Self Censorship

 

When I first heard the concept of self-censorship, I was deeply struck by the fact that I had never heard it from anyone before. The first time was through Silo in 2006, and the context was a conversation about how the Message expands in an attack against censorship and self-censorship, and that attack against self-censorship is the development of a willingness to abandon this system and create a different vision of how things are and how one should act toward them. At that time, it was just a word, and some years later, it's much more than that and has a deeper and more expansive meaning. I imagine the word has been used before, and Silo himself probably used it before, but the important point is that my recognition began that day. I'm talking about an internal recognition of my self-censorship, and as he rightly said, censorship has weakened enormously over time, but self-censorship hasn't. This whole context is interesting, even though it's a bit redundant. Sometimes a word or phrase can change an entire behavior, or at least produce an internal shift and an observation that's initially superficial and then more internal. That's more or less how my study of self-censorship began. The hardest part has been the effort not to judge, criticize, or degrade self-censorship. Yes, it's clearly useless at this moment, but it's more important to understand it than to judge it. And in that effort, I've been able to see and experience that this is actually the best way to open up that "disposition" to change. By sometimes only momentarily suspending the tendency toward judgment, an opening is produced within me, and I was able to see that what was most repressed in self-censorship was the potential for intuition and the potential for unbiased and free observation of external and internal phenomena. Let's see if I can explain this a little more poetically. 

“Cafet completely abandoned himself to the experience he was having. Thousands of miles from where he had started, in a strange, wonderfully real, and incomprehensible dream. On a journey to the highest desires that had not been at all what he had imagined. Cafet followed Graciela, connecting with the intuition that she would take him where he needed to go. There are times when the absurd and the extraordinary blend in an impossible-to-predict way, and all that remains is to follow that tenuous thread without too many questions, without too much caution, and with enough confidence that one will arrive where one must go.”

This paragraph is from a story I wrote based on a dream. Dreams are absurd and special precisely because there is no censorship, because there is no guardian of the contents; they just flow, and one participates in the most extravagant, extraordinary, immoral, inspired, etc. situations, and self-censorship disappears…

This is only an approximation of the subject, and I have used the dream only as an example. It's neither possible nor advisable to transfer it to waking life, but it is important to understand how this mechanism operates and how, little by little, without being extravagant or extraordinary, or immoral and/or inspired, one can gradually release one's own censorship, especially regarding one's own content, especially regarding one's own conceptions, especially because intuitions are more interesting than schemes. And by letting go of all this, insights emerge about how systems are set up. If one notices the tendency and observes it without compulsions, it tends to not occupy the central space of our actions in the world, and by not occupying that space, something different begins to manifest. In the best of cases, a void is created, and that void gives meaning because it comes from the deepest part of the human being.

The attacks against self-censorship are not warlike in nature but rather efforts to silence great compulsions that distance us from that sacred thing within and around us. Undoubtedly, the efforts in this direction are worthwhile.

Working internally

The idea of "working internally" is not a new one. In different forms and in different times it's been somehow constantly present in our world.

The starting point is to work with what we have and this is probably a new proposal. It is commonly accepted in societies that we work trying to "obtain" something within ourselves. We want to "become" someone better or smarter or more spiritual, etc.

The simple idea of "obtaining" goes contrary to this process. 

We can at best transform what we already have. 

To work to "become" is a waste of energy. 

To "liberate" ourselves is a lot more interesting.

To liberate ourselves from fears

To liberate ourselves from prejudices

To liberate ourselves from internal violence and judgements

To liberate ourselves from ignorance and internal suffering

From that perspective, to let go is a good approach to start this internal work.

Learning to let go is the first step of many more to follow.

PHOTO BY RAFAEL EDWARDS

Talking about experiences

 

Who really wants to listen to someone else experience? Practically no one.
In general we can't wait to talk about our own experience and hardly listen to what the other is saying.
And we finished talking and the other person is not even listening, in the same way we don't listen.
It is a peculiar exercise on monologues.
Not often it happens that we can actually exchange experiences.
Not often and it only happens if we are very open to really listen.
I would like to really minimize my talking about myself.
I found it not very interesting and it doesn't help my internal process.
I rather listen and ask a lot of questions.
It makes the other person happier and I feel more connected.
It is a backward way to treat others as I would like to be treated.

PHOTO BY RAFAEL EDWARDS

Reconciliation

 

The theme of violence and vengeance is a fairly heavy one, but at the same time it creates the space for me to ask myself, “How do I get out of this mess?” No matter how much I’d like to offer the other cheek, I am not completely convinced of the effectiveness or enduring validity of that approach. And after ending up without cheeks from offering them so often, how can I really overcome those forces that keep being generated within me?

Going deeper, I have to recognize that sometimes my worst enemy is inside me. If I am my worst enemy, offering my cheeks won’t help me much.

Then I see more clearly the need to reconcile with myself, and with everyone who has harmed me. The path of reconciliation is arduous, but demands sincerity; and it is the only path that offers a way out of the vicious cycle of internal violence and resentment - the same cycle that makes others mistreat me and makes me mistreat myself.

So, considering all this, there arises within me the natural impulse of forgiveness. But forgiveness, while still important, is not enough. It is not enough because it obliges me to put myself in those totally unexpected situations where I pardon my aggressor and they don’t realize I’ve done so, and just go on being aggressive. Now, humiliated on top of being hurt, I decide that forgiveness isn’t very effective, since I find myself again resentful, but now doubly so because my forgiveness has not been gracefully welcomed. And even if, as in the best of cases, my forgiveness is accepted, I feel morally superior, and that’s the end of all my efforts toward a more interesting transformation. Besides, there remains an unanswered question: how do I forgive myself?

I need to go a little deeper inside… and unfortunately I can’t do that just by forgetting what happened. Forgetting doesn’t work very well, because the painful memory is still there, and no matter how hard I try to push it down, it surfaces and keeps bringing that situation back into my present awareness, even though I’ve tried to forget it. Sometimes just a scent or a color brings back all those memories I thought I’d forgotten, and again I find myself in a situation of resentment.

Little by little, and almost without any other options, I begin to reflect that the only way to overcome all this is through a deep and sincere reconciliation that begins specifically with myself. As has been said, this process begins when I accept that I have a problem, when I can admit that I don’t like myself as much as I believed, and sometimes don’t really like myself at all. This lack of affection for myself is complicated and makes me suffer, and its causes and origins are hardly important. What is important is that it exists, and is continually begging to be recognized and resolved. There I am with this burden that gets lighter only when I begin to treat myself differently, when I begin to see myself in a different way, when there appears within me a desire for a kind of transformation not linked to any feeling of guilt or desire to “improve” myself, or any requirements of that sort. A transformation where I simply see myself as someone with a lot of positive and negative attributes, with longings and hopes, failures and successes - a truly human being with all kinds of needs, and also someone who’s interested in others and in coexisting with them and loving them - and also in loving myself. When I can see myself that way, my future opens and I feel I can escape the trap of resentment.

Then I recognize the validity of not judging myself or anyone else. I recognize the need to transform my life and the lives of those around me, but not compulsively, or for any other reason than to overcome myself. Because I understand, although not always very deeply and not always completely, that this is an effort that is made without concern for retribution or reciprocity. In other words, it’s neither necessary nor important for others to respond in kind. It’s a kind of “unilateral disarmament” that I experience as internal liberation, as a sensation of lightness and coherence, something that fits internally.

Finally I can perceive that when, as I strive to reconcile with myself, I begin to achieve this unilateral disarmament, it reinforces in me the feeling of reconciliation with others. Now I can sometimes see how all those individuals who have wounded me are exactly the same as me. I can perceive them in their humanity, and this is possible because I am humanizing myself. So after going around and around on this issue, I realize that everything begins to transform when I make the decision to reconcile with myself.

It is that effort, and no other, that allows me to escape from the closed circle of violence and vengeance. The best thing about this whole process is the silent joy that begins to accumulate within me, and I feel a profound gratitude for all these teachings that we have received.

Portland, Oregon February 18, 2021


EDITED & TRANSLATED BY TRUDI RICHARDS

ILLUSTRATION BY RAFAEL EDWARDS

Trust

When the institutions that are a society’s pillars are not perceived as such, that is the beginning of that society’s disintegration. Science is no longer credible, education is doubtful, religion is uninspiring, justice is no longer blind, politicians no longer represent any truth.

Trust is a key ingredient in a correctly functioning society. Generally trust is lost when the keepers of the trust fail in their actions. Normally trust is never recuperated when it breaks down. Doubt and mistrust poison everything they touch, and unfortunately the antidote has not yet been found for this enormous problem.

When there is trust, there is tolerance and respect, because it is understood that errors can be correctable. That is not the case when trust evaporates. Then all tolerance and respect disappear in a whirlwind of mutual recriminations, and finally everything gives way to violence and total disintegration. This happens in human relationships and in human societies. So we ask ourselves, what can be done? How can we emerge from this situation?

Will we again give our trust to those who have betrayed us? Will we pardon all their mistakes? Will we exchange some for others without any certainty that things will get any better? Will we listen to new promises made without the slightest conviction? Such promises do not inspire trust no matter how great an effort we or anyone else makes. They do not sound sincere because they are not.

The sincerity we need is intimately linked to the recognition that this society has failed at every level. This failure cannot be repaired with promises and declarations, nor by a tough nor a soft approach. It doesn’t matter which individual or individuals have declared themselves the saviors, because they do not inspire trust. Maybe by now we are at last completely fed up with what we’ve been seeing for thousands of years.

Really recognizing our social failure would put us in an extraordinary situation, tremendously painful for a few and liberating for the rest. Such a recognition implies being able to admit our ignorance at all levels. It implies being able to look at all our mistakes without prejudice, without cowardice and without blaming anyone. We gain nothing by blaming anyone because if we’re really being sincere, we’d better share the blame. But I do not believe that is the best approach, nor that it is what we aspire to. True justice has little to do with guilt and blame.

If we as a society can experience our failure, perhaps we can move on to a new stage where a new way of organizing ourselves and of looking at things is possible.

Inevitably at this first stage of recognition, fear is the first thing we need to accept, see, and abandon. Fear is exactly what is keeping us from advancing as a society toward a more coherent form of relationship and government. Fear of losing what we do not have or what we believe we have, fear of not achieving what we believe we need to achieve, fear of what we remember having had or what we believed we had have always led us to destruction and violence as individuals and as societies. This fear exists at every level of our lives and that is why our social structures are in decline and disintegrating. “Each clinging to their own gods…” as the famous and true song goes. Without even realizing that those “gods” that we cling to are the same that all the enemies we keep creating cling to.

The truth is, it’s a sad situation for all humanity, and like it or not, we are all immersed in this system that is now global and we have no possible way to escape this reality.

Like all “realities” we need to start seeing it for what is, and the sooner the better. If there is any possibility of change, it is now and not tomorrow, and that change will only be possible if each of us has a strong desire for change. This change has to begin with the individual who becomes fully aware of the situation of failure at an individual and social level. If we naively believe that the individual and the social are separate and that it’s the society that is messed up and we are fine, we won’t go anywhere very interesting. The opposite idea, where society is fine and the individual is messed up, is equally mistaken.

What I am suggesting is one of the most difficult things to do, and at the same time the most effective. When change begins in an individual it is because an internal recognition has put them in a situation of “truth” that can be reached in no other way. How I would love to take a pill and have everything be fine when I wake up, or drink a glass of something that would make me feel better. Or maybe take some drugs. Nothing very strong, just enough to make me forget this reality that I have not created and that has nothing to do with me. I could also surround myself with people like me and therefore not feel my miscalculations or my internal failure, and I could calmly blame everyone else. I have to admit that sometimes this works for a while but the moment inexorably passes and something happens that breaks that artifice and I am again violated internally by the facts and by what I do not want to admit.

The false doors for ending our internal violence and the social disintegration that comes with it are many, but the only important thing is that they are false. Truth is always felt as such, and its main characteristic is that it does not bring violence. The violence we are talking about is physical, racial, sexual, gender, religious, economic, etc. – all the known forms of violence. The truth is felt as an inner liberation, an expansion, a soft joy, peacefulness, and a certainty that the other is as important as oneself. If we have to justify and explain what we call “the truth” because we cannot feel it, then all those explanations are useless, because they do not touch the human heart, which is where the real possibility of transformation begins.

Maybe I don’t feel this thing that holds the truth all the time, but it’s enough to feel it a few times in order to orient our lives in that direction that is human and, why not say it, transcendent. Transcendent in that it truly transcends the personal, the individual trivialities, and puts us in resonance with life itself, a life that keeps being built from inner realities and not from slogans and great economic, political, or moral declarations.

This ascending direction brings me to a situation of trust in the other and in myself that can be experienced without any doubt, because I can feel in the other the same thing I feel in myself. When this happens, when I can put myself in the other’s shoes, that is when my position in the world changes, and therefore everything changes. To want and to be able to treat the other as I want to be treated is the golden rule for a real society. It is the foundational pillar for building something that is true.

When the human being is divorced from their deepest feelings, that is when meaning is lost or fades. When I separate myself from what is true in me, that is when the society I belong to no longer reflects a meaningful direction. That is when all the “enemies” appear, ready to snatch what I believe I have. That is when the indefensible appears, when all the countries flags are raised signaling that what is most important is the individual, the family, private property, religion, and the fatherland.

And maybe that is the way it is, but all of it is tinged with fear and violence. It does not inspire trust, quite the contrary. It causes internal disintegration and makes me betray what I believe I believe in. On one hand I am ready to do the impossible for my loved ones, and at the same time everything that is not part of that small circle is my enemy. Of course I am going to justify that a thousand different ways. That justification will keep growing and suddenly I will find that war, killing, and control by fear are “necessary” because they are the enemies of “my fatherland” and my “beliefs” and everything that exists.

If anyone dares ask me how it is possible for all that to be justified, for the religion I profess to be one of “love and not hate,” or any other question that reveals my deep inner contradiction, I will respond with insults and more violence.

Curiously there is no religion on the planet that promotes hate in its original teachings; nevertheless, here we are, with the defenders of the faith armed to the teeth to protect something that was never even said.

One could say that this is all an absurdity, and of course it is. But we have gone past the limits of what can be said, and what we are facing is a disintegration that will not respond to anything anyone can say, or to any brainy analysis. This is something that is growing like a cancer and will keep weakening the social body until it destroys it. I am not exaggerating in the least. This social breakdown began decades ago, and we are now in the midst of one of the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced.

All the alarms in our short memory of history are going off and even the most cynical and the most optimistic silently know that we are going in the wrong direction.

I do not believe that anyone will be very happy with this quite brutal and apparently negative analysis, but unfortunately we find ourselves at a historical crossroads of immense proportions. This is not the moment for soft words or for denying what exists and where it is taking us. Nor is this the moment for statistics and intellectual justifications.

We need to observe and understand that this environment we live in that we call social has a lot to do with us. In reality it is almost impossible to separate the individual from society. The two are a structure, and must be understood structurally. It is in the structure itself that the problem of lack of truth, lack of faith is being generated. The individual and their environment feed each other and cannot be conceived separately, no matter how hard we try to separate that fact.

I think and also want to believe that we can transform ourselves and transform our environment. I think and believe that it is possible to move in a unitive and growing direction. I’ve had internal flashes of recognition that push me strongly toward believing that it is possible not only to live with internal unity but also to act in the world as a transformative force.

To learn to treat others as I want to be treated is the most coherent way I can be in the world. It is something that gives me meaning and an ascending direction.

Then to learn to overcome suffering in myself, in those close to me, and in society.
To learn to resist the violence that is within me and outside of me.
Finally, to learn to recognize the signs of the sacred within me and around me.

In this way we can be in the world, in society, and learn to develop ourselves internally. It is important to understand that it is necessary to “learn.” This is not just a word, but carries within it a way of being in the world where learning is the key, where every day I ask myself what is important, where every day I try to learn as much as possible about myself and those around me. In some way I believe that this is a “path” that will lead us to a different society, one that is human, profound, and much truer.

Trust is the basis of all human relationships. If trust is lost, it is like losing the doors and windows of a house. If trust is built, then the future opens wide.



EDITED & TRANSLATED BY TRUDI RICHARDS

The guilty ones

Guilt is a topic that has always caught my attention. Probably because it has been part of my life since my childhood. Born in a Catholic society and educated in a Catholic school, I had no choice but to learn to feel guilty starting in “tender infancy,” as they used to say…

It's good to have a direct experience of this phenomenon. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, not even on myself, but at least I'm talking about something that I have experienced and have "suffered" for a long time. This has made me think a lot about it - about where it came from, how it developed, and how it's managed to permeate societies for millennia. I use the word “suffered” intentionally and not as a figure of speech, because guilt is something we experience as mental suffering.

Since this is a serious topic, I think it is best to approach it without any seriousness. That way I can see it better, and can begin by saying that my childhood had little to do with my guilt. In other words, I've met people who never went to a Catholic school and never heard anyone talk about “guilt,” who still feel as guilty as I do... I've met people from other places, other cultures, who speak different languages, and we all feel guilty.

We feel guilty about what we do and what we don't do. About what we think and feel, and about what we don't think and what we don't feel. In other words, when it comes to guilt, we are all stuck in an internal labyrinth without much way out.

The most curious thing about all this is that no one wants to admit it. And if anybody does naively admit their guilt, they'll have at least six people around them trying to convince them that they're not at all guilty of anything. Which is quite comforting but not remotely helpful. It doesn't help because in spite of everyone's good intentions, it's fake. Guilt does not disappear because someone reasons with you, tells you're wrong, tries to convince you, scolds you, etc. I think we have to go deeper, to the root of the problem of guilt. And that root is like the roots of an oak tree, deep and long…

According to the stories we're told, we were expelled from paradise because of Eve's fault after she ate an apple from the tree of good and evil, seduced by a snake. Who knows where Adam stood in all this, but the story already starts off pretty badly. One of the first historical “judgments” begins with someone being found guilty, and goes on with their punishment. Both Eve and Adam are kicked out of paradise for eating those forbidden apples and for wanting to be like the gods - that is, for having more interesting aspirations than just to exist. Not to mention that the guilty party was a woman, and “God” was always “the father.”

From that point on it's a series of gruesome hardships and tragedies for all human beings, who generally come into the world innocently, without knowing anything about its history, who arrive without choosing, and end up in this strange predicament... guilty even before being born. On top of all this, which is already plenty strange, an intermediary appears part way through the whole story. He shows up at a key moment in history, intending to redeem all human beings, since they arrived already carrying the burden of “original sin." This redeemer brings a message of love and compassion but doesn't even make it to age 40 and ends up being crucified by the empire on duty in cahoots with the reigning religion in the chosen spot.

Which brings us back to guilt. Now the human being is not only expelled from paradise, but also guilty of crucifying the redeemer. Of course, it's explained that he died for our “sins,” but that doesn't help in the least, but only adds one more link to the long chain of guilt that is the basic substrate of an entire belief system, of a faith and a way of life.

I want to clarify that I'm not at all trying to ridicule the Catholic religion or, in fact, any religion. On the contrary, I am trying to explain to myself how we've been indoctrinated. Even though I'm obviously giving very few details and am speaking in a way that might seem sarcastic (but is not), I'm talking about something I see first of all in myself. I will try to explain below.

This story of guilt is complicated and has endured in this form for thousands of years. It is important, at least from this perspective, to understand that guilt in general is rooted in our civilization, and that its presence is completely independent of its perceived religious origins considering that the code of Hammurabi existed long before Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Guilt broke away from its origins a long time ago, but remains embedded in our social rules, in our legal concepts, in our ideas of “right” and “wrong,” and in the most common and practical applications of the laws that rule humanity.

The so-called “law” is all about administering “justice,” and there is no justice without finding someone “guilty.” Those accused by the law are tried and convicted (or acquitted) by the judge, who is sometimes a magistrate and sometimes a jury made up of a number of people, and who decides whether the accused is guilty or innocent. In all societies the objective of all of this is to administer justice according to the laws of the land. The laws change but the justice system does not change. No matter how much the laws change, the guilty continue to be convicted. In other words, there is no system of justice without guilt.

This is what I am saying, and it doesn't matter if we agree or don't agree. Without guilt, without punishment, without trials and without confessions, the entire judicial and civic system immediately collapses. This is really food for thought considering all the ramifications and consequences of all these entanglements. But without getting into all that, which would entail quite a lengthy detour, it is clear that all justice systems in general are based on innocence or guilt according to what is considered good and evil in the historical moment in which one lives.

I don't think it's possible to change this system, and it doesn't seem to be in need of change, but I think it's interesting to see how it operates in us. How my guilt, which I don't even know where it comes from, begins to dictate my behavior, and now I feel guilty, and not satisfied with feeling my own guilt, I begin to find others guilty as well. We share the guilt, but that changes nothing important in us.

I believe the only antidote for all this guilt is responsibility. That's another long and complicated topic because of all the interpretations of what it means to "be responsible.” To keep things simple, I am referring only to the responsibility we have to ourselves regarding guilt. In Sri Lanka in 1981, Silo said the following: “For the first time in history, let us stop looking for people to blame. Everyone is responsible for what they have done, but no one is to blame for what has happened. If only with this universal judgment we could declare: 'No one is to blame,' and with this establish a moral obligation that every human reconciles with his or her own past."

This proposal is a profound and simple one that can actually be carried out if the suggested line of action is followed.

If I look inside me for what makes me feel guilty and try to reconcile with myself, with what has happened and with whoever was present in that conflict, that is a step forward, a step that opens my future. Such reconciliation is a responsible and internally integrative response that is aimed toward overcoming revenge, resentment, retribution and self-degradation. In true reconciliation there is no forgiving or forgetting. In this kind of reconciliation it is important to get to the root of revenge, fear, guilt and violence. This root is not personal but cultural, and as we have already said, has its origins in the remote past. In fact, the code of Hammurabi, which predates Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is the beginning of this whole story. That is why the root we are considering here is so long, and why it is a good idea to study it carefully, based on the universal principle that says: "You will make your conflicts disappear not when you want to resolve them, but when you understand them in their ultimate root.”


EDITED & TRANSLATED BY TRUDI RICHARDS
ILLUSTRATION BY RAFAEL EDWARDS

About Art

I am interested in art. Yes. I'm interested in art, but from a perspective or point of view that can be summarized as follows:

"Art as a means of human expression and social development."
I'm not interested in defining "Art."
I am certainly not interested in anything remotely connected with "artistic creativity" or with the "creative process" in art.
The fact that I'm not interested in those aspects doesn't make them any less important or worthwhile. They have their value and their meaning, but it would not be honest for me to say that I can embrace them.
Insomuch as art contributes to human expression, it is worthwhile and meaningful for me.
Insomuch as art contributes to social development, it is worthwhile and meaningful for me.
Why am I interested in human expression and why am I interested in social development?
Because I am a human being immersed in a world of other human beings. Our temporal and spatial existence is known to me as "experience." I am alive (apparently) and what I do with my life is important. My existence, as well as the existence of others, is strongly conditioned by a multiplicity of factors that I will not analyze in this writing but about which it will probably be enough to say the following:

We all come into this world without the ability to choose. We do not choose where we are born, or under what conditions. We do not choose our city, town, or region; we do not choose the social and cultural context we grow up in. We do not choose our parents, and we do not choose the name our parents give us. In short, we are born conditioned to the max by unchosen temporal and material circumstances, and by the particular historical/cultural moment in which those circumstances exist.

Every human being is said to be unique. But my existence is not unique - it is an experience shared with others. Nor am I, personally, particularly unique, except for slight differences in physical features as compared with other human beings. Outside of that, outside of my enormous illusion of being unique, I'm just like everyone else.

No longer perceiving myself as unique, I've lost my belief in “uniqueness,” especially in the context of Art.

Before the Renaissance, most of the artistic production was an anonymous endeavor, a social rather than individual undertaking. Neither signatures nor names were associated with artistic production. Art was a collective activity that had a different expression and intention than it has today.

I don't have enough understanding or data to explain why, but I perceive that since then, our architecture, painting, music, etc. have gone from being an expression of society as a whole to being a personal expression that highlights the individual and individualism kept growing stronger and stronger over the centuries, anonymity was degraded and all social effort was rechanneled toward the individual. Now we have arrived at the 21st century and much of what I perceive in art is clearly produced within the context of individual self-expression.

I understand that individualism is as strong as it is because we are all born into an individualistic system that subjects us to individualistic conditioning on all levels - social, cultural, regional, and planetary. All contemporary societies are characterized by individualism and a belief in individuals. Bathed in this individualism from the time we are born, every one of us absorbs a thoroughly individualistic approach to living.

In my personal process I value joint efforts. They leave me with a very special register of a soft joy, a register of complementation. Of course I can conceive of artistic productions that are not within the realm of the collective; but I am interested everything collective because of that direction. Perhaps in the not too distant future, work in the arts will be increasingly developed through joint activities.

In certain artistic productions we can see the best human intentions reflected. Often these intentions coincide with supra-personal searches, with intuitions of other spaces and other times, with conceptions that sometimes move dramatically away from what is imposed by the historical moment, with elaborations that have resonance with the collective rather than the individual. This is more or less what I am attempting to convey when I speak of the co-operative social direction that can be taken by the arts.

Several years ago, at the beginning of this century, I was part of a group of friends who created a cultural and artistic collective we called “Antoja.” Over the span of a few years we organized numerous presentations, retreats, conversations, joint productions, etc., until the image of the collective complicated things, and we decided to dissolve it. I have always had the impression that despite that dissolution in 2005, much of what we did collectively in Antoja, and many of our more interesting attempts to take the "artistic" to a level beyond the personal without "depersonalizing" it, were unique and important efforts that were much loved.

What we were striving for, in a nutshell, was to produce art as individuals within a group context, all of us moving in a similar direction that included a global perspective and a deep humanist sentiment. I believe our attempts were not in vain, but constituted an important step toward liberating the arts from the individualistic framework within which they had been confined for centuries - a step toward incorporating them within a communal, collective way of being in which the spiritual and the social clearly complement each other.

Here I am speaking of the spiritual in a very broad sense, one that is not necessarily religious. When one looks at the arts in this way, it is almost impossible not to experience moments of great inspiration, and it is also almost impossible to deny that a great deal of art down through history has been born out of states of inspiration. Such inspiration takes the artist out of the conventional world, into a different space and time where profound inner revelations can appear, connected as they are with the intuitive, and with that which goes beyond what we perceive with our sensory apparatus. Such inspiration is expressed in what we know as poetry, painting, music, theater, essay, sculpture, etc.

I would almost say that the sacred can be expressed through art that is conceived beyond the individual, and that such art in turn paradoxically transforms the individual.

Maybe the most important thing in all this talk about art can be synthesized in one simple question and answer:
Question: "And why all this?"
Answer: "It's just one more attempt to establish communication..."


EDITED & TRANSLATED BY TRUDI RICHARDS

PHOTOS BY RAFAEL EDWARDS