October 28, 2020

MCW in Bayawan

The following article was written by Louise Far on the conclusion of the first day of the MCW she co-facilitated with Jude Cabangal and Richie Mortillero. By giving us a rundown of the Day 1 process, we also get an idea that when it comes to the MCW, the facilitators learn in the same way as the participants do (if not more).

Editor’s Note: Louise’s report below offers to us a glimpse of the process participants undergo when they decide to join Workshop Courage. If you are thinking of joining a session soon, don’t worry, this is not a spoiler. The beauty of the Workshop Courage is that it is not a lecture. Its main goal is to bring participants into conversation in order for them to discover new insights about the world, their passions, and their life purpose.

We are done with the first day of MCW! It has been a day of ample sharing, questions and insights. There were around 25 participants composed of senior high students taking up Humanities and who are currently undergoing an immersion, LGU staff across ages, and a bodytalk and biogeometry practitioner from Dauin. Jude, Ritchie and I helped each other facilitate while Tita Terry fully supported and joined the process mainly as a participant.

In discussing about three-folding, there was a participant who expressed a challenge in terms of comprehending the relationship among culture, polity, and economy. These were answered by citing examples (e.g. application in education, rise of cultural power, etc.), and allowing the participants to share their views on the matter. When EDSA Revolution was mentioned, I was surprised to receive an impression that some of the participants born after the year 2000 tend to be more familiar/have more connectedness with the Hongkong protests, for example, rather than EDSA Revolution. Would it probably be because of the recency of the former?

As the discussion progressed, there came a realization from a participant that with all the concerns in life, who will address all of it? We used this question to reinforce the explanation on the levels of reality, and then on the programmed/day-to-day self. Later on, there surfaced inquiries on the possibility of still retaining aspects of the day-to-day self in the process of being imaginal (because it seems hard and painful).

During lunch, a student gave a comment that what has been taken up in the morning session has never been discussed in school.

In the creativity exercise, the participants happily shared their creative moments, and somewhat re-embodied the experience, especially those participants who are clearer than others in terms of identifying their creative moments. The more intense the creative moment was, the clearer the descriptions of the experience during the creative moment were.

During the discussion on the metamorphosis of the butterfly, these interesting points/questions were brought up:

– Why refer to the caterpillar cells vs. imaginal cells as a battle (which is associated with bloodshed)? Can it be referred to as a dialogue/a dance?

– Is it possible to maintain 24/7 imaginality?

– How about people who are doing good in life, helping others but are not aware of all these things – the programmed self, imaginal self, etc.?

We tried to provide answers, and at the same time, we suggested to hold some questions in mind and heart until tomorrow’s session. The day wrapped up with much eagerness for Day 2!

After the session, Jude, Ritchie and I huddled to process the experience. We all felt such high energy during the facilitation. We had an interesting sharing of views, thoughts and feelings on being in “battle”, the need to “die” to emerge the new, the personal self and the imaginal self journeying together and connecting to the Source, and unconscious/conscious participation in the lemniscate process.

Photos

Here are a few more photos taken during the workshop.