Hattie has some points "on Neechy", some of which I agree with and some of which I do not. As I cannot respond to her blog (something to do with my security settings I suspect), I will riff off a few of her ideas here.
To begin with, the culture of Neechianism (notice I already observe the corruption taking place between the philosophy and its popularisation with my term) is really a 19th Century throwback, and those who use Nietzsche in order to do their thinking for them, rather than doing their own thinking in relation to Nietzsche are very much to be ignored. Once they learn how to think for themselves, by producing nuances and reflections that take into account their own experiences within a 21st Century context, we can start to pay attention to them again. Until then they are followers and hangers-on who reflect the values and ideas of another.
Secondly, Nietzsche was right about a number of things, not least, as Hattie has pointed out, the Unconscious. Freud seems to have derived many of his own speculations from Herr Nietzsche, as Hattie recognises. A problem with Nietzsche's understanding of the Unconscious -- henceforth referred to here as "lizard brain" -- is that he tended to hypostatise his insights about it. Instead of allowing that its functions may be very fluid, and changeable depending on any situation, he wrote his philosophy as if certain people or entities were entirely responsible for certain facets of the lizard brain. So, for instance, "women" were held entirely responsible for all "reactive forces". It didn't matter that women were sometimes not reactive, or that it really depended what context they were in within society, not for Nietzsche. For Nietzsche, women represented all of the negativity of lizard brain consciousness, manipulating in a hostile fashion behind the scenes, without ever coming forth and articulating what is on its mind. (Contemporary feminism takes the polar opposite approach to this, which Nietzsche attributed to all women. It speaks directly what is on its mind, but is still ignored by those who live their lives half-way up Nietzsche's asshole.)
The point is, Nietzsche hypostatised the identity of "women", to make them appear to be a single facet of the neurobiological functioning of the lizard brain. Neurobiology itself, however, suggests that no human being necessarily functions from the basis of using only one part of this endowment. Lizard brain it itself the source of psychological and interpsychological plasticity, so hypostatising lizard brain's "reactivity", so that it seems to perform only one function for one sort of person is at best misleading and at worst downright unethical. To repeat -- women are not to be reduced to the negative functions of their lizard brains. That is an unethical move, to make them seem this way, the repressive nature of the 19th Century social context notwithstanding.
On the other hand, Nietzsche wants to make out that males can appropriate their lizard brains in a more appropriate fashion. He wants to show that by accessing their lizard brains more fully, males can renew themselves and live more fully. This idea that Nietzsche has seems more laudable. Unfortunately Nietzsche is his own worst obstructor, blocking the way to obtaining this end result -- an outcome that I call "shamanising" -- because his hypostatisations concerning "masculine" and "feminine" prevent entrance into the realm of lizard brain consciousness as pure fluidity.
To try to make plainer what I am getting at in terms of "shamanising" -- it is important to renew oneself by letting go of the heavy burden of one's socialised values, and entering into a psychical realm where everything about life and reality becomes fluid again. It is from having experienced this "melt down" that one is able to be creative in the most radical fashion. (Cf. Anton Ehernzweig, The Hidden Order of Art, for a discussion of this relational dynamic pertaining to the Unconscious). However, one does not let go of one's burden of socialisation whilst one remains attached to reified notions of masculine and feminine. Remaining fixated on these strongly socially conditioned values of the 19th Century will prevent one from accessing the lizard brain's functioning in the deepest possible way. (One has to become liquified - Dionyson - in order to do it.) Instead, one will remain fairly rigidified and on the surface of consciousness. Attachment to one's socialised values will keep one there. In Nietzsche's terms, one will be unable to access the "Overman" (who gains the power to transcend social values by accessing the powers of the Unconscious).
So it turns out that Nietzsche himself (his mode of writing) was the greatest obstructor in relation to the aims of his own philosophy -- which was to enable a revaluation of values through incorporating more awareness of the unconscious life of the mind (i.e *awareness*, not the contents, necessarily, of the unconscious) into social life.
Lastly, I would like to say that Nietzsche's general ideas can still be redeemed through what he proposed as "aristocratic values" -- namely reciprocation. I find that I do this automatically -- I reciprocate no matter what the circumstances are. When someone is kind, I try to return kindness, but when they are dismissive, I also tend to return that attitude (although I am not always aware of doing so!)
I think that women who want to be free of misogynistic idiocies, (for example, in behaviour), should do no more and no less than reciprocate, as a way of responding to the behaviour that is directed at them. Those who are kind to women will therefore be positively reinforced, whereas those who treat them negatively will have negative reinforcement for their behaviour.
To me reciprocation is a conditioned instinct due to my kickboxing training. If someone wants to play rough, I play rough back, but otherwise, I tend to keep things going at an even pace.
To begin with, the culture of Neechianism (notice I already observe the corruption taking place between the philosophy and its popularisation with my term) is really a 19th Century throwback, and those who use Nietzsche in order to do their thinking for them, rather than doing their own thinking in relation to Nietzsche are very much to be ignored. Once they learn how to think for themselves, by producing nuances and reflections that take into account their own experiences within a 21st Century context, we can start to pay attention to them again. Until then they are followers and hangers-on who reflect the values and ideas of another.
Secondly, Nietzsche was right about a number of things, not least, as Hattie has pointed out, the Unconscious. Freud seems to have derived many of his own speculations from Herr Nietzsche, as Hattie recognises. A problem with Nietzsche's understanding of the Unconscious -- henceforth referred to here as "lizard brain" -- is that he tended to hypostatise his insights about it. Instead of allowing that its functions may be very fluid, and changeable depending on any situation, he wrote his philosophy as if certain people or entities were entirely responsible for certain facets of the lizard brain. So, for instance, "women" were held entirely responsible for all "reactive forces". It didn't matter that women were sometimes not reactive, or that it really depended what context they were in within society, not for Nietzsche. For Nietzsche, women represented all of the negativity of lizard brain consciousness, manipulating in a hostile fashion behind the scenes, without ever coming forth and articulating what is on its mind. (Contemporary feminism takes the polar opposite approach to this, which Nietzsche attributed to all women. It speaks directly what is on its mind, but is still ignored by those who live their lives half-way up Nietzsche's asshole.)
The point is, Nietzsche hypostatised the identity of "women", to make them appear to be a single facet of the neurobiological functioning of the lizard brain. Neurobiology itself, however, suggests that no human being necessarily functions from the basis of using only one part of this endowment. Lizard brain it itself the source of psychological and interpsychological plasticity, so hypostatising lizard brain's "reactivity", so that it seems to perform only one function for one sort of person is at best misleading and at worst downright unethical. To repeat -- women are not to be reduced to the negative functions of their lizard brains. That is an unethical move, to make them seem this way, the repressive nature of the 19th Century social context notwithstanding.
On the other hand, Nietzsche wants to make out that males can appropriate their lizard brains in a more appropriate fashion. He wants to show that by accessing their lizard brains more fully, males can renew themselves and live more fully. This idea that Nietzsche has seems more laudable. Unfortunately Nietzsche is his own worst obstructor, blocking the way to obtaining this end result -- an outcome that I call "shamanising" -- because his hypostatisations concerning "masculine" and "feminine" prevent entrance into the realm of lizard brain consciousness as pure fluidity.
To try to make plainer what I am getting at in terms of "shamanising" -- it is important to renew oneself by letting go of the heavy burden of one's socialised values, and entering into a psychical realm where everything about life and reality becomes fluid again. It is from having experienced this "melt down" that one is able to be creative in the most radical fashion. (Cf. Anton Ehernzweig, The Hidden Order of Art, for a discussion of this relational dynamic pertaining to the Unconscious). However, one does not let go of one's burden of socialisation whilst one remains attached to reified notions of masculine and feminine. Remaining fixated on these strongly socially conditioned values of the 19th Century will prevent one from accessing the lizard brain's functioning in the deepest possible way. (One has to become liquified - Dionyson - in order to do it.) Instead, one will remain fairly rigidified and on the surface of consciousness. Attachment to one's socialised values will keep one there. In Nietzsche's terms, one will be unable to access the "Overman" (who gains the power to transcend social values by accessing the powers of the Unconscious).
So it turns out that Nietzsche himself (his mode of writing) was the greatest obstructor in relation to the aims of his own philosophy -- which was to enable a revaluation of values through incorporating more awareness of the unconscious life of the mind (i.e *awareness*, not the contents, necessarily, of the unconscious) into social life.
Lastly, I would like to say that Nietzsche's general ideas can still be redeemed through what he proposed as "aristocratic values" -- namely reciprocation. I find that I do this automatically -- I reciprocate no matter what the circumstances are. When someone is kind, I try to return kindness, but when they are dismissive, I also tend to return that attitude (although I am not always aware of doing so!)
I think that women who want to be free of misogynistic idiocies, (for example, in behaviour), should do no more and no less than reciprocate, as a way of responding to the behaviour that is directed at them. Those who are kind to women will therefore be positively reinforced, whereas those who treat them negatively will have negative reinforcement for their behaviour.
To me reciprocation is a conditioned instinct due to my kickboxing training. If someone wants to play rough, I play rough back, but otherwise, I tend to keep things going at an even pace.
5 comments:
Jennifer: I didn't realize you couldn't comment on my blog. It's nothing I'm doing. Maybe I can figure out what's wrong, because I appreciate your input.
In any case, I'm linking this post to my blog.
But is the Dionysian the 'snap' in the tension between the lizard brain and social value? Is it the fluidity or the process of meltdown that counts? The later case would suggest the stronger the social values, the greater the potential for the Dionysian.
Alex--thanks for the reference; I will look at it.
Well, you also ask another interesting question, and I agree with you that the lizard brain also has primal habits, and is not just the source of our plasticity.
I am not really sure how to answer concerning this, except that one's ability to shamanise could depend very much on one's psychological health in early childhood. I think that what one encounters during the initial shamanistic regression will most likely include -- although not be limited to -- those "object relations" (see the neo-Kleinian school, such as Bollas and Meltzer) of infancy. So the interpersonal psychological dynamics that were formed then will be relived. Perhaps one can thereby overcome some of the negative aspects of those dynamics, through the reliving of them? It would really depend on the mental strength of the paleomammalian mind and neocortex. But accessing too much negativity stored at this lizard brain level would likely overwhelm the higher minds, and their capacity to cope, and might lead to permanent madness.
What I am getting at is that it is possible to bring different levels of consciousness together, so that they impress upon each other their particular qualities. But there is a reason why shamanism is traditionally TAUGHT, rather than simply experienced in a haphazard way, and tha is because it is fraught with dangers.
Ideally, though, one would be able to "teach" the lizard brain to think differently (perhaps less compulsively?), as a result of one's shamanising. And one would also with to impress upon the neocortex some of the vitality of the lizard brain. So, one would bring the different levels of the brain into synchronisation.
I hope I am not going to cross purposes with you here, Jennifer. The interests you bring forward have emerged, I believe, because everything is in flux now. I have had to change so many things in my life over a long lifetime. To me stability is provisional and to be enjoyed whenever I have stretch of it, but I don't consider it the norm. Complete disjunction is a, if not the, common experience today. Without any of the customary guides, such as the Bible, many people feel lost in the wilderness. A life like this is hell for most of us, who have only average means of understanding and other limitations. Any expectation of a return to norms dooms one to disappointment. And the more disappointed people are, the more they regress. It's just about all that's happening around here, believe me.
This means that so many are looking for a guru to explain life to them and make things all better. Or at least help them feel better.
But, well, I don't see much hope of that. Being an athiest, I don't mind living without hope, however.
Hi Hattie
Your points are very intesting and poignant -- and Nietzsche himself would probably be inclined to view what you are saying as a direct continuation of what I am saying -- that inner "liquidity" would be inclined to produce outer "liquidity" in the political realm of society at large. He was inclined, for instance, to see that having an inner hierarchy of values, (an in effect, an inner hierarchical system of control over one's "multiplicity") would lead to mastering others. So inner states became outwards equivalences...
In terms of how I'm actually thinking though, I am not so sure. Anyone who has been brought up under any system of prejudice already knows that one's inner states are not generally recognised in their true forms -- that is in terms of some accurate outward equivalence. Martial arts systems like capoiera capitalise on the actual discrepancy between what inwardly exists (the capacity to fight back) and what appears publically to exist (the capacity to be daft, seemingly idiotic).
Anyway, this brings me to my point, that when I say that inner life should be "fluidity" I do not necessarily equate that with an external mode of fluidity, (chopping and changing). Rather, inner fluidity may enable to you make the subtle adjustments that prevent you from having to change. Notice how the really good tennis players can employ their footwork with great fluidity to put them in front of the ball? They become more masterful, not less so, by this measure.
So, what inner fluidity does NOT mean, according to my thinking, is that one is chaotically all over the place.
Post a Comment