Interlude: Where the Maps Crack

She returns from the retreat and immediately starts collecting maps.

She has done this before. Each time the ground shifts under her, the first instinct is the same: find the cartography that explains what just happened. The first six months after the retreat, she reads — she has been reading her whole life, this is no different — but now she is reading for systems. Not for arguments. For maps.

She reads about the tattvas she has just been walking through, more carefully now, and finds Mark Dyczkowski's Doctrine of Vibration, and Paul Muller-Ortega's Triadic Heart of Śiva, and the introductory sections of Abhinavagupta's Tantrāloka in translation. She reads about the Internal Family Systems model — Richard Schwartz's claim that the psyche is a community of parts, each with its own legitimate function, organized around a Self that is, when accessible, characterized by curiosity, calm, compassion, courage, clarity, confidence, creativity, connectedness. She reads, more cautiously, the Human Design literature — Ra Uru Hu's claim that a person's chart, calculated from birth data, reveals a permanent type and strategy and authority and signature that, if honored, produce alignment. She reads, more cautiously still, Alice Bailey on the seven rays — the claim that each soul, each body, each nation has a ray-signature that determines its work in the cosmic plan. She reads what [T], more carefully, says about the tattvas as a map rather than as a description of metaphysical objects. She reads, late at night, José Trigueirinho on planetary hierarchy.

She likes the maps. She likes the maps the way she has always liked maps. They organize the felt experience into nameable categories. They tell her what she just walked through and what she might walk through next. They give her vocabulary. The vocabulary is welcome.

She does not, at first, notice the trap.

The trap is structural. Every map she reads is presented to her, with very few exceptions, as a description of how reality actually is. The tattvas are not, in most popular treatments, framed as a useful organizational scheme. They are framed as the categories by which Consciousness actually emits and recognizes itself. The IFS parts are not framed as a functional model of psychic dynamics. They are framed as real interior agents, each with its own consciousness and history and needs. The Human Design chart is not framed as a contemplative aid. It is framed as the description of who the chart-holder actually is at the level of design. Bailey's rays are not framed as one possible cosmology among others. They are framed as the cosmology, transmitted by a Tibetan master, valid across millennia.

She notices, the first time, with Bailey. There is something in the racial taxonomy — the rootraces and subraces, the "Aryan" lineage as the current evolutionary edge — that registers, on her body, as wrong before she can articulate why. She closes the book and puts it on the high shelf and does not return to it. She does not bother to write the critique. The critique has been written. Theosophy carries the late nineteenth century's racial science inside its architecture, and no amount of "the Tibetan said the rays will shift" is enough to undo what the architecture is built of. She lets that one go.

But she keeps reading the others. And what she begins to notice, more slowly, is that the same trap exists in all of them, even the ones whose architecture is not built of nineteenth-century racial science. The trap is not the content. The trap is the posture the maps are presented from. Each map says, in its own register, this is how it is. The reader is invited to inhabit the map as a description rather than as a tool.

The tantric tradition is not exempt. She reads, in a footnote in [T], that Abhinavagupta himself did warn that the categories were provisional — that the tattvas were a upāya, a skillful means, not the final account of reality. But the warning is in the footnote. The body of the work proceeds as if the categories were real. The same is true of IFS. Schwartz, in his more honest moments, says the parts are functional models — the work proceeds as if the parts were literal interior persons. The same is true of every map worth reading. The honest version is hidden in the methodology section. The body of the work flatters the reader's desire for the map to be the territory.

She does not blame the writers. The writers are responding to a real demand — readers want maps that work, and a map presented as provisional does not work the same way as a map presented as real. There is a clinical reason, even, to present the map as real: the practitioner who half-believes the model is more likely to apply it than the practitioner who knows the model is constructed. Belief, even partial belief, is part of what makes a map operative. Constant epistemological hedging defeats the practice.

Still. She notices the trap.

The trap, she comes to think, is not new. It is the same trap every successful framework has fallen into, in every century, in every tradition. The framework starts as a useful temporary scaffolding. The scaffolding becomes, over time, indistinguishable from the building. The original makers, the ones who knew the scaffolding was scaffolding, die. The followers inherit the scaffolding. The followers do not know it was scaffolding. The followers begin to defend the scaffolding as if it were the building. New evidence comes in that the scaffolding is not the building. The followers cannot see the new evidence, because the scaffolding has been treated as the building for so long that any challenge to the scaffolding registers as a challenge to the building itself.

She has seen this pattern in equity research. She has seen it in psychiatry. She has seen it in software architecture. She has seen it in the Theosophical material she composted in her thirties. She is now, sitting in her apartment with five different books open on the table, watching it begin to happen in her own relationship to the tattras.

She does not want to do that.

She also does not want to throw out the maps. The maps are useful. The tattvas are giving her language for what she walked through at the retreat. IFS, when she has tried it on her own dysregulations, has produced specific shifts. Human Design, even at its silliest, has surfaced patterns in her own work-energy that she had not previously named. The maps are doing real work.

The question is how to hold a map without becoming inhabited by it.

She reads Bayo Akomolafe in this period. He is not a cartographer. He does not produce maps. He produces, instead, a frame for the question of what to do with maps — and the frame is exactly the one she needs. The cracks, he says, are not failures of the map. The cracks are the places where the map admits — quietly, in spite of itself — that it is a map. The cracks are not enemies of the practice. The cracks are the practice's openings. A practitioner who can hold a map and its cracks at once is doing the work the map was made for. A practitioner who flattens the map into a fixed reality is doing something else.

She finds, sitting with Bayo's frame, that the test of any system is not whether it is internally consistent. The test is whether it contains, inside itself, the warning that it is constructed. [T]'s tradition does — Abhinavagupta's footnote, the upāya register, the explicit claim in some lineages that the construction of the tattvas was the work of consciousness emitting categories by which to recognize itself, with no implication that the categories are anywhere "real" outside the act of recognizing them. Schwartz's IFS does, when he is being careful — the parts are functional clusters, not homunculi. Human Design at its most honest does — the chart is a meditation aid. Bailey's system, structurally, does not — the racial taxonomy and the cosmological hierarchy are presented as fact.

The systems crack at the points where they were always meant to crack. Bayo's frame, she realizes, is not an exterior critique of the systems. It is what the best of the systems were already doing, inside themselves. The cracks were the maps' own honesty leaking through.

She begins to read for the cracks. She begins to keep, beside each map, a short list of where this map admits it is a map. If she cannot find such a list — if the map is presented as seamless, with no methodological self-awareness anywhere in its body — she sets the map aside.

She does not throw it out. She lets it sit on the shelf with the Theosophy books from her twenties. Composting, again. The map may yet be useful for someone, in some configuration. The map may yet be useful for her, at a later moment, with different framing. She does not need to render a final verdict. She needs only to know what to stand on.

The Brazilian art she had loved in her twenties — Cildo, Clark, Oiticica, Pape, Schendel — had made the same point at the level of form. The works refused to settle into a stable size, because to settle would be to lie about the kind of object they were. The 9-millimeter cube of Southern Cross, the eight tons of glass of Through, the rice-paper Monotipias, the Bichos you folded with your hands, the Parangolés worn by dancers — all of them refused, structurally, to let the viewer treat them as fixed objects. The work was the relation between the viewer and the work. The work cracked, deliberately, where most art tries to close.

She had not, at the time, thought of those works as cosmology critiques. She thought of them, now, as exactly that. The Brazilian Neo-Concrete tradition had been, among other things, a tradition that refused the settled map. The work was the work of staying provisional. The work was what staying provisional looked like when staying provisional was the ethical act.

She returns to her tattvas. She returns to [T]. She rereads, this time looking for the cracks. The cracks are there. She had not, before, been looking for them. She finds the footnotes. She finds the lineage warnings. She finds the moments where the tradition tells her, in its own voice, do not mistake the categories for the source. She underlines them differently now. The tradition itself, properly read, is teaching her how to hold its own teachings.

She does not stop using the maps. She begins to use them with the cracks visible. The maps work better this way. They guide without consuming. They organize without tyrannizing. They teach without lying about being teachings.

This is, she thinks, what she will eventually want to teach her daughter. Not a single map. The skill of holding a map and its cracks at once. The skill of being inside the construction without losing the awareness that it is a construction. The skill the Brazilian artists, and the tantric tradition, and the most honest of the contemporary contemplative cartographers, all share when they are at their best.

The skill the Bailey lineage, in her reading, did not have. Which is why she had put it on the high shelf, and would leave it there.

The harder recognition arrived later, as it usually does.

The cosmologies were maps, and she had learned to read them for the cracks. What she had not yet admitted, to herself, was that her own identity was also a map, and that her identity was held, most of the time, as if it were territory. Her political positions — the maps of how power ought to be organized. Her parenting commitments — the maps of what a good mother is. Her spiritual self-description — I am the one who has done the retreat, who reads [T], who stands on the axiom, who chooses [T]'s lineage over the others she has tested. All of these were maps. All of them had cracks. The cracks, in her own case, were harder to see, because seeing them meant admitting that her positions were constructions, revisable, partial, held on good-enough reasons rather than on proof.

She had watched other people struggle with this all her life. She had been impatient with the people whose political identities were rigid, whose religious identities were rigid, whose professional identities were rigid. She had not, until this reading year, been impatient with her own identities in the same way. Her own she held as true, which is what everyone does until a pressure arrives that breaks the holding.

The pressure, for her, came through Bayo — through the accumulated force of his insistence that the universal was always the particular in disguise — and through [T]'s admission of what his own tradition could not supply. Your map is also a map. The position you hold as obviously true is obvious to you because of the specific conditioning that produced you. The people who disagree with you are not stupid. They are operating from inside other maps, held with the same as-if-territory commitment you hold yours with. The convergence you imagine at the end of sufficient reflection is not coming. The convergence was the identity-as-territory assumption doing its usual invisible work.

This, she now thinks, is why alignment remains invisible to most people. Not because the alignment problem is esoteric. Because the identity-as-territory assumption does the silencing work. Each person silently assumes: anyone rational enough would agree with me; therefore the disagreement I observe is irrational; therefore the alignment problem is a problem of other people not yet being rational enough. The assumption is protective. It also guarantees that the speaker will not do the constructive work of building a genuinely adaptive ethic, because the speaker already believes the ethic is obvious and merely unrecognized by the stupid.

The cracks in cosmologies are the cracks in identities. The same skill, applied inward, is the harder one. She was still learning it. She suspected she would be learning it for the rest of her life.

CC BY-SA 4.0