L.I.F.T.

The distinction between process and thing was emphasized to me recently, and ever since, I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it. And, as often happens in my experience, other sources of knowledge repeat the lesson frequently.

What is a “process?” First, “process” is a word. It is a word we use to describe the, usually predictable or repeated, movement of something through stages (its development). Process usually connotes change, ongoing development, and dynamism.

What is a “thing?” Again, “thing,” firstly, is a word, a concept. A “thing” is an identified, isolated object. It is static. While it can change over time, a “thing” is typically seen as relatively constant. And, even if the thing itself is not seen as constant, the concept is constant in our mind.

Why do I point out that those are both words/concepts? Because words/concepts are different from “reality.” Words/concepts are tools we have developed over time, and that use to describe or get a handle on reality.

It’s important to remember that our words are tools. If and/or when we forget that, we stop considering whether or not our words make any sense – in relation to what we’re trying to describe, either to the other person, or to ourselves.

That said, what really is a “thing?”

THANGS
I ask the question, because I’m interested in what is really “static” or “unchanging” in reality. There’s nothing I’ve been able to find. Everything changes. As Heraclitus said – “everything flows”

The only real “thing” it seems, is the concept of “thing” itself. The ability to isolate elements from processes in order to be able to manipulate them.

For instance, in order to use a tree branch as a tool, we first have to separate the branch from the tree in our minds. We have to “thing” it.

Luckily, trees, or nature generally, helps with this “thinging” process. When a branch breaks off, we get to see that. Suddenly, we differentiate between “pieces” of the tree…there’s the “roots,” the “trunk,” the “branches,” and the “leaves.” Science has differentiated smaller and smaller elements.

This process is sometimes called “reification” (the making-concrete of something) or “nominalization” (making a verb (process/action) into a noun (thing)).

This is part of what Western science does, by the way. The specialty of science is to “thing” processes into smaller and smaller, and more and more discrete pieces. Recently, science has begun to embrace “systems thinking,” which takes the pieces identified by science, and attempts to recognize the interrelationships between those pieces.

However, this approach is a little flawed, since you’re already approaching the process from the perspective of the “pieces” you’ve identified. You’re already going from a thing-to-process approach, instead of from a process-to-process approach.

Be that as it may, let’s delve into some “things” we encounter in daily life that are actually processes, and some of the ramifications of treating them in that way.

Being and Becoming
The “process philosophy” folks started to try to describe this back in the early 1900’s, but unfortunately, came at it from a Western perspective…they couldn’t play with it too much, and eventually, most of them end up getting locked up in weird word-play, instead of creating anything meaningful or useful.

Anyway, one of the main distinctions they made was between “being” and “becoming.” Usually, “being” refers to an imagined static state, a “thing.” “Becoming,” on the other hand, refers to the process of continually coming-into-being. Heidegger I think does a good, poetic job of describing this idea in a mindbending way in his book “The Question Concerning Technology.”

Happy and Happiness
I believe I’ve mentioned this in previous posts, but happy, or the act of feeling good, is a state of “being.” That is, it’s a single instance in a longer process. We’re never “happy” forever.

However, we lay claims to the “pursuit of happiness” as an ideal. But what is “happiness?” Happiness is the extended state of being happy.

Is that a realistic expectation? As part of a process of feeling/living, doesn’t the feeling of being happy come and go? Is it realistic to want to be happy all the time? If that were to happen, how would we know the difference?

The pursuit of happiness, it seems, is unrealistic…

Success and Failure
When we achieve a goal (which takes a process of learning/doing), we call it success. When we don’t achieve that goal, we call it failure.

However, success usually requires multiple “failures.” This dichotomy is unreal. The process of attempting is the process of alternately succeeding and failing.

What matters most in that process is where we focus our attention. If focused on the task, success and failure are important to us. They provide us with lessons about how what we’re doing is leading us closer to our desired goal or further from it.

If we are not focused on the task, success and failure are relatively meaningless. We aren’t looking for lessons. We aren’t trying to get closer to the goal. We’re just going through the motions.

But we can also focus either on success or failure. If we succeed, we may feel good about ourselves, or linger on that success. If we linger too long, we stop trying, we lose momentum, we’re out of process. If we fail, we may feel bad about ourselves, lose momentum, and fall out of process.

If we see the act as process, though, success and failure each have their turns, and each have lessons to offer us. Those perceptions become tools again, that we can use to help to guide our actions.

What is this thing called? Love?
Another place we can see “thing-speak” or nominalization is in the concept of “love.” I’ve written about love before, recently, talking about the process of observing another person’s development without interference…with passion, but without a cherished outcome.

Love, too, I believe, has been nominalized in our culture/language. We talk about being “in love.” Or “loving” something. But usually, it represents a static state – a certain chemical cocktail – attraction – that we name “love.”

When that happens, we aren’t able to know “where our love went” when that cocktail wears off. In the hangover, we wonder, “what happened?!” We were “in love,” and then “out of love.”

Again, I’d suggest that love is something much deeper and broader than the chemical flood called “attraction.” It is something that also encompasses a certain detachment, admiration from afar, pleasure in watching the unfolding, and also – discipline, self-control, vigilance.

In Relationship, or In a Relationship
The distinction was made to me recently between being in relationship, or being in a relationship.

If we are in relationship, we are in process. We recognize the dynamic as unfolding and developing, as demanding attention, awareness, discipline, care.

If, on the other hand, we are in a relationship, we are in a static thing. We’ve already killed the dynamic before it’s even had a chance to begin.

Exercise
Fine, Josh, but, again, what does this have to do with exercise?

Well, the first example that comes to mind is the concept of “being in shape.” “Being in shape” is actually the ongoing process of “doing in-shape.” If someone is “in shape” and stops there, they rapidly will fall “out of shape.”

Similarly, we refer often to static, controlled exercises. As I’ve said before, while this type of control may be necessary in times of rehabilitation, or intense concentration, it must reflect the process of rehabilitation, or it’s worse than useless.

For instance, when I had my first ACL surgery, the PT’s put me on the leg extension/curl machine afterward. While that is fine, it’s far from enough.

ACL tears frequently mean that the person’s motor-program is faulty…is leading them into dangerous uses of their limbs. Simply doing exercise to strengthen the muscle on either side of the joint may stabilize it, but does nothing to prevent future injuries.

The Gardener
Living in process is like gardening (flowers or food). You go through process with the plants. You try to offer only as much as they need to thrive. It requires a lot of work, a lot of diligence – both to provide for the plants, and to keep yourself from going too far.

And the rest is out of your hands.

I got a couple of comments on my last two posts from readers who asked me if I thought all events are really just internal.

I didn’t mean for it to come across that way, so please allow a little clarification.

While I think that our reactions are internal, and that those reactions can offer us a lot of insight into ourselves, what triggers those reactions – the “external” world – is very real.

I suppose the main thrust of what I was trying to say is that, if your reaction to something outside of you is very strong – for instance, you love it, or you hate it – it’s reflecting not just the nature of that outside thing, but also a lot about your own inner state. Also, if you hold onto that feeling, without seeing it as part of your own process, and without letting it continue to be a process, and continue to grow and change, you lose a lot.

So that’s not to say that the external entity isn’t really lovely (or hateful), or that you don’t really love (or hate) it, just that, it seems to me a lot of times we latch onto things – either the external “thing” (that is really an ongoing process), or our own emotion – without either allowing it to continue evolving or growing, or without tracing its source within ourselves.

Sometimes, we put so much emphasis on the external causing our emotions, that we forget to get in touch with them within ourselves. Other times we feel so strongly about the external thing that we hold onto it tightly and smother it (the source of the saying – “if you love something, set it free”).

Then, when the external situation changes and you’re still attached to it as “the thing that makes me feel xyz way” you stop growing, you’re stagnant. You’re attached to a static idea of something that, like the river, is always changing. And you’re also keeping that external thing locked into that way that you see it.

“Setting it free” you can allow the relationship between you and that external reality to continue to grow.

It’s like a garden. If you restrict everything to certain spots, you will miss out on where certain plants grow the best, due to slight differences in soil or water in different parts of the plot. If you just let everything go, it will look crazy, weeds will sprout up, and eventually you can’t really call it a “garden” anymore. But if you allow the plants to find their own place, and foster their development, your development expands as well. You’ve learned to work with, instead of on or in, your garden. It becomes more and more a piece of you, and you of it.

Suffering isn’t bad. Often you have to suffer the wound in order to receive fully the gift of the experience. That path is a multi-directional one, though. It is external, in the processes you’re attached to, and it is internal, in the path only you can know. So try to be in touch with both (or all) of the directions or dimensions your emotions are reflecting. Cultivate your relationships with the “outside” world as you would a garden. Become part of the process, and the “suffering” seems to fade a little bit, because the life of the plants, and their beauty, begins to sustain you just as you cultivate it.

Hope that makes it a little clearer…and not more confusing! Hahaha!