Ill communication

I wound down the Tailor’s Doctrine, as it was originally defined, two years ago: as a resource that was meant to communicate a precisely defined view of Islam to Muslims/Sufi seekers.

I then spent the next two years gradually trying to explain what went wrong with that communication, why I was wrong to think I had something worth communicating, why what I was communicating was by definition not something that could be received by my audience, etc. 2012’s blog has had that focus primarily: it’s got close to the matter at hand, it’s got close to language’s intimacy with the body, and the resulting disconnect that must hold between different embodiments of a textual truth.

All the same, I find myself in error on a pretty regular basis: violating the principles I set myself, almost out of habit trying to communicate/”teach”/”download” a particular structure to agents whose embodiment is so radically different to mine that the only possible outcome is not communication, but impoliteness and bad karma, with myself as the prime agent delivering it.

The realisation that I am not a teacher has probably meant I’m frustrated: I’ve lost the audience, the possibility of an audience, the possibility for communication — but not the desire to teach. (And I don’t mean that in any elitist, guru-ish kind of way, I just mean it in the sense that Idries Shah talks about the guy who hops about wanting to offload some knowledge, to pass it on so it doesn’t get “stuck” within his own orb, so the river flows onwards in some kind of ideal theo-social dialectic.)

The analysis I’ve performed here has been useful: because it’s an important first step to acknowledge why I was wrong in thinking I was “teaching”. But I guess I can’t continue on with that analysis indefinitely: it’s helpful in moving on, post divorce, but doesn’t satiate the desire, the bad habits of a failed marriage, the warped thinking I developed for myself around “teaching”/communication.

FOr example, if I had to, I could write a book about the “Axiom/Serpent” post below. In the past, I would have done. But what compels me to do that? What would the point of it be? Who would I be trying to explain it to? Do I really understand who that “listener” is meant to be, when I open my mouth to speak? The Axiom is something I meditate on, it’s a Cabbalic Crucifix for me, its the Tengri-Ummai, it’s the Rainbow Connection, it’s Genesis/End of the world, cycles of awakening, the 7 by 4. I guess it’s something that holds between myself and God, just as other things bind others to God.


One thought on “Ill communication

  1. Ego grows by recognition, definition! Love needs to be shared.Love bridges semantic difficulty to reach itself. As it is shared it increases.The nature of the creative. Love can not be defined since it is always refineing, expanding. Let love join love by expressing its own expansion. peace brother

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s