Let me summarize what we have discovered about ideology in general.
The duplicate mirror-structure of ideology ensures simultaneously:
1. The interpellation of 'individuals' as subjects;
2. their subjection to the Subject [the specular image of 'God'];
3. The mutual recognition of subjects and Subject, the subjects' recognition of each other, and finally the subject's recognition of himself;
4. the absolute guarantee that everything really is so, and that on condition that the subjects recognize what they are and behave accordingly, everything will be all right: Amen -- ' So be it '.
Result: caught in this quadruple system of interpellation as subjects, of subjection to the Subject, of universal recognition and of absolute guarantee, the subjects 'work', they 'work by themselves' in the majority of cases, with the exception of the 'bad subjects' who on occasion provoke the intervention of one of the detachments of the (repressive) State apparatus. But the vast majority of (good) subjects work all right 'all by themselves', i.e. by ideology (whose concrete forms are realized in the Ideological State Apparatuses. They are inserted into the practices governed by the rituals of the ISAs. They 'recognize' the existing state of affairs (das Bestehende), that 'it really is true that it is so and not otherwise', and that they must be obedient to God, to their conscience, to the priest, to de Gaulle, to the boss, to the engineer, that thou shalt 'love they neighbour as thyself', etc. Their concrete, material behaviour is simply the inscription in life of the admirable words of the prayer: ' Amen -- So be it '. (p 168-169).
Saturday 27 February 2010
Friday 26 February 2010
gender versus humanity
One of the strangest things a human being -- which is to say, a person -- can experience is in simply trying to tell about her experiences honesty and forthrightly, and getting the response, "Well why don't you just conform more and be quiet?"
It's a completely shocking answer because what goes through your head is "Well wouldn't a normal human being --anybody at all -- be completely outraged if this had happened to them? And wouldn't it be logical that they should be able to tell their story and have injustices redressed?" So then you are thinking about what a normal person would react like, an everyday joe bloe --when suddenly it dawns on you that you are not joe bloe. You have been relegated to play the role of NON-PERSON!!! It is shocking. And then, you finally work out that it is because of your gender.
It's a completely shocking answer because what goes through your head is "Well wouldn't a normal human being --anybody at all -- be completely outraged if this had happened to them? And wouldn't it be logical that they should be able to tell their story and have injustices redressed?" So then you are thinking about what a normal person would react like, an everyday joe bloe --when suddenly it dawns on you that you are not joe bloe. You have been relegated to play the role of NON-PERSON!!! It is shocking. And then, you finally work out that it is because of your gender.
reflecting, just reflecting
A pre-sleep reflection; an unwinding one.......
I reflect on what is a natural situation to me, a healthy one, a reviving one -- a situation comes to mind wherein I don't need to observe social niceties, where talking tough is a code for transcending collective anxieties (rather than what it tends to be within the suburbs: a means to dominate and/or infict brutalities). I'm thinking of the kind of shared understanding whereby everything is understood in relation to survival, even the smallest aspect of experience that produces mirth because of its absurdly tiny nature. I'm thinking of the kind of situation where multiple, contending values are reduced to one simplicity -- where this simplicity, this interest in survival, is broad enough to encompass all other values: a rough exterior but with the softness at the core. I'm in harmony with those who have a rural upbringing as instinctively they sense how to find calm in the middle of the storm.
I reflect on what is a natural situation to me, a healthy one, a reviving one -- a situation comes to mind wherein I don't need to observe social niceties, where talking tough is a code for transcending collective anxieties (rather than what it tends to be within the suburbs: a means to dominate and/or infict brutalities). I'm thinking of the kind of shared understanding whereby everything is understood in relation to survival, even the smallest aspect of experience that produces mirth because of its absurdly tiny nature. I'm thinking of the kind of situation where multiple, contending values are reduced to one simplicity -- where this simplicity, this interest in survival, is broad enough to encompass all other values: a rough exterior but with the softness at the core. I'm in harmony with those who have a rural upbringing as instinctively they sense how to find calm in the middle of the storm.
Thursday 25 February 2010
Sadomasochism -- the informal religion of Western culture?
No! I do not consider sado-masochism, in any of its conventional social forms, to be a turn-on. I know that sets me apart -- indeed sets me aside for the kind of reeducation that would bring me in line with the category of contemporary femininity. Forgive me, Westerners, for I have sinned as I do not see any benefit in worshiping at your holy temple!
Westerners -- they can't get enough of sado-masochism! And yet, to look at it for what it is, it is nothing, just the emptiness of soul, and a fruitless attempt to make something -- anything -- out of this emptiness of soul. No, Westerners, I shall not be worshiping at your temple!
When the capacity to live as if reality were real disappears, when all that remains of life is its shadow, the generation of distorted images, that is when the quintessentially Western religion of sado-masochism comes into its own. The call to worship at this temple comes with an addendum: "If you don't join in at once, you will be left out of the principle that governs everything that's real."
Good. Leave me apart from your clammy hands that only telegraph the empty nature of your soul.
Enjoy your religion.
Westerners -- they can't get enough of sado-masochism! And yet, to look at it for what it is, it is nothing, just the emptiness of soul, and a fruitless attempt to make something -- anything -- out of this emptiness of soul. No, Westerners, I shall not be worshiping at your temple!
When the capacity to live as if reality were real disappears, when all that remains of life is its shadow, the generation of distorted images, that is when the quintessentially Western religion of sado-masochism comes into its own. The call to worship at this temple comes with an addendum: "If you don't join in at once, you will be left out of the principle that governs everything that's real."
Good. Leave me apart from your clammy hands that only telegraph the empty nature of your soul.
Enjoy your religion.
Tuesday 23 February 2010
Westerners and their false attributions concerning knowledge
Westerners have a strange relationship to knowledge. The best I can say about it is that it is by no means natural or organic.
Knowledge, for the typical Westerner, has a moral meaning above and beyond any other value. Its importance is not related to the realm of practicalities, to the ability to learn and/or perform new actions with greater capability.
It is very important to realise, that a typical Westerner will become very confused (ultimately leading to punitive behaviour) if he catches wind that gaining knowledge has changed you in any way. Instead of understanding that you have just confessed to intellectual growth, the computer of his mind will spew forth the data: "Either she lacked moral character before, or else she lacks it now." It's at this point that he will start his punitive behaviour, which he thinks you well deserve, due to what he considers to be your moral inconsistency of character.
He has merely misunderstood you -- but he is not in any position to know that. He is just trying to rectify your character, to make up for the fact that you have changed. Although he isn't sure if the change he hears about is good or bad, he thinks a certain amount of punishment is always good for restoring moral order. (And he is not to know any differently about that, since he has been taught that knowledge has a moral character primarily.)
It is extremely likely, too that such a person feels threatened by your additional knowledge. He feels that by claiming to have gained more knowledge in your travels you are casting subtle moral aspersions at him, to make him feel more badly about himself in comparison to you. He can't get to the bottom of these aspersions and what they might mean because, actually, they don't exist. Nevertheless, he feels them to be present. That is another reason why the typical Westerner, feeling you have a different basis for knowledge than he does, typically attacks. He becomes very aggressive and even vengeful -- but his feelings of inferiority are all in his head.
Westerners, most typically, view the possession of knowledge as something that assures the moral superiority of the one who has it. They are at one with Plato, in fact, equating knowledge with morality, with power. (This is typically why they make another error -- they assume that if you claim to have knowledge but do not also have power then your claim to knowledge much be spurious, morally reprehensible. Little do they know!)
Knowledge, however, is a practical affair. To claim I do not have knowledge in some areas does not signify me as morally weak. It signifies, more likely, a lack of education in a particular area.
Nobody should be made ashamed for admitting that they do not know something. A lack of knowledge has no direct relation to the integrity of one's character.
Knowledge, for the typical Westerner, has a moral meaning above and beyond any other value. Its importance is not related to the realm of practicalities, to the ability to learn and/or perform new actions with greater capability.
It is very important to realise, that a typical Westerner will become very confused (ultimately leading to punitive behaviour) if he catches wind that gaining knowledge has changed you in any way. Instead of understanding that you have just confessed to intellectual growth, the computer of his mind will spew forth the data: "Either she lacked moral character before, or else she lacks it now." It's at this point that he will start his punitive behaviour, which he thinks you well deserve, due to what he considers to be your moral inconsistency of character.
He has merely misunderstood you -- but he is not in any position to know that. He is just trying to rectify your character, to make up for the fact that you have changed. Although he isn't sure if the change he hears about is good or bad, he thinks a certain amount of punishment is always good for restoring moral order. (And he is not to know any differently about that, since he has been taught that knowledge has a moral character primarily.)
It is extremely likely, too that such a person feels threatened by your additional knowledge. He feels that by claiming to have gained more knowledge in your travels you are casting subtle moral aspersions at him, to make him feel more badly about himself in comparison to you. He can't get to the bottom of these aspersions and what they might mean because, actually, they don't exist. Nevertheless, he feels them to be present. That is another reason why the typical Westerner, feeling you have a different basis for knowledge than he does, typically attacks. He becomes very aggressive and even vengeful -- but his feelings of inferiority are all in his head.
Westerners, most typically, view the possession of knowledge as something that assures the moral superiority of the one who has it. They are at one with Plato, in fact, equating knowledge with morality, with power. (This is typically why they make another error -- they assume that if you claim to have knowledge but do not also have power then your claim to knowledge much be spurious, morally reprehensible. Little do they know!)
Knowledge, however, is a practical affair. To claim I do not have knowledge in some areas does not signify me as morally weak. It signifies, more likely, a lack of education in a particular area.
Nobody should be made ashamed for admitting that they do not know something. A lack of knowledge has no direct relation to the integrity of one's character.
Sunday 21 February 2010
Derrida
Consider Derrida's notion that language always needs supplementation to give it its metaphysical "presence". Otherwise, it tends to remain slippery, unstable -- which is effectively to say "without authority". I think about how much of patriarchal thinking is designed to make language seem to be stable -- indeed to stabilise it so that certain words can have only one meaning, or at best a few of them, that are considered to be authentic currency.
And yet, despite all this effort to stabilise reality through language -- to, in effect, hypostatise language into ideology -- the patriarch remains victim to slippages, to the assaults of contingency against the absolutism of the ideological system he wishes to set up. That is why he tries to bring women into play, to BE that supplementation of language, that emotional presence, that gives language its ideological quotient -- its stability.
But this means that women cannot be their own meaning; cannot position themselves at their own centre (not even for a moment). Rather, they are made to be decentered from themselves -- so that patriarchal meaning can be furnished by women's emotional quotient.
This is why men are typically inclined to preach at women: "What you say isn't what you mean, it's just emotionalism. In fact, what I am saying, as a male, in re-inscribing the overarching ideology (the hegemony) is what is really meaningful."
At the same time as he says this, however, the patriarch must surely also sense that his words are just words -- basically inclined to slip away from the emotional quotient of his intended meaning. He implicitly understands then that it is not the words themselves, that have meaning, but rather his capacity to decenter women with them that makes them seem so meaningful. For it is by this practical (and not at all merely intellectual or symbolic means) that he seeks to give his words a more stable and thus "objective" meaning.
It is only by destabilising women's meanings that he seeks and obtains his psychological supplement -- giving to his words an emotional presence. "These words," he says to himself "are Spirit. For see how they are can actually create reality."
And yet, despite all this effort to stabilise reality through language -- to, in effect, hypostatise language into ideology -- the patriarch remains victim to slippages, to the assaults of contingency against the absolutism of the ideological system he wishes to set up. That is why he tries to bring women into play, to BE that supplementation of language, that emotional presence, that gives language its ideological quotient -- its stability.
But this means that women cannot be their own meaning; cannot position themselves at their own centre (not even for a moment). Rather, they are made to be decentered from themselves -- so that patriarchal meaning can be furnished by women's emotional quotient.
This is why men are typically inclined to preach at women: "What you say isn't what you mean, it's just emotionalism. In fact, what I am saying, as a male, in re-inscribing the overarching ideology (the hegemony) is what is really meaningful."
At the same time as he says this, however, the patriarch must surely also sense that his words are just words -- basically inclined to slip away from the emotional quotient of his intended meaning. He implicitly understands then that it is not the words themselves, that have meaning, but rather his capacity to decenter women with them that makes them seem so meaningful. For it is by this practical (and not at all merely intellectual or symbolic means) that he seeks to give his words a more stable and thus "objective" meaning.
It is only by destabilising women's meanings that he seeks and obtains his psychological supplement -- giving to his words an emotional presence. "These words," he says to himself "are Spirit. For see how they are can actually create reality."
Friday 19 February 2010
Patriarchal persecution of the sex drive
The dirt from Dirt: The Future of Butch Genocide
Here is a cause we need to oppose -- the attempt by the psychiatric establishment, representing patriarchy, to label those who do not fit neat gender stereotypes as "mentally ill".
Speaking for myself, and as a heterosexual, I see that the attempt to revive an antiquated attitude towards gender is extremely perverted and pathological from the point of view of humanity.
Consider the normal, heterosexual sex-drive for instance. If a large part of me does not actually "identify" as male, then I am unable to empathise with a male on a sexual level. The lack of empathy means the lack of intersubjective connection, which means in turn, the lack of eroticism during a sexual encounter.
The inherent bisexuality of human beings (which was even recognised and acknowledged as such by such patriarchal perverts as Freud and Jung)ought to be brought more to the fore of our consciousness, not pushed aside by threatening and stigmatising practices of labelling and "fixing".
The castration of human sexuality by trying to push people into too narrow categories ought to be outlawed.
Here is a cause we need to oppose -- the attempt by the psychiatric establishment, representing patriarchy, to label those who do not fit neat gender stereotypes as "mentally ill".
Speaking for myself, and as a heterosexual, I see that the attempt to revive an antiquated attitude towards gender is extremely perverted and pathological from the point of view of humanity.
Consider the normal, heterosexual sex-drive for instance. If a large part of me does not actually "identify" as male, then I am unable to empathise with a male on a sexual level. The lack of empathy means the lack of intersubjective connection, which means in turn, the lack of eroticism during a sexual encounter.
The inherent bisexuality of human beings (which was even recognised and acknowledged as such by such patriarchal perverts as Freud and Jung)ought to be brought more to the fore of our consciousness, not pushed aside by threatening and stigmatising practices of labelling and "fixing".
The castration of human sexuality by trying to push people into too narrow categories ought to be outlawed.
Thursday 18 February 2010
Last night's dream
Last night, I was in a hotel, where I had been for two days. I hadn't checked in yet, because I had become distracted by all the gizmos, and the food. Eventually I realised that I should check in, and I got a room, but the room led to the outside of the building. A prostitute had climbed up the stairs into my room, and was helping herself to any of my clothes she fancied. I caught her red-handed, and she argued that it was only necessary for her to take the items of clothes that I hadn't really wanted anyway -- like a bikini. (I know exactly what this dream is about -- my resentment about continuing to give any money to the Third World when my own resources are limited. The dream also recognises that any luxury I have is in the shape of clothing.)
I walked her back down the steps and out of my apartment. As she left, she said (in an American accent) that she must try really hard to remember the details about me and what I had said.)
Another part of the dream was that I was walking on water -- literally on a very stormy ocean, at night time. As I approached the shore, I hoped that the final wave would not be a tidal wave, which would dump me, as if from a cliff face, onto hard gravel.
But meanwhile, I am back at the hotel...
I walked her back down the steps and out of my apartment. As she left, she said (in an American accent) that she must try really hard to remember the details about me and what I had said.)
Another part of the dream was that I was walking on water -- literally on a very stormy ocean, at night time. As I approached the shore, I hoped that the final wave would not be a tidal wave, which would dump me, as if from a cliff face, onto hard gravel.
But meanwhile, I am back at the hotel...
Wednesday 17 February 2010
Patriarchal mind reading
Let me give you a more succinct definition of a patriarch. A patriarch is somebody who presumes to read minds, most especially and predominantly the minds of women.
A patriarch doesn't need to read a book, because he already knows what is in it -- that is, if said book has been written by a woman.
You can talk to a patriarch about all sorts of things, but at the end of it, he will only register about 10 per cent of what you had to say. He will mingle that in with his vague ideas about "what all women really are like," and will draw his conclusions about you on that basis. This is the precise manner by which a patriarch does his mind reading: He will allow his lack of attention and vain imaginings to run away with him. Finally he will pronounce his views -- and nothing about them will be right.
A patriarch is nothing if he is not a mind reader. He will second guess any woman -- even about the details of her own life's experiences. He will come up with some generalisation that somehow just seems more apt to him than any explanation she has given.
"I get a sense that this is how it REALLY was," he will say. "A lot of what you are saying does not correlate with my own experiences and therefore doesn't make any sense at all."
"Let me tell you the real truth about your experiences from my perspective," he will drone on.
A patriarch doesn't need to read a book, because he already knows what is in it -- that is, if said book has been written by a woman.
You can talk to a patriarch about all sorts of things, but at the end of it, he will only register about 10 per cent of what you had to say. He will mingle that in with his vague ideas about "what all women really are like," and will draw his conclusions about you on that basis. This is the precise manner by which a patriarch does his mind reading: He will allow his lack of attention and vain imaginings to run away with him. Finally he will pronounce his views -- and nothing about them will be right.
A patriarch is nothing if he is not a mind reader. He will second guess any woman -- even about the details of her own life's experiences. He will come up with some generalisation that somehow just seems more apt to him than any explanation she has given.
"I get a sense that this is how it REALLY was," he will say. "A lot of what you are saying does not correlate with my own experiences and therefore doesn't make any sense at all."
"Let me tell you the real truth about your experiences from my perspective," he will drone on.
Tuesday 16 February 2010
kangaroo envy
I have observed that one of the best of the Australian female fighters fights like a kangaroo.
Consequently, I now have kangaroo envy.
Consequently, I now have kangaroo envy.
Monday 15 February 2010
Vicious? I'll show you what that is! Meet The Patriarchy!
It seems that even at the moment that I cast my suspicions, namely that Western patriarchy is essentially a pathological group structure, I also at that moment, underestimate the degree to which this statement holds water.
If one's ideology is not really pathological then anger or disappointment might be the most logical result of it being thought otherwise. But a patriarch who is in fact really pathological will not take kindly to being labelled as he is. You will get so much more than open anger or other expressions of regret from him. So one must walk with greater caution in labelling what is in fact pathological correctly.
And there is always also the danger of using one of patriarchy's most potent weapons against it. Keep in mind that women per se (that is before they speak, act or do anything whatsoever) have been labelled by the patriarchy as insane/disordered. This label is linked to the idea that they do not have male body parts, and thus cannot be "normal" (wherein "normal" is that which conforms to existing patriarchal ideals -- a vicious circle).
Women are wrongly regarded as disordered before they even have anything to say, and when they do say, "patriarchy is pathological" (that is, they give verbal expression to the contents of their everyday experience), it is a conditioned reflex of every hardline patriarch to turn around and say: "But you're the woman of the group. So, it's not me -- it's you!"
Due to the very minimal amount of effort that a patriarch puts into any kind of thinking, he will feel vindicated in expressing these views as well. (He thinks that the genteel inward sensation that taking the path of least resistance is a sign that the gods are smiling on him.)
If one's ideology is not really pathological then anger or disappointment might be the most logical result of it being thought otherwise. But a patriarch who is in fact really pathological will not take kindly to being labelled as he is. You will get so much more than open anger or other expressions of regret from him. So one must walk with greater caution in labelling what is in fact pathological correctly.
And there is always also the danger of using one of patriarchy's most potent weapons against it. Keep in mind that women per se (that is before they speak, act or do anything whatsoever) have been labelled by the patriarchy as insane/disordered. This label is linked to the idea that they do not have male body parts, and thus cannot be "normal" (wherein "normal" is that which conforms to existing patriarchal ideals -- a vicious circle).
Women are wrongly regarded as disordered before they even have anything to say, and when they do say, "patriarchy is pathological" (that is, they give verbal expression to the contents of their everyday experience), it is a conditioned reflex of every hardline patriarch to turn around and say: "But you're the woman of the group. So, it's not me -- it's you!"
Due to the very minimal amount of effort that a patriarch puts into any kind of thinking, he will feel vindicated in expressing these views as well. (He thinks that the genteel inward sensation that taking the path of least resistance is a sign that the gods are smiling on him.)
Saturday 13 February 2010
feminism is about covering for you
Feminism -- the way I practice it -- is not about putting people down. Feminism is about covering for them when their public face is diminished and they do not know it yet.
My immediate response, when I discover that somebody harbours misogynistic values is not -- as the propagandists would have you believe -- outrage, or terror or inwards deference. Rather it is shame.
It's the shame you feel for somebody whom you had respected only to find that they are walking around in public with a big gob of green snot on their nose.
The question becomes what to do about it.
Do you tell them that they have publicly lost face? Empathy intervenes against such direct measures. Do you suggest it to them indirectly, that there might be something really wrong with their personal hygiene?
Under such circumstances, it is not easy to know what to do.
At times I have risked my own well being (which is best maintained by pure and simple detachment from those who profess misogyny). I've said or done something to indicate the nature of the problem.
Almost always I have regretted this. Objectivity, rational self-examination and ideals of "civilisation" may be the values with which those who uphold patriarchal ideals want to be identified. The opposite is actually the case. Those who want to be identified with these ideals often turn out to be the most subjective, self-aggrandizing and irrational of all people -- who want to label women with these qualities in order to take the pressure of themselves. (Indeed, this seems to be the strategy that lies behind much of the illogical nature of patriarchal ideology, per se.)
I have found it near impossible to inform a dedicated patriarch that he has something on his face.
Friday 12 February 2010
I had a hectic week!
I had a hectic week, tis fair to say. I'm not sure quite what made this last week so hectic, except perhaps that I am trying to process very many different parts of my thesis at once. I felt short of breath, in some ways -- in other ways, as if I'd entered the eye of the storm: the storm of mental noise, into stimulated alertness.
It's been an odd week indeed. A week of second guessing myself, at least that is how the beginning of the week started. It ended with me pushing through the haze, and getting a certain amount of work done.
I had delayed my library trip until Wednesday -- the day I was to redeem a number of the key reference books that I had earlier given up to being restacked, after 6 or 7 renewals (I believe this was the limit of renewals allowed). Mindblast -- the library has one copy of this Marecherian rarity -- had gone missing from the shelves (and not on one, on two occasions). It had been misplaced in the "323s" instead of the "325s". But this was way back late last year, when I had first gone looking for it, and put in an order for a library search for it. But then it was refound! But then ... I was notified and did not receive the email as my student emailing system had been changed. When I went looking for this book this week, it wasn't anywhere to be found again. So I commissioned another search. It turned up. I carried two armloads of books to my car, about 10 minutes away. I'd found one of the key books needed to complete my thesis. (And it is published by "College Press", Harare, so the pages are out of order, and some of them repeat. I wonder if I have been deprived of any key works.)
Then I got some work done that night. I didn't feel like it, but then I didn't not feel like it. Too many unrelated ideas were circulating in my head. But then there were also some key ideas therein circulating, and I made a concentrated effort and got some concluding paragraphs done.
I wanted to get this out of the way anyway, because there was a sparring session that Mike had organised with little Mike, (or rather vice versa), and I didn't want to miss it. Got there in a daze the next day, and enjoyed the first round with (l'il) Mike and the fourth one.
He tends to stand still and let you clobber him. Reflexes took over and I was laying in 11, 12 punch combinations. Such was Thursday.
On Friday, I reworked Black Sunlight, to make it a smaller and hopefully tigher chapter. I introduced some key insights that came (rather indirectly, I would have to say, via Deleuze, Guattari, who borrowed from Nietzsche). Also contributed to a Zimbabwe newspaper source regarding Break Free.
Last night I couldn't do any more work as I was still mentally processing the changes I had made to the aforementioned chapter. Today I woke up feeling kind of shell shocked -- slightly dehydrated from the fan blowing on me whilst I was sleeping, from the wine I had consumed, and perhaps from the sheer heat of the Perth summer.
I need a day off to recharge my batteries.
It's been an odd week indeed. A week of second guessing myself, at least that is how the beginning of the week started. It ended with me pushing through the haze, and getting a certain amount of work done.
I had delayed my library trip until Wednesday -- the day I was to redeem a number of the key reference books that I had earlier given up to being restacked, after 6 or 7 renewals (I believe this was the limit of renewals allowed). Mindblast -- the library has one copy of this Marecherian rarity -- had gone missing from the shelves (and not on one, on two occasions). It had been misplaced in the "323s" instead of the "325s". But this was way back late last year, when I had first gone looking for it, and put in an order for a library search for it. But then it was refound! But then ... I was notified and did not receive the email as my student emailing system had been changed. When I went looking for this book this week, it wasn't anywhere to be found again. So I commissioned another search. It turned up. I carried two armloads of books to my car, about 10 minutes away. I'd found one of the key books needed to complete my thesis. (And it is published by "College Press", Harare, so the pages are out of order, and some of them repeat. I wonder if I have been deprived of any key works.)
Then I got some work done that night. I didn't feel like it, but then I didn't not feel like it. Too many unrelated ideas were circulating in my head. But then there were also some key ideas therein circulating, and I made a concentrated effort and got some concluding paragraphs done.
I wanted to get this out of the way anyway, because there was a sparring session that Mike had organised with little Mike, (or rather vice versa), and I didn't want to miss it. Got there in a daze the next day, and enjoyed the first round with (l'il) Mike and the fourth one.
He tends to stand still and let you clobber him. Reflexes took over and I was laying in 11, 12 punch combinations. Such was Thursday.
On Friday, I reworked Black Sunlight, to make it a smaller and hopefully tigher chapter. I introduced some key insights that came (rather indirectly, I would have to say, via Deleuze, Guattari, who borrowed from Nietzsche). Also contributed to a Zimbabwe newspaper source regarding Break Free.
Last night I couldn't do any more work as I was still mentally processing the changes I had made to the aforementioned chapter. Today I woke up feeling kind of shell shocked -- slightly dehydrated from the fan blowing on me whilst I was sleeping, from the wine I had consumed, and perhaps from the sheer heat of the Perth summer.
I need a day off to recharge my batteries.
The everyday mystification of Judeo-Christian epistemics
It is profoundly interesting how Judeo-Christian culture does not pay attention to the nature or the legacy of anybody's experiences (or whether these be positive or negative).
It presumes to draw all of its information about the world by reading into (that is, projecting into) the ostensible "inner nature" of any individual, which logically (and except for generalising and/or stereotyping) it is materially impossible for any of its representatives to know.
The shamanistic tradition, however (Nietzsche, Bataille, Marechera), is concerned overtly with experiences and their value.
It presumes to draw all of its information about the world by reading into (that is, projecting into) the ostensible "inner nature" of any individual, which logically (and except for generalising and/or stereotyping) it is materially impossible for any of its representatives to know.
The shamanistic tradition, however (Nietzsche, Bataille, Marechera), is concerned overtly with experiences and their value.
Thursday 11 February 2010
Melanie Klein and "splitting" versus "soul loss": psychoanalysis versus shamanism
It may be unwise for me to evoke Klein's name as the originator of a true understanding of psychological splitting. It seems that her views may be too limited and limiting in terms of giving us any real understanding of the depths and breadths of this phenomenon. In attributing psychological splitting to "unconscious envy" Klein performs a typical Freudian term in blaming the victim for bearing the consequences of whatever crime had been afflicted on them. Judith Herman's view of this phenomenon presents a far more reasonable hypothesis that splitting occurs in order to protect a part of consciousness that wants to remain innocent of the violation of the whole. Her view is that splitting facilitates survival in situations where psychological survival comes under extreme threat (as in the case of torture, prisons etc.)
Other writers like Sandra Ingerman suggest that even in the case where survival is not threatened, the survival of previous lifestyles may be threatened by sudden change -- thus leading to the ego defence that is psychological splitting. Thus a separate part of consciousness comes to deal with the new, more nefarious circumstances, whilst a part of oneself is preserved in the previous state of innocence, unsullied by the pressure of change.
Splitting as so represented may be less "unconscious envy of others" and more related to the unconscious envy of one's previous life (before it came under threat) -- the envy of a life that one had, that one is no longer able to live. That change itself could represent a very great threat to self-consciousness and its survival is something to contemplate.
It is hard to see how the unconscious envy of others can be intense enough to produce an internal splitting of the psyche, in any case, unless the circumstances causing it were life-threatening. If we are to consider Kleinian psychology for what is actually is: the relationship of the very young infant to the maternal parent, then we can see that denial of milk, of comfort, and of maternal communication might seem to hold life-threatening implications for the child -- that is, if they are denied. So in this sense, we might be able to interpret or perceive some kind of "envy" that the child has for what it has been denied. But Klein seems to confuse, in terms of this scenario, the quality of something seeming life-threatening to the child's undeveloped consciousness with the more adult sensibility of "envy". The practical issues of life and death are really what preoccupies the child, whose infantile consciousness knows neither envy (conscious or unconscious) nor the capacity to measure right from wrong.
Mary Daly also makes the picture clearer for us, in showing that split consciousness is the result of justice and fulfillment withheld:
Whilst it may seem flattering for the perpetrators of crimes such as rape, torture and other forms of injustice to believe that their victims "unconsciously" envy them (and what victim is in any postion to argue otherwise?), it is extremely perverse.
Splitting as so represented may be less "unconscious envy of others" and more related to the unconscious envy of one's previous life (before it came under threat) -- the envy of a life that one had, that one is no longer able to live. That change itself could represent a very great threat to self-consciousness and its survival is something to contemplate.
It is hard to see how the unconscious envy of others can be intense enough to produce an internal splitting of the psyche, in any case, unless the circumstances causing it were life-threatening. If we are to consider Kleinian psychology for what is actually is: the relationship of the very young infant to the maternal parent, then we can see that denial of milk, of comfort, and of maternal communication might seem to hold life-threatening implications for the child -- that is, if they are denied. So in this sense, we might be able to interpret or perceive some kind of "envy" that the child has for what it has been denied. But Klein seems to confuse, in terms of this scenario, the quality of something seeming life-threatening to the child's undeveloped consciousness with the more adult sensibility of "envy". The practical issues of life and death are really what preoccupies the child, whose infantile consciousness knows neither envy (conscious or unconscious) nor the capacity to measure right from wrong.
Mary Daly also makes the picture clearer for us, in showing that split consciousness is the result of justice and fulfillment withheld:
Consciousness split against itself suffers from an inability to reach beyond externals. Thus patriarchally controlled consciousness is broken-hearted. It's impotence to reach beyond ap-pearances (sic) expresses itself in reduction and fragmentation of be-ing (sic). (Gyn/Ecology, p 386)
Whilst it may seem flattering for the perpetrators of crimes such as rape, torture and other forms of injustice to believe that their victims "unconsciously" envy them (and what victim is in any postion to argue otherwise?), it is extremely perverse.
Primeval guilt and Nietzsche
I wonder if the reason that so many males are attracted to Nietzsche is that he seems to solve their problem of primeval guilt. Primeval guilt is not like ordinary guilt, as Deleuze and Guattari, in their reading of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, (Psychoanalysis and Ethnology) make clear. One need to have done anything wrong to suffer from it. Rather, one has it as a result of being born, and of feeling that one owes one's parents something.
Not feeling this sense of primeval guilt is possible if one can ascend the social hierarchy and stay there in such a way that you make others feel it. This is the fundamental goal of patriarchy and of all patriarchal ideology. It is not too extreme to say that patriarchal ideas and values create a permanent underclass of women, who can be permanently blamed for various feelings of existential guilt, that might arise for one reason or another.
It is important to realise the dependent nature of one who has developed himself along these lines of coping. He needs women (to stand in for him as social martyrs), but he cannot admit this to himself. To do so would be to open the doors to an even more overwhelming sense of guilt about what he actually is and what he has done. This is no longer any theoretical or unfounded guilt lurking in the subconscious. He has built himself up on a false platform and has become habituated to making others suffer in order for him to maintain his feelings of power.
Such a person is unlikely to have the nerves of steel that would enable him to contemplate his own life in a true sense of its Eternal Recurrence.
His barely repressed awareness knows that he would need "woman" (the psychological function this symbol allows him to peform, rather than a flesh and blood sample) to come on the journey with him into every event of his life, for he cannot go there alone -- he needs projections in the worst possible way!
Not feeling this sense of primeval guilt is possible if one can ascend the social hierarchy and stay there in such a way that you make others feel it. This is the fundamental goal of patriarchy and of all patriarchal ideology. It is not too extreme to say that patriarchal ideas and values create a permanent underclass of women, who can be permanently blamed for various feelings of existential guilt, that might arise for one reason or another.
It is important to realise the dependent nature of one who has developed himself along these lines of coping. He needs women (to stand in for him as social martyrs), but he cannot admit this to himself. To do so would be to open the doors to an even more overwhelming sense of guilt about what he actually is and what he has done. This is no longer any theoretical or unfounded guilt lurking in the subconscious. He has built himself up on a false platform and has become habituated to making others suffer in order for him to maintain his feelings of power.
Such a person is unlikely to have the nerves of steel that would enable him to contemplate his own life in a true sense of its Eternal Recurrence.
His barely repressed awareness knows that he would need "woman" (the psychological function this symbol allows him to peform, rather than a flesh and blood sample) to come on the journey with him into every event of his life, for he cannot go there alone -- he needs projections in the worst possible way!
conservative females and their role as misogynist policeladies
It seems that humanity is prone to guilt, and that patriarchal society, in particular, is a means for dealing with this sense of primeval guilt. It creates a class of people who are guilty, no matter what they do. If women are always guilty, then there is a class of people who are free to act and behave without fear of repurcussions (especially from within their own subconscious). The primary sin that feminists commit (which is why they are hated by those who uphold this psychological status quo) is that they demystify the whole process of attributing blame and guilt to an underclass of women. The danger that this poses to males who have not been used to assuming responsibility for their actions is immense. It is above all a psychological danger of feeling overwhelmingly guilty for one's actions (whether rightly or wrongly). Conservative women step in a prevent this outcome from taking place. They make sure that women continue to bear the brunt of society's sense of guilt. In a way, they must feel like they are saving society per se, but actually they are only preserving a particular, (and particularly false), version of it.
Masculinity, Mary Daly, and artifice
In her book, Gyn/Ecology, Mary Daly points out, although in not so many words, that projection and distortion of women’s images is one of the prerogatives of patriarchy. No wonder so many men do not want to be cured from this. They feel that curing them would also undermine their masculinity! But of course it is entirely fake to begin with, that sort of masculinity. All the more reason for some men to be afraid of losing what is only a disguise from the offset. How much more shame in losing that, when there is nothing solid, nothing real, underneath!
I differ from some of the radical fem. school that she represents in that I do not think that all masculinity is like this — necessarily artificial, which is to say socially constructed. When a man is not afraid to be himself, that is, when he refuses to be socially contrived, to put on an image and distort the images of others, he cannot help but be much more appealing. This takes genuine force of character, even guts. Daly doesn’t think men are capable of this, because she thinks they can only be masculine by artifice -- that is by virtue of smoke and mirrors and by putting women down. (Unfortunately this is most common.)
There remain many men who are not afraid to be real.
I differ from some of the radical fem. school that she represents in that I do not think that all masculinity is like this — necessarily artificial, which is to say socially constructed. When a man is not afraid to be himself, that is, when he refuses to be socially contrived, to put on an image and distort the images of others, he cannot help but be much more appealing. This takes genuine force of character, even guts. Daly doesn’t think men are capable of this, because she thinks they can only be masculine by artifice -- that is by virtue of smoke and mirrors and by putting women down. (Unfortunately this is most common.)
There remain many men who are not afraid to be real.
Wednesday 10 February 2010
Monday 8 February 2010
When addressing a patriarch.
When you are addressing a patriarch, it is imperative to learn sooner rather than later, that ironic statements of attitudes do not get through to him. There are many reasons why patriarchs are impervious to irony -- I will seek to name just a few.
One of the reasons why patriarchs tend to be quite oblivious to ironic comments is that they have been conditioned to think that you are "just silly". Consequently any witticisms that come their way tend to be viewed as beneath them, rather than over their heads, as is actually the case.
Secondly, the patriarch, stuffed animal that he is, has not been taught the method of survival that all of those he deems inferior have had to learn. He hasn't learned, that is, to double his consciousness, so that he can see both his own perspective as well as the perspective of the other, whilst drawing a link between them. Whereas others have long been adjusted to seeing the patriarch's perspective as well as their own, the patriarch himself is limited to only one point of view -- his own. The problem with this situation is that no ironical perspective can result from this.
So, the patriarch is, as I have suggested, a creature set apart -- existing totally without irony. He is thus one who mistakes his views for being higher than they are. It is all down to the fact that he simply cannot see any other perspective than his own.
One of the reasons why patriarchs tend to be quite oblivious to ironic comments is that they have been conditioned to think that you are "just silly". Consequently any witticisms that come their way tend to be viewed as beneath them, rather than over their heads, as is actually the case.
Secondly, the patriarch, stuffed animal that he is, has not been taught the method of survival that all of those he deems inferior have had to learn. He hasn't learned, that is, to double his consciousness, so that he can see both his own perspective as well as the perspective of the other, whilst drawing a link between them. Whereas others have long been adjusted to seeing the patriarch's perspective as well as their own, the patriarch himself is limited to only one point of view -- his own. The problem with this situation is that no ironical perspective can result from this.
So, the patriarch is, as I have suggested, a creature set apart -- existing totally without irony. He is thus one who mistakes his views for being higher than they are. It is all down to the fact that he simply cannot see any other perspective than his own.
Sunday 7 February 2010
Bad dream--I mean, really.
I have no idea where this dream came from. I suspect that I went to bed last night thinking of gender politics, and the right wing term of "right to life", along with the idea that Japanese are killing snow monkeys as "pests". And my parents came over, for a somewhat surprise visit yesterday, and I am reading Deleuze and Guattari, which give me a kind of inner creepiness (I know, quite odd) with their views about liquidising consciousness down to a fundamental molecular level. I am also on the track of Oedipus within the Western consciousness, thanks to D&G. (I maintain that a lot of Freudian dreams result simply by being exposed to the theoretical material, and not necessarily because their concepts are already buried in the subconscious.)
Anyway, my mother bought home foetal sized elephants and hippos, along with the lettuce from the supermarket, that she now had on the chopping board. These pink elephants and hippos were roaming between the lettuce leaves. (It is true, that when I was a child, my mother bought home two baby chicks, along with her shopping. The Shona salesman outside the supermarket had assured her that they were female chicks, and it was upon his assurance that my mother bought them. They both turned out to be male -- white cockerals -- very aggressive, and territorial. They pecked at, and chased us children from their section of garden until they finally met their demise in becoming the gardener's dinner.) But in this case, she had bought home elephants and hippos. She said they were a novelty, and she would have to kill them now, before they got much older. (They were already moving around precariously close to the lettuce knife.)
I thought that if this is what had to happen, then I would switch my mind off from it, but as I did so, somebody else chimed in that it would be a shame not to let the animals have a life, now that they were in the world. Before long, they were spirited down to a mud pool in the front of the garden, whereupon they proceeded to grow exponentially -- to full adult size. Somehow they were exceedingly deformed, however. I said to my mother, "You have to find a gun, so that you can shoot them!"
She looked under a pile of items, up upon the shelf, and found the hand gun she was looking for. It was time to kill the ugly beasts.
Anyway, my mother bought home foetal sized elephants and hippos, along with the lettuce from the supermarket, that she now had on the chopping board. These pink elephants and hippos were roaming between the lettuce leaves. (It is true, that when I was a child, my mother bought home two baby chicks, along with her shopping. The Shona salesman outside the supermarket had assured her that they were female chicks, and it was upon his assurance that my mother bought them. They both turned out to be male -- white cockerals -- very aggressive, and territorial. They pecked at, and chased us children from their section of garden until they finally met their demise in becoming the gardener's dinner.) But in this case, she had bought home elephants and hippos. She said they were a novelty, and she would have to kill them now, before they got much older. (They were already moving around precariously close to the lettuce knife.)
I thought that if this is what had to happen, then I would switch my mind off from it, but as I did so, somebody else chimed in that it would be a shame not to let the animals have a life, now that they were in the world. Before long, they were spirited down to a mud pool in the front of the garden, whereupon they proceeded to grow exponentially -- to full adult size. Somehow they were exceedingly deformed, however. I said to my mother, "You have to find a gun, so that you can shoot them!"
She looked under a pile of items, up upon the shelf, and found the hand gun she was looking for. It was time to kill the ugly beasts.
and from Orwell's 1984
Winston's heart stirred. That was the bulletin from the front; instinct told him that it was bad news that was coming. All day, with little spurts of excitement, the thought of a smashing defeat in Africa had been in and out of his mind. He seemed actually to see the Eurasian army swarming across the never-broken frontier and pouring down into the tip of Africa like a column of ants. Why had it not been possible to outflank them in some way? The outline of the West African coast stood out vividly in his mind. He picked up the white knight and moved it across the board. There was the proper spot. Even while he saw the black horde racing southward he saw another force, mysteriously assembled, suddenly planted in their rear, cutting their comunications by land and sea. He felt that by willing it he was bringing that other force into existence. But it was necessary to act quickly. If they could get control of the whole of Africa, if they had airfields and submarine bases at the Cape, it would cut Oceania in two. It might mean anything: defeat, breakdown, the redivision of the world, the destruction of the Party! He drew a deep breath. An extraordinary medley of feeling -- but it was not a medley, exactly; rather it was successive layers of feeling, in which one could not say which layer was undermost -- struggled inside him.
The spasm passed. He put the white knight back in its place, but for the moment he could not settle down to serious study of the chess problem. His thoughts wandered again. Almost unconsciously he traced with his finger in the dust on the table:
2+2=5
'They can't get inside you,' she had said. But they could get inside you. 'What happens to you here is for ever,' O'Brien had said. That was a true word. There were things, your own acts, from which you could never recover. Something was killed in your breast: burnt out, cauterized out.
The spasm passed. He put the white knight back in its place, but for the moment he could not settle down to serious study of the chess problem. His thoughts wandered again. Almost unconsciously he traced with his finger in the dust on the table:
2+2=5
'They can't get inside you,' she had said. But they could get inside you. 'What happens to you here is for ever,' O'Brien had said. That was a true word. There were things, your own acts, from which you could never recover. Something was killed in your breast: burnt out, cauterized out.
From Deleuze and Guattari: food for thought
"Primitive families constitute a praxis, a politics, a strategy of alliances and filiations; formally, they are 'the driving elements of social reproduction; they have nothing to do with an expressive microcosm; in these families, the father, mother, or sister. And in addition to the father, the mother, etc., there is the affine, who constitutes the active, concrete reality and makes the relations between families co-extensive with the social field. It would not even be exact to say that the family determinations burst apart at every corner of this field, and remain attached to strictly social determinations, since both kinds of determinations form one and the same component in the territorial machine. Since familial reproduction is not yet a simple means, or a material at the service of a social reproduction of another nature, there is no possibility of reducing (rabattre sur) social reproduction to familial nor is it possible to establish biunivocal relations between the two that would confer on any familial complex whatever an expressive value and an apparent autonomous form. On the contrary, it is evident that the individual in the family, however young, directly invests a social, historical, economic, and political field that is not reducible to any mental structure or affective constellation. That is why, when one considers pathological cases and processes of cure in primitive societies, it seems to us entirely insufficient to compare them with psychoanalytic procedure by relating them to criteria borrowed from the latter: for example, a familial complex, even if it differs from our own, or cultural material (des contenus culturels), even if it is brought into relation with an ethnic unconscious -- such can be seen in attempted parallelisms between the psychoanalytic cure and the shaman-istic cure (Devereux, Levi-Strauss). Our definition of schizo-analysis focused on two aspects: the destruction of the expressive pseudo-forms of the unconscious, and the discovery of desire's unconscious investments of the social field. It is from this point of view that we must consider many primitive cures; they are schizo-analysis in action." (p 170)[my bolds]
"They say that "there is no end to the existence of this Oedipus", when in fact it does not even have (apart from colonization) the necessary conditions to begin to exist. If it is true that thought can be evaluated in terms of the degree of oedipalization then yes, Whites think too much. The competence, the honesty, and the talent of these authors, psychoanalysts specializing in Africa, are beyond question. But the same applies to them as to certain psychotherapists here: it would seem that they don't know what they are doing. We have psychotherapists who sincerely believe they are engaged in progressive work when they apply new methods for triangulating the child -- but watch out, a structural Oedipus, and this time it isn't imaginary! The same is true of the psychoanalysts in Africa who apply the yoke of a structural or "problematical" Oedipus, in the service of their progressive intentions. There or here, it's the same thing: Oedipus is always colonization pursued by other means, it is the interior colony, and we shall see that even here at home, where we Europeans are concerned, it is our intimate colonial education. How are we to understand the phrases with which M.C. and E. Ortigues conclude their book? "Illness is considered as a sign of an election, of a special attention coming from supernatural powers, or as a sign of an aggression of a magical nature, an idea which is difficult to express in profane terms. Analytic psychotherapy can only intervene starting from the moment a demand can be formulated by the subject." (p 173)[my bolds]
Psychoanalysis and Ethnology Author(s): Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari Source: SubStance, Vol. 4, No. 11/12 (1975), pp. 170-197 Published by: University of Wisconsin Press
"They say that "there is no end to the existence of this Oedipus", when in fact it does not even have (apart from colonization) the necessary conditions to begin to exist. If it is true that thought can be evaluated in terms of the degree of oedipalization then yes, Whites think too much. The competence, the honesty, and the talent of these authors, psychoanalysts specializing in Africa, are beyond question. But the same applies to them as to certain psychotherapists here: it would seem that they don't know what they are doing. We have psychotherapists who sincerely believe they are engaged in progressive work when they apply new methods for triangulating the child -- but watch out, a structural Oedipus, and this time it isn't imaginary! The same is true of the psychoanalysts in Africa who apply the yoke of a structural or "problematical" Oedipus, in the service of their progressive intentions. There or here, it's the same thing: Oedipus is always colonization pursued by other means, it is the interior colony, and we shall see that even here at home, where we Europeans are concerned, it is our intimate colonial education. How are we to understand the phrases with which M.C. and E. Ortigues conclude their book? "Illness is considered as a sign of an election, of a special attention coming from supernatural powers, or as a sign of an aggression of a magical nature, an idea which is difficult to express in profane terms. Analytic psychotherapy can only intervene starting from the moment a demand can be formulated by the subject." (p 173)[my bolds]
Psychoanalysis and Ethnology Author(s): Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari Source: SubStance, Vol. 4, No. 11/12 (1975), pp. 170-197 Published by: University of Wisconsin Press
Saturday 6 February 2010
Defining people according to their use value
If your use is defined by somebody or something else, then it should become very apparent to you that it is not even logically possible for that "something else" to be considered to be abusing you, no matter how harsh your circumstances. A professor for instance is actually DEFINED by his capacity to be used by the University Adminstration. Should he withold his services, or enter into a debate with said administration, he is to that degree no longer a professor.
Likewise, a woman, a female, is defined by how useful she is to the males around her. If she wants to be in life for herself, she is no longer that useful thing that is capable of facilitating the system. In this sense, she is no longer able to be considered "feminine".
Rather, she has entered a realm of infinite possibilities -- a realm of being FOR herself. Her identity has effectively become fluid, again, after a period of being limited, and crystalised by conformity to conceptions of use value.
DISCLAIMER: This post has been an analysis of the logic of fascism, and is intended to show how pernicious it is. It also suggests an escape route.
Likewise, a woman, a female, is defined by how useful she is to the males around her. If she wants to be in life for herself, she is no longer that useful thing that is capable of facilitating the system. In this sense, she is no longer able to be considered "feminine".
Rather, she has entered a realm of infinite possibilities -- a realm of being FOR herself. Her identity has effectively become fluid, again, after a period of being limited, and crystalised by conformity to conceptions of use value.
DISCLAIMER: This post has been an analysis of the logic of fascism, and is intended to show how pernicious it is. It also suggests an escape route.
Friday 5 February 2010
Misunderstanding objectivity versus subjectivity
At the heart of what is wrong with much of contemporary culture is a bifurcation of objectivity and subjectivity.
The worst variant of misconstruction I have encountered is the idea that what you experience is "merely" subjective, whereas what others think of you is actually objective and true. This is the fallacy that objectivity is determined by greater numbers. This is the quantitative notion of objectivity.
Then there is another variant: Everybody who is "anybody" knows that objectivity is the quality that males possess, by virtue of his anatomical structure -- which leaves all women to wallow in the clay pits of their "subjectivity".
The problem with this view is that it is the perfect recipe for destroying any possibility of communication. To separate objectivity from subjectivity, separates the unpredictable, spontaneous or contingent nature of experience --indeed, experience itself -- from what is "objectivity" out there (that is, mechanistic facts).
This makes one who is "objective" perfectly expendable. I can look up those facts I need on my computer, or do other kinds of research for them. There is no need at all to have a person around who can furnish me with particular facts.
On the other hand, if women are entirely subjective -- by which we mean, non-factual -- then there is nothing to be communicated either. Mood without content may be subtly communicable, but it is generally boring, empty, and disappointing as it stands, without the addition of any further thoughts.
The purely objective person and the purely subjective person are both imaginary objects, which however in practical terms are entirely devoid of humanity.
Do not presume, then, to tell me that you know better about my experiences than I do. To take such a position is hardly objective, but rather involves a presumption to be in command of a mode of universalising subjectivity.
Simple logic should have told you that this an impossibility.
The worst variant of misconstruction I have encountered is the idea that what you experience is "merely" subjective, whereas what others think of you is actually objective and true. This is the fallacy that objectivity is determined by greater numbers. This is the quantitative notion of objectivity.
Then there is another variant: Everybody who is "anybody" knows that objectivity is the quality that males possess, by virtue of his anatomical structure -- which leaves all women to wallow in the clay pits of their "subjectivity".
The problem with this view is that it is the perfect recipe for destroying any possibility of communication. To separate objectivity from subjectivity, separates the unpredictable, spontaneous or contingent nature of experience --indeed, experience itself -- from what is "objectivity" out there (that is, mechanistic facts).
This makes one who is "objective" perfectly expendable. I can look up those facts I need on my computer, or do other kinds of research for them. There is no need at all to have a person around who can furnish me with particular facts.
On the other hand, if women are entirely subjective -- by which we mean, non-factual -- then there is nothing to be communicated either. Mood without content may be subtly communicable, but it is generally boring, empty, and disappointing as it stands, without the addition of any further thoughts.
The purely objective person and the purely subjective person are both imaginary objects, which however in practical terms are entirely devoid of humanity.
Do not presume, then, to tell me that you know better about my experiences than I do. To take such a position is hardly objective, but rather involves a presumption to be in command of a mode of universalising subjectivity.
Simple logic should have told you that this an impossibility.
Thursday 4 February 2010
Nietzsche and Freud's views on feminism: the patriarchal angle
Nietzsche's well-known opposition to feminism should be understood not in a dogmatic sense, but in the context of understanding the whole of the human psyche, requiring an understanding of the sorts of conditions that would facilitate its optimal functioning.
A careful perusal of Nietzsche's writings on women reveals him to believe that women were fixated psychologically at the level of morality. It would appear that women, for Nietzsche, were (as Freud later articulated in these precise terms) limited by their overly severe Oedipus complexes. *
Nineteenth Century women were obsessed with morality as they had to be very much sexually repressed. Morality was a means to maintain sexual repression -- which was felt to be necessary by the whole society of that time. It was either that, or indulge themselves sexually. But there was no "pill" at the time, and other forms of contraception were relatively dodgy, so repression worked the best -- in the language of today's right wingers: "abstinence". All of this fundamental historical cause and effect is easily overlooked, when one reads philosophers with a metaphysical desire in mind: that is, the desire to understand others' "inner natures", and understand them as if they were eternal. But if 19th Century women were in such bad shape, 19th Century feminists could logically be in not much better shape. The sense that women, per se, were concerned with morality per se, was logical and inevitable. No doubt many of the feminists of the day were not so much better -- and we still have the legacy of some of 19th Century feminism with us today, that suggests that women have moral superiority over males, per se, through being less in touch with their sexual and aggressive instincts. Yet not all feminism is like that.
Women of the nineteenth century were struck into rigidity by their superegos -- but so stuck in a limited psychological position that they couldn't think straight: they could not let their minds go freewheeling for one minute without risking undoing all the hard work of repression. Thus, an intellectual woman was considered to be a rare oddity, during those times.
Today we know that the mind that is the most flexible is also the most productive. Nietzsche's inner knowledge -- (I call it "shamanic knowledge") -- had already taught him that one must descend into the very fundamental parts of Being; into the "lizard brain" part of human mentality, if one is to understand human society properly. But "women" -- by this we are to understand, as I have argued, 19th Century women -- couldn't do this, or were conditioned not to. The mentality that kept them functioning at a more superficial level of consciousness was the paleomammalian brain system, into which they became locked. This system is identifiable with "the body", with "emotions" and with romance (or rather, what MacLean in "Contrasting Functions of Limbic and Neocortical Systems of the Brain and Their Relevance to Psychophysiological Aspects of Medicine," 1958, refers to in terms like "reproductive preliminaries".)
This is why women seemed, from a 19th Century point of view, to be limited to a certain level of consciousness by their "natures" -- by which, as I have argued, we are to understand the nature of their sexuality as limited and restricted by the limits of 19th Century technology.
As such, they could not sink more deeply, nor rise more highly, into other levels of consciousness -- those that could give a sense of being disembodied for a while (either in the realm of intellect, or in the realm of visceral, creative consciousness. This is why Nietzsche thought "women" were not deep. In effect, their energetic need to act against their own sexual drives prevented them from being highly creative, or perhaps, in many instances, from being highly intellectual.
Today, women are free to create, and free to think, barring the agendas of some very powerful, Christian fundamentalists who now propose legislation that would make women once again hard to bear.
* http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/the-illogical-nature-of-patriarchal.html
MORE: http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com/2011/02/shamanism-encounter-with-void.html
A careful perusal of Nietzsche's writings on women reveals him to believe that women were fixated psychologically at the level of morality. It would appear that women, for Nietzsche, were (as Freud later articulated in these precise terms) limited by their overly severe Oedipus complexes. *
Nineteenth Century women were obsessed with morality as they had to be very much sexually repressed. Morality was a means to maintain sexual repression -- which was felt to be necessary by the whole society of that time. It was either that, or indulge themselves sexually. But there was no "pill" at the time, and other forms of contraception were relatively dodgy, so repression worked the best -- in the language of today's right wingers: "abstinence". All of this fundamental historical cause and effect is easily overlooked, when one reads philosophers with a metaphysical desire in mind: that is, the desire to understand others' "inner natures", and understand them as if they were eternal. But if 19th Century women were in such bad shape, 19th Century feminists could logically be in not much better shape. The sense that women, per se, were concerned with morality per se, was logical and inevitable. No doubt many of the feminists of the day were not so much better -- and we still have the legacy of some of 19th Century feminism with us today, that suggests that women have moral superiority over males, per se, through being less in touch with their sexual and aggressive instincts. Yet not all feminism is like that.
Women of the nineteenth century were struck into rigidity by their superegos -- but so stuck in a limited psychological position that they couldn't think straight: they could not let their minds go freewheeling for one minute without risking undoing all the hard work of repression. Thus, an intellectual woman was considered to be a rare oddity, during those times.
Today we know that the mind that is the most flexible is also the most productive. Nietzsche's inner knowledge -- (I call it "shamanic knowledge") -- had already taught him that one must descend into the very fundamental parts of Being; into the "lizard brain" part of human mentality, if one is to understand human society properly. But "women" -- by this we are to understand, as I have argued, 19th Century women -- couldn't do this, or were conditioned not to. The mentality that kept them functioning at a more superficial level of consciousness was the paleomammalian brain system, into which they became locked. This system is identifiable with "the body", with "emotions" and with romance (or rather, what MacLean in "Contrasting Functions of Limbic and Neocortical Systems of the Brain and Their Relevance to Psychophysiological Aspects of Medicine," 1958, refers to in terms like "reproductive preliminaries".)
This is why women seemed, from a 19th Century point of view, to be limited to a certain level of consciousness by their "natures" -- by which, as I have argued, we are to understand the nature of their sexuality as limited and restricted by the limits of 19th Century technology.
As such, they could not sink more deeply, nor rise more highly, into other levels of consciousness -- those that could give a sense of being disembodied for a while (either in the realm of intellect, or in the realm of visceral, creative consciousness. This is why Nietzsche thought "women" were not deep. In effect, their energetic need to act against their own sexual drives prevented them from being highly creative, or perhaps, in many instances, from being highly intellectual.
Today, women are free to create, and free to think, barring the agendas of some very powerful, Christian fundamentalists who now propose legislation that would make women once again hard to bear.
* http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/the-illogical-nature-of-patriarchal.html
MORE: http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com/2011/02/shamanism-encounter-with-void.html
Wednesday 3 February 2010
Why is misogyny so unattractive?
I contemplate something today that I have always intuitively felt to be the case, that misogyny is very unattractive.
"Why should that be the case?" -- you want to know.
"Why can't you just ignore those misogynistic aspects of the personality, and simply get along?"
Certainly, it is easier to overlook somebody's misogynistic style if no intimacy is expected. One treats them at arms length -- and, somehow, never forgets to do so!
"But really, why must it be that way? Why does misogyny have to produce such a negative response in women?"
Well, when I think about it, misogyny is active resentment towards women in a male, and as such, it akin to displaying a negative character reference. Misogyny is a sign that an embittered male wears on his sleeve, that his previous relationships with women until now have failed miserably. Otherwise, his responses towards women would be healthy, virile, heterosexual.
As a female, what one is looking for in a male is a sign of a healthy psyche. One wants to know that he has a particular kind of virility -- not that which is appealing to other males (which could signify that he is gay). Rather, one anticipates a sense of his being recommended by other women.
Misogyny indicates that other women have seen fit to reject him. They must have detected in him something unpleasant, something very faulty in his nature. And by his expression of misogyny, the male, in turn, is relaying that he has received some very negative messages about himself -- which is why he is so bitter.
"Why should that be the case?" -- you want to know.
"Why can't you just ignore those misogynistic aspects of the personality, and simply get along?"
Certainly, it is easier to overlook somebody's misogynistic style if no intimacy is expected. One treats them at arms length -- and, somehow, never forgets to do so!
"But really, why must it be that way? Why does misogyny have to produce such a negative response in women?"
Well, when I think about it, misogyny is active resentment towards women in a male, and as such, it akin to displaying a negative character reference. Misogyny is a sign that an embittered male wears on his sleeve, that his previous relationships with women until now have failed miserably. Otherwise, his responses towards women would be healthy, virile, heterosexual.
As a female, what one is looking for in a male is a sign of a healthy psyche. One wants to know that he has a particular kind of virility -- not that which is appealing to other males (which could signify that he is gay). Rather, one anticipates a sense of his being recommended by other women.
Misogyny indicates that other women have seen fit to reject him. They must have detected in him something unpleasant, something very faulty in his nature. And by his expression of misogyny, the male, in turn, is relaying that he has received some very negative messages about himself -- which is why he is so bitter.
Monday 1 February 2010
Shamanistic transformation: facing death/lordship and bondage
What is important about "facing death" and not setting up a wall of compromise, as an attempt to keep death at bay? Because, by facing death one steals Eros from it. Every too cautiously taken step, every compromise between self-determination and safety concedes some ground to death. Such concessions have as their assumption the feeling that practical compromise with the status quo is necessary to protect one's very basic level of existence.
By means of such conventional responses, a form of life continues -- but the content of that life becomes eroded, lacking in vitality. So it is by facing death square on (actually, facing our fears about death) we can force it to give up to us our life force, that our fear of death would otherwise squander.
Personally, I confronted my fears of annihilation as punishment for nonconformity when I had reached a point of consciousness that allowed me to experiment with some metaphysics. I didn't like a pit of snakes I had fallen into -- by which, I mean the kind of human company I had been forced to keep in order to earn a living. I wanted a way out, but I feared that there was some weakness to my character that was holding me back.
At that point, I stated "no" with my whole being. As I did so, I paused to see what was the worst thing that could happen. What would my authorities dish out for me? At first nothing happened. Over time, I grew stronger and less fearful, so that when attacks did come, they were relatively ineffectual -- I saw them for what they were and was not confused nor intimidated. The mental and spiritual ability to pronounce "no" against the forces of compromise with death is the beginning of shamanistic self-transformation.
Personally, I confronted my fears of annihilation as punishment for nonconformity when I had reached a point of consciousness that allowed me to experiment with some metaphysics. I didn't like a pit of snakes I had fallen into -- by which, I mean the kind of human company I had been forced to keep in order to earn a living. I wanted a way out, but I feared that there was some weakness to my character that was holding me back.
In facing death, I weighed the two sides of the matter. One side was the possibility of life continuing in the way it had been going. This had the fear of authority hanging over me, compelling me to timid compromise. I was caught between what I wanted to do and what the authorities wanted to make me do. On the other side was my fear of death (a fear that if I disobeyed the authorities, I would surely die). I held the two against each other, and I weighed them. The burden of a repressed life force turned out to weigh more heavily on me than my fear of facing death.
At that point, I stated "no" with my whole being. As I did so, I paused to see what was the worst thing that could happen. What would my authorities dish out for me? At first nothing happened. Over time, I grew stronger and less fearful, so that when attacks did come, they were relatively ineffectual -- I saw them for what they were and was not confused nor intimidated. The mental and spiritual ability to pronounce "no" against the forces of compromise with death is the beginning of shamanistic self-transformation.
Refusal to compromise with death is the means by which one takes back what is rightfully one's own, the ability to live spontaneously (which Bataille refers to as "wholeness").
By means of this refusal to compromise with death, others are commanded to remain within their own psychological and physical boundaries and not to continually invade one's own. This radical embrace of life is the basis for individuating the self; for ego differentiation. One lives life with one's own goals in mind, which is to say, no longer obedient to irrational forces -- including one's own fears (sometimes irrational) of the consequences failing to accommodate the status quo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
