a while, and enables me to re-center myself in reference to the bodily column of air inside me.
To start Voice Meditation, we sit comfortably on the floor or on a chair, our back comfortably erect. Our hands and legs can rest in various ways, but they should be in symmetric positions. It is best to close our eyes, in order to facilitate concentration. Breathing should be somewhat slower than normal, although this slowness should not require any special effort. It might be a good idea to try inhaling through the nose, and exhaling through the mouth.
After a few moments of silence, the session-director directs the participants to focus their attention on their breath, specifically on the air as it goes in and out. We start by focusing on our head and on the way the breathed air reverberates in it. A few moments later the session-director indicates that we now move our focus to our nostrils and to the passage of air in them; then we move our focus to our mouth; then to the opening of the larynx (where the mouth cavity meets the larynx); then to the bottom of the larynx (where the larynx meets the chest-box), to the chest, the upper abdomen (right below the chest, where the belly comes in and out while breathing), and the lower abdomen (the bottom of the column of air).
Each of these steps may take as little as three breaths, or as long as several minutes. Sometimes it is useful to encourage the participants to make a humming sound in order to help them focus on the air movement.
Throughout the process it is important to avoid a common tendency: to experience ourselves as internally looking at the organ in question, or as turning an inner eye towards the organ in question. This attitude should be avoided, because it splits us into an observer and the observed. The appropriate stance is not to look at a given organ, but to experience it from the inside: I experience my throat or chest or stomach as if I resided in them. My consciousness does not look at these organs, but is, rather, present in them.
The following last two steps are the highlight of the process: After descending to the bottom of our abdomen, we descend further down into our buttocks area. The buttocks react to the breathing, and the muscles in them participate in breathing and in making sounds. However, they are already below the column of air, and in this sense descending to this area is associated with the experience of starting to descend below ourselves, as it were.
Lastly, we make the final descent: From the buttocks we go down to a point below our body, underneath us. Metaphorically, we now dwell below our personal selves, at the root of our existence, at point that is prior to us, at a point of silence and wisdom.
There is no need to discuss here the exact meanings of the metaphors of "being underneath ourselves" or "the root of our existence" or "residing at the point of silence and wisdom." Some metaphors are most efficacious when left suggestive but unexplained. The point is that our consciousness is now centered, and is broader than our superficial chattering mind. It is now ready to engage in contemplative philosophy.
The Discernment Circle
The aim of the Discernment Circle is to help us listen to various understandings: to listen to a philosophical text, to other participants, and to our own inner understandings of life. Listening here means that I let philosophical voices speak and be heard inside me without imposing on them my own agenda or ideas or judgments.
The Discernment Circle is based on the technique of "Council," which is said to have its roots in traditional American Indian tribal meetings. Here it is modified and adapted to the context of philosophizing.
The participants (ideally about 8-15) sit in a circle. The session-director places at the center the "Talking Piece"—a small object with some aesthetic or symbolic qualities that can comfortably be held in one's hand.
Before beginning, after a short centering exercise, we may symbolically light a candle and spend a few seconds in silence to delve on the intention of listening and speaking from the heart.
To begin the Discernment Circle, the director picks up the Talking Piece, reads a short philosophical text and raises a relevant philosophical issue (or theme), preferably formulated in the first-person (e.g., what is my 'real' self?). If necessary, the circle spends several minutes in making sure that everybody understands the direct, literal meaning of the text. The leader then places the Talking Piece back at the center, and the circle is now open for everybody to participate in giving voice to their inner understandings, and in listening to others. The result is an open-ended polyphonic 'concert' of voices that express a tapestry of understandings on the issue.
In order to guide the participants to the proper inner attitude, they must follow the following six procedural, dialogical, and philosophical rules and 'intentions':
A. PROCEDURAL RULES:
1. The Talking-Piece rule: A participant is allowed to speak only while holding the Talking-Piece. Nobody is allowed to speak without it. This means that participants will sometimes find themselves wanting to say something but unable to do so; which means that they will need to put themselves in a listening mode, rather than in the everyday mode of chatter or argumentation.
The director may decide on different ways of using the Talking-Piece: passing it from hand to hand clockwise or counterclockwise (in which case a participant may choose to keep silent and pass on the piece to the next person), or placing the piece at the center of the circle for anyone who wishes to speak to pick it up whenever feeling ready.
2. The Confidentiality Rule: As participants we agree that whatever will be said in the circle must remain confidential after the end of the circle, unless a participant explicitly indicates that his or her words can be repeated outside the circle.
B. DIALOGICAL INTENTIONS: In addition to these two procedural rules, we should try to adhere to the following 'intentions' regarding how to listen and to speak. The term 'intention' indicates that we should try to do our best, even if we are not always going to be fully succeed.
3. The Intention of Listening: In everyday life, we do not fully listen. While another person speaks we usually have our own thoughts and memories and reactions. We may be thinking, for example, "I too had an experience just like that!", or, "I don't agree with what you say," or, "A good point! I should remember to tell it to my friend." At other times we may find ourselves planning what to say when it is our turn to speak, or simply be lost in our unrelated thoughts and concerns. The result is that we are not really receptive to the other.
The Intention of Listening therefore asks us to try and put aside such interfering thoughts and images, to push out of our heart all tendencies to evaluate the other's ideas, to judge or interpret. While another person speaks, we open inside ourselves an empty space, one that is not occupied by our selves and ideas. It is as if we vacate in our being an empty arena for the speaking voice to occupy.
4. The Intention of Giving Voice: When it is our turn to speak, how do we speak? In everyday life we usually talk from a superficial part of ourselves: from our well-rehearsed ideology, for example, or from our detached reason. At other times, what speaks through our mouth is some hidden motivation: our anger at the other person, or our wish to impress others, to justify ourselves, to manipulate others into admiring us, and so on. The result is that the voice of our deeper understandings of life, being covered with such agendas and motivations, is not heard.
According to the Intention of Giving Voice we give voice to an understanding of life that is living in us at the moment. We try to speak from the deeper layer of our being; we allow our deep understandings speak spontaneously, without rehearsing them in advance, without imposing on them an agenda, without embellishing them so as to make them appear nice, without tarnishing them with hidden motivations and calculations and self-serving emotions.
C. PHILOSOPHIZING INTENTIONS:
5. The Polyphonic Intention: Our aim is to create a 'concert' of voices in which a rich variety of understandings interact and interweave and enrich each other, not a linear discussion aimed at a definite conclusion or bottom line. Thus, when hearing various understandings being expressed, we try to allow them all to exist side by side, without attempting to disprove or disqualify any of them.
This is very different from standard philosophical discussions. Many traditional philosophies are geared towards finding specific solutions to issues and giving reasons for choosing one theory rather than others. According to the Polyphonic Intention, on the other hand, we assume that virtually all understandings have something to say; they all have some place in the overall concert of understanding. This does not mean egalitarianism, or the 'anything goes' of relativism or subjectivism. Obviously, some understandings will occupy a more central part in our world while others will be only remote echoes; some will shed light on a broader scope of our lives, while others will come into play only in very specific issues or situations; some will be very meaningful or beautiful or tempting, while others will be bizarre or appalling or frightening. But all of them together will participate in our overall understanding of the issue in question.
This means that we refrain from judging philosophical ideas as true or false, valid or invalid. We give room—though not necessarily equal room—to all of them to speak side by side in a polyphony of voices. We may express our personal reaction to an idea—e.g., moral indignation, or concern about an apparent contradiction—but not attempt to disqualify it or judge it 'objectively', from a detached point of view.
6. The Intention of Critical Examination: If we are not to judge for objective rightness or wrongness, then in what sense is the conversation a critical philosophical examination?
The answer is that we investigate the qualities, meanings and implications of various understandings. We may explore an understanding in terms of the experiences from which it emerges, examine what it implies about life, investigate its basic assumptions or concepts, look at how it relates to other understandings, or in short, listen to the meaning of its voice in the context of the overall polyphonic concert of understanding.
Ending the Circle: The Circle can end at a pre-determined time, or when the session-director feels that the conversation has reached a certain completion. Before separating, we take a few moments of silence to look at the process which we have just undergone. Then, in a last round of the Talking-Piece, we share with others our meaningful moments and understandings, and what understandings we are taking with us for further exploration in the future.
Silent Lesson
The Silent Lesson' is really a version of a traditional technique that was developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic monks of the Carthusian order, called Lectio Divina (divine reading). The main reason for renaming it here is that the term 'Divina'—divine or holy—may be inappropriate for contemplating on a philosophical text.
The Silent Lesson helps us to silently read a short text and listen inwardly to voices of understanding that arise in us. The text functions as the central axis of the contemplation, thus helping to maintain inner silence, centeredness and attentiveness. As a result we may experience the text speaking to us and raising within us new understandings, hence the name 'silent lesson'.
There are several versions of Silent Lesson, some for a single reader, some for a group of discerners. In the following particular version, the basic idea is that we read together a short text, then discern in it a wide array of meanings, and then organize that array into a focused understanding, by concentrating on one sentence or concept.
More specifically:
1. Preparation: We sit in a circle, each with a copy of the text. Together we read the text and make sure that we all understand its superficial, literal meaning. The central text should be of about one or two paragraphs in length. It may be embedded in a larger text of one or two pages.
2. Attaining the inner stance of Receptive Attention: In order to enter a contemplative mood, we do a short meditation or centering exercise. We attempt to reach an inner stance of receptive attention and silence from our chattering- and thinking-mind. In other words, we attempt to 'make present' in our consciousness whatever is happening inside us, particularly understandings that rise from their depth. In a sense, we no longer dwell in our everyday chattering thoughts, as we usually do, but rather deeper inside, in what might be called our deeper being, or our inner point of silence. We no longer identify with our busy and noisy mind, but are now a vessel, an empty space, a channel for deep insights to speak through our larynx and lips. We are no longer the self who controls and speaks and decides, but are receptive and available for whatever will rise from our depths. If superficial thoughts or images pass our mind, we neither identify with them nor fight them, but simply let them pass as an irrelevant background voice.
3. First reading: The session-director now slowly reads the central text. Then, another participant may read the text again, and this reading may be repeated several times. Throughout the readings, we all maintain receptive attention, which means that we do not attempt to analyze, just let the text speak again and again within us.
4. Developing a field of meaning: We now want to unfold a rich network of meanings that arise from the original text. At this stage the point is not organization or focus, but breadth and richness. It is best to break down the text to several phrases, and to work on each one separately.
Specifically, the session-director now focuses on one important phrase from the text (a sentence, part of it, an expression, or a single word), and then invites the participants to speak by stating: "What do these words say to me?"
At this point the circle is opened for everybody to speak freely, without turns, in order to express understandings that rise inside them. These can be general and impersonal understandings (e.g., that the self is constituted by our encounters with other people), or personal philosophical understandings, expressing one's own encounter with a philosophical idea (e.g., that I tend to be aware of myself when I feel threatened by authority figures, such as my boss). In any case, it is important that the speakers follow the following guidelines, or intentions:
1. I do not speak from my chattering thoughts, but from my silent receptive attentiveness. I give voice, as it were, to my depths, allowing deep understandings to speak in me. I may therefore find myself sitting in silence for a long time, if no understanding speaks in me.
2. Every word that I utter is precious. I articulate my words clearly and concisely. I do not indulge in repetition, elaborate explanations, side-comments or unnecessary chatter.
3. I do not talk about the philosophical understanding, but express it. I do not argue about it, reason, prove or disprove, or express reservations. I simply state the understanding that speaks in me.
4. The subject-matter of my words is not me, but the philosophical understanding itself. Therefore, I avoid mentioning myself. I avoid expressions such as: "I was thinking that…", "It seems to me…", "I wonder whether…", and similar ways of talking about myself (unless I am the topic of my understanding).
5. I try to relate to what others have said before me. However, I do this not by commenting about their understandings, but by continuing them. I do not judge, evaluate, agree or disagree, but rather try to express an understanding that further develops the previous understandings so far. In this sense, I no longer focus on the philosophical text itself, but rather on the entire field of meanings so far—the original text plus what has been said so far. An appropriate metaphor here can be that of a jazz concert, where each player picks up on a previous theme and improvises a continuation.
If we follow these intentions, it is likely that there will be long pauses between utterances. (If an ongoing conversation takes place, we are probably not following the intentions). After a while the session-director picks up another phrase from central text, and again asks the group what these words say to them.
The director has the important role of using questions to direct the process. For example, the director can steer the process in a personal direction ("What do these words say to me personally, about my life?"), or in an intersubjective direction ("What do these words tell us about ourselves here, in this group?"), or similarly give the process a pragmatic or theoretic focus, a focus on the past or the present, and so on.
5. Focusing the field of meaning: So far we have been spreading out a rich but unorganized field of meanings. It is now time to take stock of what we have done, and to focus it.
To do so, the session-director says something like: "Let us now consider all the understandings that have been expressed in this circle, and look at the text again."
The leader now reads the text again, and asks the group: "What did that text tell us in the past forty-five minutes? What understanding did it raise in this circle?"
The session is now open again for the participants to speak, following the above five intentions. They try to articulate a central theme (or themes) for the process so far. Under the direction of the session-director, their suggestions gradually converge into a unified center (or sometimes more than one). The director can then repeat or summarize the central understanding(s) around which the process has evolved. These can be written down on a page.
6. Ending: It is best not to terminate the session abruptly. We let our attentiveness dissipate slowly. After a few minutes, as we disperse, the individual participants may take a solitary walk, or sit down quietly, while keeping the understandings that touched them present in their consciousness.
Guided Philosophical Imagery
Guided Imagery is a common technique that is used in a variety of workshops. Here it is adopted to Contemplative Philosophy. The basic idea is that our spontaneous imagination can reveal deep understandings that are not easily accessible to our conscious thought.
In preparation for the session, the session-director chooses a short philosophical text in which the basic idea can be metaphorically visualized. An example is Plato's cave allegory, in which we can visualize the cave-dwellers and their way out to the sun; or Henri Bergson's text on the free act, from Creative Evolution (see Part 3), in which the self is likened to a subterranean stream that is covered with solidified ideas.
We sit comfortably in a loose circle. We read the text and make sure that we understand its surface meaning. A few minutes of meditation are recommended to enter a state of silence and attentiveness.
The session-director then instructs the participants to close their eyes and visualize a figurative scene suggested by the text. While doing so, we keep in mind the philosophical ideas from the text that the scene metaphorically expresses.
For example, in the case of Plato's cave allegory, the leader might say: "Imagine that you are inside the cave. That cave is you: the walls are your own boundaries, the boundaries of your thoughts, of your thinking habits, of your emotional patterns, of your courage… There are ropes that hold you down to the chair… Now, take a look around you, see the walls, the shadows, the chair… Feel the strength of the ropes, and how they stop you from moving… Listen if you can hear something behind you… How does it feel to sit like that on the chair?… Now, something new is happening: somebody behind you is untying you. You are now free to move. See if you can turn around and look at what's behind you…"
Similarly, in the case of Bergson's text, the leader might say: "You are now standing by a stream of water. The stream is you, the flow of water is your own self… It is covered by some kind of crust—visualize it; see what it looks like… Look around and see your surroundings, where you are, where the stream seems to be coming from and where it is going… Now lean down to the stream and touch the stuff that covers the water; don't move it yet, don't yet expose the water, just touch it and see what it feels like… Hold some of the stuff in your hand; you already know it, it is something in you. Feel it… Alright, now push aside this dead stuff, make a hole in this upper crust, expose a bit of the surface of the water… Look at the water flowing… touch it and see what it feels like… And now, when you are ready, go into this opening, dive into the water as deep as you can, and explore what's there. Take your time."
Such instructions may be more detailed and directive or more general and open, depending on the group and the situation. In any case, it is important to leave gaps of silence in order to allow the participants explore their imagined world on their own. Once the participants are on track, the director can leave them alone without instructions for some five or even ten minutes.
To end the imagined journey, the director asks the participants to get ready to return to the starting point, or to some other meaningful location that could serve as an appropriate closure for the journey. For example, in the case of Bergson's text the director might request the participants to return, when ready, to the surface of the water, to get out of the stream, and, if they wish, to cover again the opening in the upper crust.
We then open our eyes at our own pace. After a few moments of silence, we share with each other our experiences. This may be done in a Discernment Circle (see above), in order to enhance the openness to listen to each other.
After this round of sharing experiences, a second, philosophical round follows: What have we learned about the philosophical text and its main ideas? What did the text teach me? What new understandings have we gained? This round can be done either in an ordinary conversation or in a relaxed Discernment Circle.
Philosophical Drawings
In Philosophical Drawings we assume that drawing a philosophical idea may reveal deep understandings that are not easily accessible to our verbal thought. The process can be seen as composed of five stages:
1. Determining the drawing theme: The exercise starts with a slow reading of a short text, or several texts on a specific philosophical issue. We then briefly discuss the texts to make sure that we all understand their surface meaning. Next, the session-director formulates a philosophical topic related to the texts, to be drawn by the participants. The topic can be formulated in an impersonal and general way (e.g., The real self; Words and silence; Love as Eros versus love as Agape; etc.). But it is usually more effective to formulate the topic in a personal way, focusing on what it means to the individual, or how it is manifested within the individual's life. Examples are: My real self; What silence says to me; Where is Erotic love in my life, What the text says to me, etc.
2. Drawing: We now disperse throughout the room, and each one draws on a sheet of paper his or her visual conception of the topic. Color crayons or pencils could be very helpful. Two intentions are important here: First, we should try to draw directly from our pre-verbal understanding, rather than translate an already-verbalized idea into the drawing. Second, we should avoid using written letters or symbols that have standard meanings. For example, we should not draw a heart as a symbol for love, because this simplistic symbolism impoverishes the possible spectrum of meanings that a drawing can have. For a similar reason, it is possible to add a third intention that prohibits drawing any recognizable object, such as a face, a star, or a flower. This means that the only allowable drawings are of a non-figurative, abstract style.
3. Giving titles to the drawing: After we have finished, we place our drawings on tables or on the floor, as in an art exhibition. The drawings are there for everybody to see, but they do not yet have titles. It is the job of each group-member to give a title to each drawing. By letting others give titles to my drawing I am in fact enabling them to point out to me hidden meanings which I might not have noticed.
To do so, we place next to each drawing an empty sheet of paper, or Title Sheet. We now walk about in the room and examine each other's work. In our free time and at our own pace, each one writes for each drawing a title that best expresses his or her understating of the drawing . The title should be of about 2-3 words, but in any case no more than five words (excluding prepositions and connectives).
4. What the titles tell me: Now that each drawing has received several titles from the group, we sit down in a circle. Each one in his or her turn presents to the others the drawing and explains the philosophical understanding that it was meant to express. He or she then reads out loud the titles of the drawing, and explains what new light these titles have added to the meaning of the drawing.
5. Philosophical summary: To end the exercise of Philosophical Drawings, we bring together the various understandings that came up during the process, either in an informal conversation or by means of a Discernment Circle. The purpose here is not to determine a bottom line, but to map out a field of understandings about the philosophical issue in question.
It should be mentioned that a similar exercise can be done with a deck of painted cards, instead of by drawing. Forty or fifty cards, each one with an interesting drawing, may express a variety of meanings. The cards are spread on the floor, and each participant chooses and pick up one of them to express his or her understanding of the philosophical topic. The participants then explain to the group their choices, and a conversation can be developed on this basis.
Slow Reading
Slow Reading is an individualist technique, intended to give each participant a personal space of inner silence in which the text can give rise to various understandings. In fact, it resembles a prayer more than a conversation.
For this reason, the text should be chosen with care. It should be concise and rich with meanings, and not too verbose, repetitive or technical. Also, it should be at least one page long, possibly more, and organized in short paragraphs. (Or, if the paragraphs are long, they can be sub-divided in pencil to shorter sections).
We disperse throughout the room, sitting or standing in no particular order. Each one holds a copy of the text. The session-director reads out loud the first word or phrase of the first paragraph, and then remains silent for a few minutes. During those minutes, we dwell on that paragraph. What exactly we do is the individual's own choice: We can read each word very slowly, or meditate on particular words, or visualize the central ideas, or more generally explore different forms of slow reading. Whatever we do, the extreme slowness of the reading helps to take us beyond the normal automatic way of reading.
Several minutes later the director reads out the beginning of the second paragraph, then the third, and so on until the end of the chosen text.
The participants can then separate for a quiet walk. Alternatively, a conversation can be developed.
Philosophical Partners
This is not a single technique, but a general framework for philosophical interactions in which two (or three) companions help each other to encounter a philosophical text or idea in a personal way, one that is different from the normal, everyday attitude. The basic idea is that certain rules are artificially imposed on the philosophical conversation, and these force us to assume an unfamiliar inner stance, and thus to go beyond our superficial attitudes and ideas.
This activity is done in pairs. In the case of group activity, the participants break up to groups of two, and each pair finds a quiet place where they can converse in private. (Groups of three are also possible, where the third person serves as a witness to the conversation). At the end of the session, the groups meet again and share their experiences and insights.
It is often helpful to focus the conversation not just on a given philosophical issue, but also on a brief philosophical text. The rules that are imposed on the conversation can direct it in a more personal or more general direction, as desired. Here are a few suggestions for possible rules:
a. Alternative voices: Normally we have opinions that serve as our "official party-line"—about politics, religion, morality, and so on. We adopt and declare them as our opinions. These long-held official opinions tend to be solidified in our minds and lose their mutability and vitality. At other times we find ourselves blurting opinions on some new issue which we have never thought about, and yet we blurt them automatically, without pausing to think. These we might call our automatic opinions. The relationship between official and automatic opinions is not obvious, but the common element in them is that they are not born out of a presently deep deliberation or self-examination.(At most they are the product of a deliberation that took place some time in the past.)
In this exercise we try to give voice to deeper, living, un-solidified parts in us. To do so, we impose the following rule on the conversation: Whenever participants wish to speak, they first have to briefly formulate their official or automatic opinion. Then they have to articulate in greater detail an alternative voice, which may express some nagging thought, or a fear, a hope, a doubt etc., but which rarely gets a chance of being expressed. Thus, a participant might say, in the context of Sartre's view on emotions: "My official opinion is that I am free to control my anger. An alternative voice in me says that I am often helpless to calm myself, that I am a victim of psychological factors that compel me to explode. I perceived this voice yesterday at the dinner table, when nobody listened to me. I felt swept away by waves of frustration. According to this voice, Sartre is wrong, because my emotions are not my own free creation. They are, rather, powers which I may or may not manage to overcome."
b. Postponed conversation: Here, in order to avoid official and automatic opinions, we do not reply or speak immediately when it is our turn to speak, as in everyday conversations. Rather, we have to wait in silence some 10 seconds (or another agreed-upon interval) before speaking. This makes us aware of our tendency for automatic speech, and helps us to search within ourselves for other voices.
c. What does the philosopher say to me? Here our main issue is: "What does the text (or a given philosopher) say to me, personally, about my life?" The two conversant put aside their personal opinions, and are allowed to use only the philosophical 'voice' of the chosen text (or philosopher). In other words, they speak about a personal issue from the perspective of the text's (or philosopher's) ideas: concepts, assumptions, beliefs.
It is often useful to change roles every once in a while: One participant represents a given philosophical voice, while the other is himself or herself, and the two discuss a personal issue from the latter's life.
