It was a big insight for me when I shifted from vision as a fixed visual object of 'I have a vision of x', to vision as a state of being. Vision as something like an ontological gravity that doesn't necessarily take the form of any particular plan or map. But the ontic center that perceives everything. As world is not independent of perception, a lot of what can be seen or done depends upon the underlying quality of vision.
As you put so well towards the end, Vision concerns the implicit ground from which plans emerge but plans made without attending to vision simply emerge from a pre-conditioned and or/limited implicit ground.
I can imagine spending much more time in the space of vision and than having plan be something that rather slots into place at the right time-the last 10 or 20%. I wonder too if cultivation of vision is also linked to the possibility of spontaneous flow as action and/or planning.
I’m so glad you liked it, Jacob! Thanks for giving the piece a read, and I too found it a big shift when I thought of Vision as a state of being, not just a way of apprehending. “Ontological gravity” and “ontic center” are excellent ways to describe it—I like that very much. You also described very well the relation between “vision” and “plan,” and I think it’s right that planning is something that should take up 10%-20% of our time—I don’t think it’s a 50/50 split or something like that, though the exact percentage probably changes relative to subject. Regardless, I think the high majority of our time should be focused on vision, whereas our culture tends to do the exact opposite, I fear. And I do think vision is link to the possibility of spontaneous flow, which can be a form of planning—absolutely. Anyway, thanks Jacob for the read and thoughts! It’s always great to dialogue with you.
Well done. I dig this very much.
It was a big insight for me when I shifted from vision as a fixed visual object of 'I have a vision of x', to vision as a state of being. Vision as something like an ontological gravity that doesn't necessarily take the form of any particular plan or map. But the ontic center that perceives everything. As world is not independent of perception, a lot of what can be seen or done depends upon the underlying quality of vision.
As you put so well towards the end, Vision concerns the implicit ground from which plans emerge but plans made without attending to vision simply emerge from a pre-conditioned and or/limited implicit ground.
I can imagine spending much more time in the space of vision and than having plan be something that rather slots into place at the right time-the last 10 or 20%. I wonder too if cultivation of vision is also linked to the possibility of spontaneous flow as action and/or planning.
I’m so glad you liked it, Jacob! Thanks for giving the piece a read, and I too found it a big shift when I thought of Vision as a state of being, not just a way of apprehending. “Ontological gravity” and “ontic center” are excellent ways to describe it—I like that very much. You also described very well the relation between “vision” and “plan,” and I think it’s right that planning is something that should take up 10%-20% of our time—I don’t think it’s a 50/50 split or something like that, though the exact percentage probably changes relative to subject. Regardless, I think the high majority of our time should be focused on vision, whereas our culture tends to do the exact opposite, I fear. And I do think vision is link to the possibility of spontaneous flow, which can be a form of planning—absolutely. Anyway, thanks Jacob for the read and thoughts! It’s always great to dialogue with you.