When I first began to realize that movement, in the sense of the big open concept as Ido describes it, was a direction we could aim for, I began wondering: why don’t we aim then for the yet bigger concept? What would that be – Nietzsche’s uberman, or living like some renaissance being, maybe a spiritual awakening? Am I limiting my potential for growth by “picking” a limited box, compared to the big open concept of “life”? 

Flawed reasoning in multiple ways. Here are a few thoughts on why I’ve moved past these concerns. 

We can only expand from where we are. If I’m stuck inside box A which is contained in B contained in C, I cannot escape directly to C. So assuming there IS a bigger container than movement, I would still need to pass through movement as container. I can’t even begin to conceptualize what that box might be – I might throw ideas around, but like the virgin imagining sex, I lack references to conceptualize anything accurate.

But maybe there was never a need for such boxes, you say? Why not just escape the containers and breathe the open air of life? Because life as such, when it reflects existence outside of containers, is a disorganized/disorganizing concept – it cannot guide development and growth. Practices provide a gravitational center, an organizing force that allows us to tread a path.

Hence the path to “become” movement – it’s maybe just one rung up the ladder of complexity, but the beautiful thing is that it has contained within itself the means to climb down or laterally and scope the territory and see other rungs, to deconstruct and reconstruct and deterritorialize and reterritorialize. It instills the essence and installs the tools for navigating complexity, and being a praxis, it prevents you from getting “lost in the sauce”. There’s nothing lost by dedicating a life to this concept and practice.