practice

The Rucksack, the Drift, and the Thinking Walk

by

I have been thinking about walking. This week has clarified something about why.

You stay alive to your life by staying in motion. The physical motion is part of it. The attention staying awake is the larger part. The question underneath: Do you have a practice that holds? A real one, lived rather than intended, that keeps the self porous and curious and in genuine contact with the actual world.

This is what Japhy Ryder understood. In The Dharma Bums, he has a vision: thousands of young Americans walking into the mountains with rucksacks on their backs, refusing the dream of the box, the car, the television flickering in every window at the same hour on every street. The rucksack on the back is proof of something. You’ve got what you need. You can go anywhere. The road is still there.

Guy Debord called the drift the dérive. The unplanned walk that follows what the Situationists called psychogeographic pulls: the alley that looks interesting, the hill appearing over rooftops, the smell you can’t identify that makes you turn left. The environment has its own intelligence. The dérive asks you to submit to it for a while. Go out without a destination. Come back having been somewhere you didn’t plan to go.

These two traditions, Kerouac’s rucksack revolution and Debord’s dérive, have always sat in separate rooms in my mind. One is wilderness, one is urban. One is spiritual, one is political. But this week I see what they share: both are practices of refusal. Both insist that the narrowing is a choice.

The wisdom walk is the thread that connects them. The older, quieter idea that walking itself is a form of thinking. That the body in motion produces a quality of attention that the desk can’t replicate. That ideas arrive on the path that won’t come any other way. Thoreau knew it. The Peripatetics knew it. The pilgrim walking to the Holy Land, à la Sainte Terre, knew it. Thoreau traced the word saunter back to those pilgrims. Every walk is a pilgrimage if you take it seriously enough.

This morning, before the day got going, I spent a few hours with Claude working on the about page, the worldview piece, and the values. The shape of things has never felt clearer. The vault as the living memory layer. Notes, fragments, essays, experiments. The snapshot photography coming back. The narrative alchemy coaching. The text-based ontologist stepping fully into the role: language as the primary instrument, the web as the native medium, the walk as the thinking engine.

At fifty-seven, I wrote: Act III is the reclamation. At fifty-eight, watching Roger leave with the top down and sitting with what this week has been, I understand it more bodily than I did. The cosmic dancer surrenders to the rhythm of the turning wheel. Actively, with great intention, having seen what the alternative looks like.

The rucksack revolution belongs to anyone who understands what the alternative looks like.

The recipe: go out without a fixed route. Carry what you need and nothing more. Let the environment pull you where it wants. Follow the thought that arrives. Trust that the thinking will happen if you stay present to it.

The walk is the answer. It has always been the answer. The question is whether you take it.

I’m going home to the Midlands this afternoon. Back to the flatlands.

So there appears to be a question I’ve been avoiding…

by

A message has been coming through all week. In my reflection sessions, through the cards, in the quiet spaces between tasks, and it’s this:

There’s a question I’ve been avoiding asking myself.

I’ve known it was there. You always do. It’s the question that sits just outside your direct gaze, the one you circle around in your journal without ever landing on it. The one that makes you pick up your phone instead of sitting with the silence.

For me, that question has been hiding beneath months of vision-building, framework-creating, and myth-making. I’ve been so busy constructing the architecture of transformation that I haven’t let myself see what needs to be deconstructed first.

I’ve been practicing the subtle art of avoidance. I’ve painted vivid visions of Act III. The house in Crete. The barefoot philosopher’s rhythm. The shift from technician to quiet alchemist. I’ve built frameworks, designed rituals, and even created games as containers for transformation.

All of this is real. All of this matters.

But beneath it, there’s been a tether. A shadow sense that something in my old story must be sacrificed before the new one can fully breathe.

And I’ve been avoiding naming it.

Because naming makes it real. Naming means you have to act. Naming turns the mythic into the personal and the theoretical into the visceral.

So instead, I’ve done what spiritual seekers often do: I’ve added MORE. More practices. More clarity. More frameworks. More courage-building. As if the answer was in accumulation rather than release.

So the question…

Last night, during my evening reflection, I finally stopped circling and asked:

“What am I willing to release in order to fully live the life I keep describing?”

And immediately, I felt it land. Not in my mind, but in my body. That particular weight shift that happens when you finally speak the true thing.

Because the truth is this: it isn’t about adding anything. It’s about subtraction. It’s about shedding the identities I’ve outgrown. The roles I’ve mastered…

I continue to cling to old versions of myself that no longer serve me, but I do so out of habit, fear, and the human tendency to cling to the familiar even when it is strangling us.

It’s a threshold question. And once you name it, you realise the guardians aren’t ahead of you; they’re the parts of you still holding the gate shut.

What the cards said…

This morning, I sat with my deck. Asked for guidance on this threshold. And pulled three cards in sequence:

The Hanged Man

Suspension. Inversion. The pause before the shedding.

This card doesn’t offer action. It demands surrender. It says, Stop struggling to control the narrative. Stop trying to figure your way through this with more planning, more strategy, and more frameworks. Let yourself dangle in the in-between until you see with new eyes.

The Hanged Man is uncomfortable because Western culture tells us that progress means movement. But sometimes the most radical thing you can do is hang upside down and let the blood rush to your head until reality looks different.

I’m being asked to suspend. To stop. To let the question work on me rather than working the question.

Death

The inevitable shedding. Not doom, but composting.

This card doesn’t whisper that something has to be released. It insists. The old skin, the tethered identity, and the comfortable role I’ve carried for decades have served their purpose. To keep it now would be to stagnate. To carry dead weight.

Death’s scythe clears the field for the new. But you can’t plant seeds in a field still full of last season’s stubble. The burning must happen first.

This is Calcination in alchemical terms—the burning away of what’s no longer essential. And Death says, ‘You don’t get to choose what burns. The fire chooses. Your job is to not run from it.’

King of Swords

After surrender and release comes clarity.

The King is the sovereign of discernment, cutting away illusions with a sharp edge. Where Death clears the field, the King defines what remains. He says, ‘This is the truth. This is the line. This is how you’ll think and act moving forward.‘

This is the card of intellectual and spiritual authority, but only after you’ve paid the price of the first two cards. You don’t get the King’s clarity without first hanging suspended and letting parts of yourself die.

The King promises that on the other side of this threshold, there will be a sharper, cleaner way of being. A lighter presence. A sovereignty earned through release rather than accumulation.

The mythic arc…

Seen together, these three cards form a complete journey:

  1. Suspend and see differently (Hanged Man)
  2. Release what cannot continue (Death)
  3. Stand in sovereign clarity (King of Swords)

This is the alchemical progression: Dissolution (the hanging, the surrender), Putrefaction (the death, the decomposition), and Separation (the King’s discernment of what remains).

The tarot is underscoring what I already knew but wasn’t ready to face: the gateway isn’t about grasping for more. It’s about loosening my grip, letting the old fall away, and then stepping forward with a sharper, lighter presence.

So here’s what I know:

I don’t know yet what I’m releasing. Not specifically. Not concretely.

But I’m finally willing to ask. And I’m willing to stay with the question rather than rushing to answer it.

My practice this week is simple:

  • Stay suspended (Hanged Man)
  • Notice what wants to die (Death)
  • Wait for the clarity (King of Swords)

I’ll document what unfolds. Not because I have answers, but because the transmission happens in the process, not the outcome.

This is what narrative alchemy looks like from the inside. Not the polished teaching. Not the framework from the other side of transformation. But the raw, messy, uncertain threshold work.

If you’ve been avoiding a question too, maybe this is your invitation to ask it.

Not to answer it. Not to solve it. Just to finally name it and let it work on you.

The cards will help you figure out what comes next.