Neutrality
There is some law of physics that states that the constantly moving molecules in a gas will expand to fill the available space in the room. Or something like that. This is what i felt like during this session when we developed a game of moving, without motivation, and changing position when we came nearly into contact with an object. The game changed slightly as we introduced rules (like the physical laws, these rules respond to a 'nature' rather than to a 'desire') One body was attracted to another, and moved towards it, trying to come into contact with it. To the second body, they first was treated just like any other object in the room, and thus moved away from. By taking out the feeling of motivation, but just responding to the rules, the movement became a flowing dynamic. The speed and energy were constant, and only the direction of movement changed. At one point two bodies got stuck in the corner of the room. Neither able to move, as their laws of movement prevented further progress. In this scenario, according to physical laws, would there be a build up of potential energy? I think not. Build up of energy would occur due to animal motivation such as frustration. This would be an emotional energy. The physical energy, without the emotional factor, would be constant, and although the rules of movement are in conflict, preventing further movement. In this case, this created a balanced state of stillness, where the two bodies maintained their position in space. As human animals, we felt uncomfortable, as we had applied a human interpretation to the word 'rule' or 'law'. We had thought that the 'rule' was 'to move'. But it wasn't, the 'rule' was 'to move in relation to other bodies', and in this case, the movement was to be still.
As a physical body, we would just remain still, unquestioningly, having no motivation to change position, and no human consciousness with which to reflect upon or question our position.
Eventually we put 3 bodies into the space, each moving randomly, without motivation, changing direction only when coming close to another body.
Why would we do this?
To develop the idea of Neutrality. We chatted about Buddhism and Taoism, the state of being that contains no emotion or motivation, just is. We related it to an antelope, who will eat grass for days and then in an instant of spotting a lion be running in the opposite direction at full speed. But this had to much of a motivational factor. Then we thought of a frog, sitting motionless on a stone, staring seemingly at nothing until a fly appears, in any random area about the frog. In an instant, the frogs tongue is flicked from its mouth, grabs the fly, and is pulled back, the fly has been eaten and the frog still sits. I imagine that it blinks at this point, but I have no evidence from nature to say whether that is the case. I wonder if the frog likes the taste of fly, or gets a feeling of satisfaction when it gets the tip of it's tongue right on target? I wonder if the frog feels hunger? I imagine that any animalistic drives such as these may interfere with the frogs state of consciousness, and cramp it's style somewhat, so maybe not.
In a neutral state, anything is possible, awareness is fully present, experience comes from all of the senses, but is not necessarily responded to. It just is.
Then we start to get relaxed, and lose it. Because relaxation is closer to exhaustion, the state in Lecoq's cycle of 'no energy', than neutrality. Neutrality contains potential energy, and movement comes easily from a state of Neutrality. In relaxation, we don't want to move, we want to be still. Neutrality neither wants movement or stillness, but can do either. I realise at this point that often I have seen Neutrality as the same as Relaxation. Relaxation is seductive, it pulls you in because you are a lazy human that doesn't want to move. In an opposite state, Anxiety (a high state of tension), you can't help but move, this is often through fear, or repressed anger. Anxiety motivates you to move, and Relaxation motivates you to be still. Neutrality motivates nothing, yet makes anything possible (within the potentialities of your own possiblities). So what is it? and how do we get there?
No comments:
Post a Comment