April 2009 Archives

When I was around 12 years old I had a dream of a fantastical horn, a sort of curly shofar-like instrument with two mouthpieces and perhaps a dozen branching, spiraling tubes extending out, up and down. I'm not sure how such an instrument would function in the waking world, but in the dream world I was able to produce immense and complex polyphonic music with it.

Since that time (and perhaps before, though I don't have a distinct recollection) I've had hundreds, perhaps thousands, of vivid dreams along these lines. In some I'm in a workshop, or the back room of an out-of-the-way junk shop. In others I'm onstage (perhaps with Miles or Dylan or Mingus--wish fulfillment, you might say), or at a house party or outdoors somewhere, jamming on a horn or stringed instrument--some relatively mundane, some amazingly fantastical. Some of the instruments are ones I own and play in waking life (including, particularly, ones I have made). In any case, there's an ecstatic buzz connected with the experience, which is actually not so different from what it's like in waking life.

I started playing trumpet when I was 10 years old, in school. At times my feeling for the instrument was ambivalent, and I put it down for a year or so on a couple of occasions. When I was 21 or 22 I discovered Don Cherry and felt like I'd stepped into an open field where before I'd been in a tunnel. His use of a pocket trumpet inspired me to pick one up, and I found that the experience of playing it was completely different than the standard trumpet (which I never played again afterward). Functionally everything is the same between the two instruments: they have the same range (same length of tubing, only the pocket trumpet is wound in an extra loop to make it more compact), use the same mouthpiece (though some pocket trumpets use a cornet mouthpiece, which is practically the same but not identical). For me, the crucial difference is not simply the sound--the pocket trumpet actually tends to have a slightly rougher tone, and is slightly harder to keep in tune--but the placement, the location of the sound. With this instrument, I feel like it comes directly out of me--from my gut, my lungs, my lip--instead of something happening at a distance, over there somewhere...

This may seem tangential, but actually it's at the heart of any approach to the idea of sacred space--not just because music has always been associated with every sort of sacred experience (never mind the Taleban--the brutality they promote is the opposite), but because any activity that doesn't bring you into a direct experience has lost the game. Why do kids occasionally act bored? Because they can tell the difference between something happening away from them and something they're inside of. 

This is also fundamental to addressing global warming. Pollution that people experience directly is much more likely to generate action. People have visceral reactions when they witness a sludge-filled river, when the air stinks and their eyes burn, when their children can't breathe. They may feel constrained from resolving the problem (it's beyond their apparent means) but if given an opportunity they're relatively likely to be motivated to do something about it. But global warming occurs at a distance--certainly a displacement in time, if not location. It is not personally immediate. Even highly intelligent, educated, socially engaged people, while they may take the issue seriously, are subject to more immediate concerns--health and economic survival, for example--that will always displace something occurring at a distance. As it becomes closer to direct experience, the motivation will increase.

Direct experience--full engagement with the activity--does not actually require a nonstop high-intensity focus. It requires a steadiness of attention, receptivity, a flexible ability to seep beyond the edges of the linear melody to absorb the overtone resonances that create the fullness of a full sound. It's an interweaving of absorption and agility. Both the particle and the wave. Sometimes one predominates for a moment, but the ability to deeply hear what your fellow musicians are playing and contribute something not just complementary but harmonious in a way that pulls the whole sound beyond the physical constraints of the mundane world, requires a kind of devotion to the act of creation itself. (Not just an expectation of future reward, though that's been known to motivate people up to a point.)

Actually, the gratification is immediate, when everything weaves together in that magical-seeming way. But it takes hours of practice to get there, even for someone who starts out with above-average capacity (a.k.a. talent, which is helpful but not necessarily the deciding factor). According to a currently popular notion, mastery requires ten thousand hours of dedicated practice to reach. Which sounds about right, but the notion does have some flaws (for example, implications that it's applicable to any activity; that "mastery," or expertise, is quantifiable; that there's an identifiable endpoint to development). 

When I was 14 or 15 I started playing guitar. I spent a lot of time with it, and by my mid-twenties I suppose I'd become a passably competent musician, with some rough edges that didn't bother me too much (still don't). By sometime in my thirties I'm sure I'd put in something like ten thousand hours between the horn and guitar, though with all sorts of gaps, so I'm not sure how that adds up. In order to hold my own as a serious professional horn player I'd have to average (by my own estimation) at least four hours a day practicing, and I realized long ago I'm not committed enough to do that. 

But what I'm getting at is a bit different from the notion of mastery. The few times I've held to that sort of intensive practice schedule (for three or four months at a stretch, at most--it's sort of hard to maintain if you happen to be employed in some unrelated way, or if you want to see any friends who aren't also standing next to you on stage or sipping a drink alone at a table halfway across the room--sorry, can't talk right now, gotta boo-dap, bdoo-dap, beetu bweetu battadoo-bdap) I have managed to tap into something that I've also experienced from intensive practice in other activities (martial arts, meditation, luthery, writing and house building, at least). This is an experience of cracking a code, of suddenly (or sometimes gradually) noticing that I have an extra set of ears, a new language, a momentary unnameable connection with the original source of energy and consciousness. That's what I mean by engagement. That's an inkling of the idea of "sacred."

Among the better known stories of our species is one that begins in a garden. Not wilderness--which in the particular tradition of this origin story is a harsh desert that may inspire visions but is not really habitable. The garden is a more or less domestic setting. It is full of life, all the animals and plants, fruit-bearing trees (the Hebrew word pardes, orchard, is the origin of the English word "paradise"), the source of abundant living water. It has a place and purpose for people. They tend it, study and categorize animals, talk to a serpent. It is contained. The dangers are ambiguous.


Never mind the reasons. The punishment is exile. Struggle and toil, hard labor and uncertainty. The worst part is being cut off. Longing to return, never being able to return to the source of life, the place of undifferentiated bliss (and easy pickings), no longer assured that the universe is a friendly place. The original suffering. 


Of course there are still gardens, there are places we can go, ways we can train ourselves to experience that sense of connectedness, return from exile. In North America, the original inhabitants have always known that the land is alive. Actually, indigenous peoples everywhere have always known this, only (too often) to be dissuaded by swindlers and brutalizers. But the land is alive.


As it happens, most of us spend at least half our time in buildings. In the industrialized worlds, the amount is likely to be much higher--perhaps 90 percent. When you factor in the time we spend in vehicles of some sort, the number is higher still. And if you look at the time we spend in the built environment in general, it's approaching 100 percent.


So it stands to reason that our built environment should be something more satisfactory than the boxes and cubicles that so often try to pass for homes and workplaces. If most of our lives are spent in dead and deadening physical environments, there's little surprise that people would seek out the seductions of television and other stupeficants, or of hysterical religious practices and mass spectator sports. In the first case, it's tuning in to oblivion (which is to say, tuning out). In the second, the attraction is the fervor--the excitement of being part of something beyond the limits of the self. In both cases it's a setting aside of the ego, temporary though that may be. There's an unspoken recognition that the ego arises with exile, is the source or product of it, or at least the recipient of it (a standard Buddhist definition of self is "experiences suffering"--which explains the preference for ending the cycle of rebirth).


The Hebrew word kadosh--typically translated as "holy"--really means set aside, separated. Apart. Not mundane. The idea is that we innately seek ways to move beyond our mundane material struggles and strivings (exile), and make a place for receptivity--for receiving the fullness of life that flows through and around us (the garden). But if deadness surrounds us, there's not much chance of a genuine receptivity. 


Deadness = exile. Aliveness = connection. Connection to fellow beings, to ground, spirit, soul. 


In this aliveness, this sense of connectedness, is the beginning of a working definition of "sacred." Without it we are vacant automatons capable only of craving excitement or oblivion.



If you do a search with the phrase "sacred architecture" you're likely to come up with academic monographs on churches, Buddhist temples, mosques and the like, as well as a hodgepodge of neopagan geomancy and dowsing, perhaps a reference to Egypt or the Mayans, books on the Golden Proportion, vaastu, feng shui and Le Corbusier. All of which have their merits (though in the last case, not many). But I'm interested in something arguably more subtle, less likely to be defined by any institution or particular tradition--though again, a number of ancient and traditional religious buildings are among the most available examples of the nugget I'm digging for. 

Essentially, a sacred place is a place conducive to a particular sort of experience. The experience may take on a variety of permutations, from ecstatic bliss to a quiet nanosecond of fully present awareness. There's bound to be at least an element of the subjective in the mix, but one of my contentions is that there's a consistency throughout the whole range of these experiences, and that it's possible to establish a set of patterns that enable confident design and construction of places that serve this purpose.

In due course I'll address in detail implications that arise from that contention. For example, Arvin Knettle may have found, while swigging his eighth cup of coffee after midnight under the blaring fluorescent lights of Dancing Donut at Tenth and Clement in San Francisco, a reasonable facsimile of the mind he'd previously lost at the Left Luggage desk of Chhatarpati Shivaji International Airport untold months ago. He stared into the groundless, bottomless cup and felt that, indeed, this was the moment he (or whoever it was inhabiting his body) had been waiting for.

Does this qualify the donut shop as a sacred place? You or I might be skeptical. We would likely imagine ourselves in the place and (if we didn't reject the claim outright) would suggest that our experience would not likely resemble Arvin's. Which brings us to a primary principle of sacred places: to some degree, any reasonably sensitive person (and even the occasional insensitive churl) will be susceptible to their effect--just as it is no surprise that many people experience some degree of stress (if not indiscriminate rage) when stuck in traffic. A notable (and I think supportable) corollary is that the presence of other stressed commuters compounds the stress of simply being stuck in traffic. Which holds a convenient negative implication that a community of revelers at the bacchanal (or, if you prefer altered states of a more sedate flavor, meditators in the temple) will increase the effect of the place. Not simply by bumbling in as oblivious tourists, but (actually almost as simply) by entering the place with an intent of being altered. That is, by participating in the transformative effect of the place, simply by being receptive to the possibility of such an experience.

So far we're nowhere near defining, or even really much in the way of describing, the properties of this effect. So far just tracking a scent, a hint of a scent.

Here's a twist, though not really so surprising: for most people throughout our meanderings as a species, and still now (if we're honest), an experience of the sacred is most likely to occur in a natural setting. Out away from buildings and human-made structures of any sort. Not in them.

Earth Day

| Write Comment | No TrackBacks
I like to make things. I like to make things better.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from April 2009 listed from newest to oldest.

May 2009 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

  • OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID