Western philosophical theory does not leave a space for women to speak up for themselves. This is its singularity.
If women are conceptualised at all, the implicit idea of what (rather than "who") they are is the goo that fills in the cracks. Consider men as rigid material of some sort (since rigidity is misconstrued as "strength" in Western metaphysics). This rigid material as such makes up "society". Rigidity is the ideal -- however it is found not to be "enough". The material that is purely rigid has no give in it, so that a mild earthquake or a strong wind can knock it down. Hence the need for "goo". Women are needed as the emotional goo that holds society together when it is under stress. Their putative yieldingness and their putative non-definitional natures, which enable them to take any role or fill any shape in society on an ad hoc basis, have a conservative effective upon society. The role of women in Western society is quite simply that of shock absorbers. Their role is definitively relational, but they are viewed as insubstantial in and of themselves. By contrast, the role of males is to be unyielding, inflexible, stiff.
Thus Western metaphysics itself, to the degree that we have all internalised it, makes it impossible to talk about women in their own rights (or indeed, which was my original point, for women to talk about themselves as separately existing entities).
The logic of Western metaphysics would have it that women are either "goo" or can stand in as men. There is no identity in-between these two.
Sunday 27 February 2011
Thursday 24 February 2011
The shamanistic rite
The shamanistic tradition involves losing everything in order to go beyond the self. Whereas males have traditionally claimed this right, there is nothing to stop women from partaking in it. Note, however, that one does not go beyond oneself by inflating one's ego.
That is a recipe for stultification -- or going backwards.
That is why both Nietzsche and Bataille expressed a certain pleasure -- almost masochistic -- in injuries, as these enabled them to move beyond what is, into a more powerful position, having advanced in understanding and experience.
This pattern of self-transformation is elucidated in the passage from BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL.
295. The genius of the heart, as that great mysterious one possesses it, the tempter-god and born rat-catcher of consciences, whose voice can descend into the nether-world of every soul, who neither speaks a word nor casts a glance in which there may not be some motive or touch of allurement, to whose perfection it pertains that he knows how to appear,—not as he is, but in a guise which acts as an ADDITIONAL constraint on his followers to press ever closer to him, to follow him more cordially and thoroughly;—the genius of the heart, which imposes silence and attention on everything loud and self-conceited, which smoothes rough souls and makes them taste a new longing—to lie placid as a mirror, that the deep heavens may be reflected in them;—the genius of the heart, which teaches the clumsy and too hasty hand to hesitate, and to grasp more delicately; which scents the hidden and forgotten treasure, the drop of goodness and sweet spirituality under thick dark ice, and is a divining-rod for every grain of gold, long buried and imprisoned in mud and sand; the genius of the heart, from contact with which every one goes away richer; not favoured or surprised, not as though gratified and oppressed by the good things of others; but richer in himself, newer than before, broken up, blown upon, and sounded by a thawing wind; more uncertain, perhaps, more delicate, more fragile, more bruised, but full of hopes which as yet lack names, full of a new will and current, full of a new ill-will and counter-current... but what am I doing, my friends? Of whom am I talking to you? Have I forgotten myself so far that I have not even told you his name? Unless it be that you have already divined of your own accord who this questionable God and spirit is, that wishes to be PRAISED in such a manner? For, as it happens to every one who from childhood onward has always been on his legs, and in foreign lands, I have also encountered on my path many strange and dangerous spirits; above all, however, and again and again, the one of whom I have just spoken: in fact, no less a personage than the God DIONYSUS, the great equivocator and tempter, to whom, as you know, I once offered in all secrecy and reverence my first-fruits—the last, as it seems to me, who has offered a SACRIFICE to him, for I have found no one who could understand what I was then doing. In the meantime, however, I have learned much, far too much, about the philosophy of this God, and, as I said, from mouth to mouth—I, the last disciple and initiate of the God Dionysus: and perhaps I might at last begin to give you, my friends, as far as I am allowed, a little taste of this philosophy? In a hushed voice, as is but seemly: for it has to do with much that is secret, new, strange, wonderful, and uncanny. The very fact that Dionysus is a philosopher, and that therefore Gods also philosophize, seems to me a novelty which is not unensnaring, and might perhaps arouse suspicion precisely among philosophers;—among you, my friends, there is less to be said against it, except that it comes too late and not at the right time; for, as it has been disclosed to me, you are loth nowadays to believe in God and gods. It may happen, too, that in the frankness of my story I must go further than is agreeable to the strict usages of your ears? Certainly the God in question went further, very much further, in such dialogues, and was always many paces ahead of me... Indeed, if it were allowed, I should have to give him, according to human usage, fine ceremonious tides of lustre and merit, I should have to extol his courage as investigator and discoverer, his fearless honesty, truthfulness, and love of wisdom. But such a God does not know what to do with all that respectable trumpery and pomp. "Keep that," he would say, "for thyself and those like thee, and whoever else require it! I—have no reason to cover my nakedness!" One suspects that this kind of divinity and philosopher perhaps lacks shame?—He once said: "Under certain circumstances I love mankind"—and referred thereby to Ariadne, who was present; "in my opinion man is an agreeable, brave, inventive animal, that has not his equal upon earth, he makes his way even through all labyrinths. I like man, and often think how I can still further advance him, and make him stronger, more evil, and more profound."—"Stronger, more evil, and more profound?" I asked in horror. "Yes," he said again, "stronger, more evil, and more profound; also more beautiful"—and thereby the tempter-god smiled with his halcyon smile, as though he had just paid some charming compliment. One here sees at once that it is not only shame that this divinity lacks;—and in general there are good grounds for supposing that in some things the Gods could all of them come to us men for instruction. We men are—more human.—
That is a recipe for stultification -- or going backwards.
That is why both Nietzsche and Bataille expressed a certain pleasure -- almost masochistic -- in injuries, as these enabled them to move beyond what is, into a more powerful position, having advanced in understanding and experience.
This pattern of self-transformation is elucidated in the passage from BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL.
295. The genius of the heart, as that great mysterious one possesses it, the tempter-god and born rat-catcher of consciences, whose voice can descend into the nether-world of every soul, who neither speaks a word nor casts a glance in which there may not be some motive or touch of allurement, to whose perfection it pertains that he knows how to appear,—not as he is, but in a guise which acts as an ADDITIONAL constraint on his followers to press ever closer to him, to follow him more cordially and thoroughly;—the genius of the heart, which imposes silence and attention on everything loud and self-conceited, which smoothes rough souls and makes them taste a new longing—to lie placid as a mirror, that the deep heavens may be reflected in them;—the genius of the heart, which teaches the clumsy and too hasty hand to hesitate, and to grasp more delicately; which scents the hidden and forgotten treasure, the drop of goodness and sweet spirituality under thick dark ice, and is a divining-rod for every grain of gold, long buried and imprisoned in mud and sand; the genius of the heart, from contact with which every one goes away richer; not favoured or surprised, not as though gratified and oppressed by the good things of others; but richer in himself, newer than before, broken up, blown upon, and sounded by a thawing wind; more uncertain, perhaps, more delicate, more fragile, more bruised, but full of hopes which as yet lack names, full of a new will and current, full of a new ill-will and counter-current... but what am I doing, my friends? Of whom am I talking to you? Have I forgotten myself so far that I have not even told you his name? Unless it be that you have already divined of your own accord who this questionable God and spirit is, that wishes to be PRAISED in such a manner? For, as it happens to every one who from childhood onward has always been on his legs, and in foreign lands, I have also encountered on my path many strange and dangerous spirits; above all, however, and again and again, the one of whom I have just spoken: in fact, no less a personage than the God DIONYSUS, the great equivocator and tempter, to whom, as you know, I once offered in all secrecy and reverence my first-fruits—the last, as it seems to me, who has offered a SACRIFICE to him, for I have found no one who could understand what I was then doing. In the meantime, however, I have learned much, far too much, about the philosophy of this God, and, as I said, from mouth to mouth—I, the last disciple and initiate of the God Dionysus: and perhaps I might at last begin to give you, my friends, as far as I am allowed, a little taste of this philosophy? In a hushed voice, as is but seemly: for it has to do with much that is secret, new, strange, wonderful, and uncanny. The very fact that Dionysus is a philosopher, and that therefore Gods also philosophize, seems to me a novelty which is not unensnaring, and might perhaps arouse suspicion precisely among philosophers;—among you, my friends, there is less to be said against it, except that it comes too late and not at the right time; for, as it has been disclosed to me, you are loth nowadays to believe in God and gods. It may happen, too, that in the frankness of my story I must go further than is agreeable to the strict usages of your ears? Certainly the God in question went further, very much further, in such dialogues, and was always many paces ahead of me... Indeed, if it were allowed, I should have to give him, according to human usage, fine ceremonious tides of lustre and merit, I should have to extol his courage as investigator and discoverer, his fearless honesty, truthfulness, and love of wisdom. But such a God does not know what to do with all that respectable trumpery and pomp. "Keep that," he would say, "for thyself and those like thee, and whoever else require it! I—have no reason to cover my nakedness!" One suspects that this kind of divinity and philosopher perhaps lacks shame?—He once said: "Under certain circumstances I love mankind"—and referred thereby to Ariadne, who was present; "in my opinion man is an agreeable, brave, inventive animal, that has not his equal upon earth, he makes his way even through all labyrinths. I like man, and often think how I can still further advance him, and make him stronger, more evil, and more profound."—"Stronger, more evil, and more profound?" I asked in horror. "Yes," he said again, "stronger, more evil, and more profound; also more beautiful"—and thereby the tempter-god smiled with his halcyon smile, as though he had just paid some charming compliment. One here sees at once that it is not only shame that this divinity lacks;—and in general there are good grounds for supposing that in some things the Gods could all of them come to us men for instruction. We men are—more human.—
(My italics.)
On doing a PhD as a 'rite of passage'
XXXXXXXXXXX
(Off topic) Is it bad that that sounds really cool to me? I feel the same way about rites of passage, and am hoping to do a PhD, tho I hadn't really connected the two.
(Off topic) Is it bad that that sounds really cool to me? I feel the same way about rites of passage, and am hoping to do a PhD, tho I hadn't really connected the two.
Jennifer
It's very much not conventional to connect the two and you could run into all sorts of problems with being misunderstood and at times harshly criticised. Since I was using as my theoretical platform Nietzsche and Bataille, who both sought out difficulties and were energised by being criticised, I found that following the approach I did took me on a very interesting journey indeed. I did end up in a place where nobody understood my project but me, and I wondered if even I understood it.
It's very much not conventional to connect the two and you could run into all sorts of problems with being misunderstood and at times harshly criticised. Since I was using as my theoretical platform Nietzsche and Bataille, who both sought out difficulties and were energised by being criticised, I found that following the approach I did took me on a very interesting journey indeed. I did end up in a place where nobody understood my project but me, and I wondered if even I understood it.
I finally worked out that I did understand the project -- even better than I'd thought.
Monday 21 February 2011
On "being objective" -- and what it is NOT
Regarding this article: http://blogs.plos.org/blog/2011/02/11/let%E2%80%99s-say-good-bye-to-the-straw-feminist/
The right wing rhetoric about gender relies upon the ideology of Christianity, to the degree that it has become mainstream. The implication it rests upon is that if some statement is painful, it must be painful because it is true. So, the statement, "women are biologically inferior to males" is going to be painful for women to hear, but this pain is itself evidence of the truth of the statement.
One wonders why sado-masochism like that, above, is deemed necessary for us all to get along. This method of appealing to sado-masochistic processes seems to be an attempt, from what Echidne has written here, to give men "back" their self esteem. It's as if the worse women feel about themselves, the more men can congratulate themselves that they are good at gadgetry.
Logically, though, somebody accepting that they are bad at something does not improve another person's ability to do something well, at least not if we consider measurements to be absolute and final. So it must be a comparative superiority that is being sought after, by theoreticians who want women to accept their inferiority.
So, what we must then ask is what is the use of men having the confidence to proclaim a comparative superiority to women?
Well, it has an emotional and confidence-boosting use, of course.
Hence, we come full circle. Men have a hugely invested interest in emotionality. That is why they want women to accept an inferior status as fundamentally 'emotional' creatures.
The right wing rhetoric about gender relies upon the ideology of Christianity, to the degree that it has become mainstream. The implication it rests upon is that if some statement is painful, it must be painful because it is true. So, the statement, "women are biologically inferior to males" is going to be painful for women to hear, but this pain is itself evidence of the truth of the statement.
One wonders why sado-masochism like that, above, is deemed necessary for us all to get along. This method of appealing to sado-masochistic processes seems to be an attempt, from what Echidne has written here, to give men "back" their self esteem. It's as if the worse women feel about themselves, the more men can congratulate themselves that they are good at gadgetry.
Logically, though, somebody accepting that they are bad at something does not improve another person's ability to do something well, at least not if we consider measurements to be absolute and final. So it must be a comparative superiority that is being sought after, by theoreticians who want women to accept their inferiority.
So, what we must then ask is what is the use of men having the confidence to proclaim a comparative superiority to women?
Well, it has an emotional and confidence-boosting use, of course.
Hence, we come full circle. Men have a hugely invested interest in emotionality. That is why they want women to accept an inferior status as fundamentally 'emotional' creatures.
Sunday 20 February 2011
Shamanistic literature or moral dichotomies
Shamanistic literature is open to the accusation, "there is nothing there" (so far as content goes), or else the writing "is all about the author" (that is to say -- nothing more). This misunderstanding is the result of the influence of ideologies throughout the ages, which makes dichotomies out of experiences, so that it seems as if something that is "about me" can never be of any service to others.
Nietzsche's shamanistic methodology does away with this epistemological dichotomy by using material that would otherwise be "just about me" as a means to understand cultural wholes. Even the imagery he uses -- namely, the "ladder of experience" - is shamanistic.
He describes the process of self-understanding as follows:
This method is to create a link between one's own evolving state of mind and the broader cultural needs of the community.
Thus, for the shaman, so called "self-involvement" is absolutely essential as the means by which the community is served. There is no moral dichotomy here: no moral schism that definitively separates the self from others.
--
* The ladder, by means of which one ascends the heavens, is part of ancient shamanic tradition.
Nietzsche's shamanistic methodology does away with this epistemological dichotomy by using material that would otherwise be "just about me" as a means to understand cultural wholes. Even the imagery he uses -- namely, the "ladder of experience" - is shamanistic.
He describes the process of self-understanding as follows:
Whatever state you are in, serve yourself as a source of experience! ... You have inside you a ladder with a hundred rungs which you can scale towards knowledge. Do not undervalue the fact of having been religious; appreciate how you have been given real access to art ... It is within your power to ensure that all your experiences -- trials, false starts, mistakes, deception, suffering, passion, loving, hoping -- can be subsumed totally in your objective. This objective is to make yourself into a necessary chain of culture links, and from this necessity to draw general conclusions about current cultural needs.*
This method is to create a link between one's own evolving state of mind and the broader cultural needs of the community.
Thus, for the shaman, so called "self-involvement" is absolutely essential as the means by which the community is served. There is no moral dichotomy here: no moral schism that definitively separates the self from others.
--
* The ladder, by means of which one ascends the heavens, is part of ancient shamanic tradition.
What is shamanistic knowledge?
What did you do to replicate a shamanic experience?
It's hard to describe it exactly, but it was through the process of writing my PhD. It's very difficult to describe, because I'd have to go into a lot of detail and the subject of my thesis and so on. Basically he was a Zimbabwean (black) writer, born into a civil war situation. Anyway, I argue that he was in the archetype of a shaman. But this is background for you -- and it will not suffice to explain fully, or even partially what I mean by 'shamanistic experience'.
The reason I say I had one is partly that my mind is totally different now, as compared to when I began the PhD. I actually have tried to get into my former mindset and seem unable to do so, apart from catching occasional glimpses of how I used to think. I think my whole psyche was dominated by an epistemological hunger that has since been assuaged -- and so much so that what seemed to me to be towering questions, rising above my head, now seem small and insignificant. It's like all the blanks have been filled in and I no longer need to take metaphysical stabs at anything (eg. through the systematising approach of formal logic or 'philosophy') because I already know how things stand.
I replicated the experience through immersing myself in a book called BLACK SUNLIGHT, which was about a number of things. It's very dense and allusive and its very difficult to say what it is about. Among other things is is about civil war and violent anarchism and political upheaval and psychological self destruction.
Ah, a comedy!
Hahaha. No. But with some very dark humour. Very. Actually I think shamanism lends itself to dark humour because it puts no faith in morality.
So, kind of a comedy, but definitely not.
I'd like to see a shaman do a standup comedy routine. Probably not the sort of thing they'd aim for, though.
BLACK SUNLIGHT is actually very metaphysically funny. Nietzsche, another shaman, can also be very funny -- especially about men and their putative "hardness". Shamanism is actually intrinsically funny -- but very unfunny if it is not taken in the spirit of shamanistic insight, which is a kind of nihilism.
Non-nihilists never laugh at shamanistic jokes.
It's hard to describe it exactly, but it was through the process of writing my PhD. It's very difficult to describe, because I'd have to go into a lot of detail and the subject of my thesis and so on. Basically he was a Zimbabwean (black) writer, born into a civil war situation. Anyway, I argue that he was in the archetype of a shaman. But this is background for you -- and it will not suffice to explain fully, or even partially what I mean by 'shamanistic experience'.
The reason I say I had one is partly that my mind is totally different now, as compared to when I began the PhD. I actually have tried to get into my former mindset and seem unable to do so, apart from catching occasional glimpses of how I used to think. I think my whole psyche was dominated by an epistemological hunger that has since been assuaged -- and so much so that what seemed to me to be towering questions, rising above my head, now seem small and insignificant. It's like all the blanks have been filled in and I no longer need to take metaphysical stabs at anything (eg. through the systematising approach of formal logic or 'philosophy') because I already know how things stand.
I replicated the experience through immersing myself in a book called BLACK SUNLIGHT, which was about a number of things. It's very dense and allusive and its very difficult to say what it is about. Among other things is is about civil war and violent anarchism and political upheaval and psychological self destruction.
Ah, a comedy!
Hahaha. No. But with some very dark humour. Very. Actually I think shamanism lends itself to dark humour because it puts no faith in morality.
So, kind of a comedy, but definitely not.
I'd like to see a shaman do a standup comedy routine. Probably not the sort of thing they'd aim for, though.
BLACK SUNLIGHT is actually very metaphysically funny. Nietzsche, another shaman, can also be very funny -- especially about men and their putative "hardness". Shamanism is actually intrinsically funny -- but very unfunny if it is not taken in the spirit of shamanistic insight, which is a kind of nihilism.
Non-nihilists never laugh at shamanistic jokes.
Saturday 19 February 2011
Nietzsche -- shaman-master
When one looks at the underlying principle that guides the writing of Nietzsche, very often his concern is precisely that of Carlos Castaneda's shaman-master, don Juan, in that he is keen to set up proper methods to recover an authentic subjectivity. In this sense of turning away from forms, and turning inwards and in the sense of making his ethics dependent upon a reckoning with one's inner life, Nietzsche's writing is extremely shamanistic. This attitude pertains to the "free spirit" aspect of his work, whose counterpart is tradition and conformity.
It is advisable and useful to separate this basic principle of shamanism itself from the psychological principles and secondary discoveries of Nietzsche, the shaman.
The discovery and enhancement of subjectivity is shamanistic -- however, the actual contents of subjectivity and the means for enhancing subjectivity belong to the particular shaman-master. Not all shaman-masters are the same. Rather, each have different priorities, different sets of values and different insights.
The reason why it is necessary to separate the act of being a shaman from the teaching of any particular shaman-master is that failing to do so means that one does not fully integrate the lessons of subjectivity -- that is, one remains reliant on the master and does not fully develop a subjectivity of one's own. Nietzsche himself, though his character Zarathustra, warns against this common psychological trap:
Verily, I advise you: depart from me, and guard yourselves against Zarathustra! And better still: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he hath deceived you. The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies, but also to hate his friends. One requiteth a teacher badly if one remain merely a student. And why will ye not pluck at my wreath? Ye venerate me; but what if your veneration should some day collapse? Take heed lest a statue crush you! Ye say, ye believe in Zarathustra? But of what account is Zarathustra! Ye are my believers: but of what account are all believers! Ye had not yet sought yourselves: then did ye find me. So do all believers; therefore all belief is of so little account. Now do I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when ye have all denied me, will I return unto you.
It's the principle of putting subjective knowledge ahead of almost everything else that defines shamanistic experience as compared to other forms of religious experience.
Whereas Christianity holds that one must keep up a consistent attitude of reverence to its holy book, the Bible, shamans would consider such a position to be in opposition to its primary goals and purposes, to find one's own way through life by developing subjective self-knowledge.
For the purpose of experimentation with the world, Zarathustra advises us to leave him.
Thursday 17 February 2011
Patriarchy holds that women's interests are petty
Women need, first, to understand that patriarchal moral constructs have nothing to do with the real world, even though the effects of patriarchal accusations are quintessentially real and concrete. I know that this is intuitively very hard to grasp because as humans the real world ought to be our main reference point and most intelligent people understand that there are real consequences for real actions. But, according to patriarchy, women occupy the realm of the petty, therefore to do harm to women is not considered significant -- it is also called "petty".
Patriarchal men will apply this term to any situation that involves women, not because what happens in the domestic abuse situation is actually petty, but because women themselves are considered irrelevant under patriarchy.
Women often have a very hard time understanding this. They take the criticisms that they are being "petty" as having practical or concrete meaning. Many of them try to rise above their own putative "pettiness" by conforming more to what males expect. But, they misunderstand the criticisms that are leveled against them: "petty" doesn't have anything to do with any woman's actions, whether right or wrong. The ideology of patriarchy doesn't work this way. "Petty" is a metaphysical (meaning, unchanging) judgment about women in general, unrelated to your actions. You can't rise above this criticism of "pettiness", because so far as patriarchy is concerned "pettiness" is what defines your female nature -- it's what patriarchy thinks "you are".
How we can get out of these traps that patriarchy sets for us it to realise that there is nothing we can do to improve our "natures". If we fall into the trap, we will try to keep improving and improving, believing that one day we will be deemed to be less than petty. But, that isn't how patriarchy works. You can't escape this criticism, ever, because of your gender. So what are you going to do about it?
There are many things you can do. You can educate yourself about patriarchy. You can take up self-defence. You can stop tolerating men's emotional blackmail. They say: "If you take offence at my abuse, you're being petty!" You need to remind yourself that you have nothing to lose by taking offence, since you WILL be considered petty anyway, no matter what you do.
But the situation is far from hopeless. Feminism had already made some inroads into many societies and even those countries which are considered to be further behind the most advanced countries, in terms of the industrial revolution, have some feminist stalwarts.
Actually, women who have insight into the metaphysical constructs of patriarchy can make themselves very, very free indeed. They no longer buy into the emotional blackmail that is used to control other women through generating in them a sense of guilt and inadequacy. Such women can look at the games that these patriarchs play, which broadcast their inadequacies and fears.
"Why not face the world as a real human being, rather than try to manipulate others to do your will?" we should ask, when people try to bring us down with forms of emotional blackmail that slight our characters.
We can now actually see behind that manly mask and notice the crumbling and weak person there, who just wants to use patriarchal ideology to help him get his own way.
Tony Abbott.
Patriarchal men will apply this term to any situation that involves women, not because what happens in the domestic abuse situation is actually petty, but because women themselves are considered irrelevant under patriarchy.
Women often have a very hard time understanding this. They take the criticisms that they are being "petty" as having practical or concrete meaning. Many of them try to rise above their own putative "pettiness" by conforming more to what males expect. But, they misunderstand the criticisms that are leveled against them: "petty" doesn't have anything to do with any woman's actions, whether right or wrong. The ideology of patriarchy doesn't work this way. "Petty" is a metaphysical (meaning, unchanging) judgment about women in general, unrelated to your actions. You can't rise above this criticism of "pettiness", because so far as patriarchy is concerned "pettiness" is what defines your female nature -- it's what patriarchy thinks "you are".
How we can get out of these traps that patriarchy sets for us it to realise that there is nothing we can do to improve our "natures". If we fall into the trap, we will try to keep improving and improving, believing that one day we will be deemed to be less than petty. But, that isn't how patriarchy works. You can't escape this criticism, ever, because of your gender. So what are you going to do about it?
There are many things you can do. You can educate yourself about patriarchy. You can take up self-defence. You can stop tolerating men's emotional blackmail. They say: "If you take offence at my abuse, you're being petty!" You need to remind yourself that you have nothing to lose by taking offence, since you WILL be considered petty anyway, no matter what you do.
But the situation is far from hopeless. Feminism had already made some inroads into many societies and even those countries which are considered to be further behind the most advanced countries, in terms of the industrial revolution, have some feminist stalwarts.
Actually, women who have insight into the metaphysical constructs of patriarchy can make themselves very, very free indeed. They no longer buy into the emotional blackmail that is used to control other women through generating in them a sense of guilt and inadequacy. Such women can look at the games that these patriarchs play, which broadcast their inadequacies and fears.
"Why not face the world as a real human being, rather than try to manipulate others to do your will?" we should ask, when people try to bring us down with forms of emotional blackmail that slight our characters.
We can now actually see behind that manly mask and notice the crumbling and weak person there, who just wants to use patriarchal ideology to help him get his own way.
Tony Abbott.
shamanism and the consumer mentality
A typical contemporary person's shamanistic "search" is often pointless due to a lack of stoicism. This lack is conditioned by consumerism, which has entirely destroyed the character. To really learn from anything in a shamanic way, one has to have the strength of character to persist and persist, even when no solutions or anything beneficial are forthcoming. One has to look inward and draw strength from even negative meanings or from no meaning. The modern individual (and most anyone today who is conditioned by consumerist expectations) cannot do this.
Pain, to him, signifies that something is wrong, quite straightforwardly. It does not raise an ambiguous question at all, but has an absolute meaning, signifying negativity and failure. So, the contemporary person cannot simply subsist with this state of being, understanding it and being at one with it. This type of person rather has to get some socially sanctioned "therapy" -- at which point the shamanistic journey comes to an end, as he or she hands their subjectivity over to another to be mastered and governed.
Pain, to him, signifies that something is wrong, quite straightforwardly. It does not raise an ambiguous question at all, but has an absolute meaning, signifying negativity and failure. So, the contemporary person cannot simply subsist with this state of being, understanding it and being at one with it. This type of person rather has to get some socially sanctioned "therapy" -- at which point the shamanistic journey comes to an end, as he or she hands their subjectivity over to another to be mastered and governed.
Tuesday 15 February 2011
On getting the wrong end of the stick and getting it right
When I reflect upon my experiences with the human race, particularly certain cultural sectors of it, I realise that I have often, if not generally, tended to be in error whenever I have taken people at their word. I take things in the wrong direction -- but partly because I'm the kind of person who takes up a challenge and is always trying to improve.
So, for a long time, I thought I had to raise my tone and level of intellect to "compete" with everyone around me, because they were implying that I was stupid. What I didn't understand is that they were implying that I was not intelligent, because they felt threatened by my way of speaking (I have quite a British tone and was brought up in a rather mannered and repressive culture). So, what they were saying was, "You're not better than us. Stop trying to act as if you are." Whereas, what I heard was, "You are not better than us. Try to develop your intellect more, so that we can accept you."
Similarly with the gender based put downs. They are supposed to make me MORE emotional -- hence more vulnerable to manipulation. Actually, they have the opposite effect.
I think many people are, however, brow beaten by systematic put downs. That is how it often works with gender. Many women come to believe that they have inferior qualities to the men around them because the social system doesn't allow them to thrive so well and they are systematically put down. It becomes essentialised "nature" to express self doubt.
In my case, I just saw the put downs as an intellectual puzzle. I was affected by them, too, but primarily they were a mystery, to some degree removed from me by certain cultural shields.
So, for a long time, I thought I had to raise my tone and level of intellect to "compete" with everyone around me, because they were implying that I was stupid. What I didn't understand is that they were implying that I was not intelligent, because they felt threatened by my way of speaking (I have quite a British tone and was brought up in a rather mannered and repressive culture). So, what they were saying was, "You're not better than us. Stop trying to act as if you are." Whereas, what I heard was, "You are not better than us. Try to develop your intellect more, so that we can accept you."
Similarly with the gender based put downs. They are supposed to make me MORE emotional -- hence more vulnerable to manipulation. Actually, they have the opposite effect.
I think many people are, however, brow beaten by systematic put downs. That is how it often works with gender. Many women come to believe that they have inferior qualities to the men around them because the social system doesn't allow them to thrive so well and they are systematically put down. It becomes essentialised "nature" to express self doubt.
In my case, I just saw the put downs as an intellectual puzzle. I was affected by them, too, but primarily they were a mystery, to some degree removed from me by certain cultural shields.
Women and shock
It would be too easy to replicate the patriarchy's judgement that women who stay in abusive relationships are 'masochistic'. That is untrue. Quite distinct from this patriarchal perspective is Judith Lewis Herman's view that we all grow up with a need for caring, concern and solidarity with others. In the case of children who do not have these things, or who only have them sporadically and insufficiently (as in, for instance, the case where a certain minimal level of care is mixed with a high degree of abuse), the child will protect himself from succumbing to shock as a result of parental abuse by entering a state of denial or "dissociation".
Note here that this strategy DOES NOT have a masochistic purpose. The denial of the parent's abusiveness is not a form of pleasure seeking, but a means to prevent the onset of shock which could result in mortality. To suggest that children would dissociate in order to gain pleasure is to apply another level of abuse to children who have been abused.
Women, too, may be in a state of denial about patriarchy much of the time. They dissociate from their experiential knowledge by denying what that could tell them about the nature of the world they live in. They don't do this because they are masochists (although doing so could perpetuate a situation where they continue in painful relationships). Rather, they dissociate because they are using emergency measures to protect their minds from succumbing to extreme shock.
Note here that this strategy DOES NOT have a masochistic purpose. The denial of the parent's abusiveness is not a form of pleasure seeking, but a means to prevent the onset of shock which could result in mortality. To suggest that children would dissociate in order to gain pleasure is to apply another level of abuse to children who have been abused.
Women, too, may be in a state of denial about patriarchy much of the time. They dissociate from their experiential knowledge by denying what that could tell them about the nature of the world they live in. They don't do this because they are masochists (although doing so could perpetuate a situation where they continue in painful relationships). Rather, they dissociate because they are using emergency measures to protect their minds from succumbing to extreme shock.
Monday 14 February 2011
Sunday 13 February 2011
Hot potato!
The right wing is inevitably guilty of bad faith arguments. It chooses not to understand, but to misrepresent, in order to 'win'.
Arguing with right wingers is like playing a game of hot potato.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Potato_(game)
In this case, "emotions" are the hot potato that nobody want to own, despite the fact that most right wing 'arguments' are emotion driven.
The person left holding the 'hot potato' always loses.
Arguing with right wingers is like playing a game of hot potato.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Potato_(game)
In this case, "emotions" are the hot potato that nobody want to own, despite the fact that most right wing 'arguments' are emotion driven.
The person left holding the 'hot potato' always loses.
Saturday 12 February 2011
Friday 11 February 2011
Shamanism & psychoanalysis: where is the encounter with the void?
Emotional and intellectual vitality can be radically increased through shamanistic practices. To achieve this, you must face the void of the soul, in the absence of any culturally determined meaningfulness. By an existential threat to ego, one can often see those aspects of the real self that one's conformity to others' expectations has rendered invisible to you. Shamanism works on you at the level of this existential threat, forcing a deeper investigation of one's inner resources.
There are degrees and kinds of shamanism. Nietzsche's intellectual shamanism is relatively deep, just as his experience of an existential "abyss" is central to his work. All the same, if had experienced an even deeper sense of the void, he may not have been so keen to reinforce radical gender polarities along the lines he did. He would have seen the aspects of "femininity" that he condemned in women as being part and part of his own psyche.
Bataille, it seems, had much more of an intuitive sense of going further, by means of "excess" which would break the existing boundaries of bourgeois consciousness.
The problem with any contemporary "New Age" shamanism is that it seeks to increase vitality on the basis of a prior acceptance of bourgeois norms of identity. The need to make shamanism commercially viable, according to capitalist and consumerist mores, leads to the kind of attitude that is all too reassuring -- the idea that with just a very tiny bit tweaking, the system we live in can be overhauled.
An enemy of shamanistic knowledge is the pervasive bourgeois ideology that we cannot change our essential characteristics, especially the fundamentals of our relationship to freedom, but can only work to refine and improve what we already have. This bourgeois pessimism is very pronounced, for instance, in the work of Lacan. His work proclaims, perhaps truthfully, that all are in, one way or another, pathological under the force of Civilization. His approach also effectively closes the door against any non-civilized means for recovering one's sense of wholeness. There is no void in which one may discover one's identity, within psychoanalysis. Rather, there remains the muted authoritarianism of an analyst's couch.
Strong bourgeois cynicism may also found in Freud. He views the state of discontent with civilization as such, as pathological. Nietzsche effectively reversed this valuation by holding that civilization was itself an illness caused by the human propensity to suffer too much from consciousness, at the price of losing touch with instinct.
There are degrees and kinds of shamanism. Nietzsche's intellectual shamanism is relatively deep, just as his experience of an existential "abyss" is central to his work. All the same, if had experienced an even deeper sense of the void, he may not have been so keen to reinforce radical gender polarities along the lines he did. He would have seen the aspects of "femininity" that he condemned in women as being part and part of his own psyche.
Bataille, it seems, had much more of an intuitive sense of going further, by means of "excess" which would break the existing boundaries of bourgeois consciousness.
The problem with any contemporary "New Age" shamanism is that it seeks to increase vitality on the basis of a prior acceptance of bourgeois norms of identity. The need to make shamanism commercially viable, according to capitalist and consumerist mores, leads to the kind of attitude that is all too reassuring -- the idea that with just a very tiny bit tweaking, the system we live in can be overhauled.
An enemy of shamanistic knowledge is the pervasive bourgeois ideology that we cannot change our essential characteristics, especially the fundamentals of our relationship to freedom, but can only work to refine and improve what we already have. This bourgeois pessimism is very pronounced, for instance, in the work of Lacan. His work proclaims, perhaps truthfully, that all are in, one way or another, pathological under the force of Civilization. His approach also effectively closes the door against any non-civilized means for recovering one's sense of wholeness. There is no void in which one may discover one's identity, within psychoanalysis. Rather, there remains the muted authoritarianism of an analyst's couch.
Strong bourgeois cynicism may also found in Freud. He views the state of discontent with civilization as such, as pathological. Nietzsche effectively reversed this valuation by holding that civilization was itself an illness caused by the human propensity to suffer too much from consciousness, at the price of losing touch with instinct.
Thursday 10 February 2011
Bataille
Bataille really has to be read in the same vein as Nietzsche, or otherwise his injunctions sound pointlessly irrational. I think that liberals, in particular, have a hard time with him. They say, "What? Give up our morality along with our moral agenda?" Postmodernists think he is experimenting with concepts. Actually, no, it is none of these. He is inciting bloody revolution through shamanistic self-destruction and regeneration. But, above all, he is trying to get us accustomed to violence, so that we can tolerate martyrdom, destruction and death and the qualities that can lead to overturning the "noble" bourgeois order.
Louis Athusser suggested that we have the precise sort of superego that will fit us to our expected role in life, under the existing order. That is part of why Bataille's 'transgression' makes sense as a way of challenging that order through challenging its control over one's subjective self -- hence shamanistic destruction.
Louis Athusser suggested that we have the precise sort of superego that will fit us to our expected role in life, under the existing order. That is part of why Bataille's 'transgression' makes sense as a way of challenging that order through challenging its control over one's subjective self -- hence shamanistic destruction.
The core principles of shamanism, Nietzsche, Bataille and self-transformation
Intellectual shamanism, as I trace it through my own extrapolations of Nietzsche and Bataille, is a means of breaking with the present, which has become "decadent"
In the case of Nietzsche, he sees that social mores are too delicate, too Christian in the respect of paying lip service to suffering. His shamanistic motifs in Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None (German: Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen) , particularly in terms of "a dangerous crossing" are supposed to encourage a break with these attitudes:
Moreover, Nietzsche's writing presses for a different sense of being in the world. Here, the shamanistic "dangerous crossing" is not represented, as in tradition, as the spiritual goal of an isolated shamanistic initiate, but as the goal for the whole of humanity. The movement from "ape" to "superman" is a process of metamorphosis, where "humanity" represents the half way point. The end point represents a total change in character structure.
The recovery of one's wholeness through incorporating the lost primeval aspects of one's nature can be considered to be a fundamental principle of modernist shamanism. At times, as in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the idea of transformation is overshadowed by a motif of destruction. Nietzsche's shamanic concept of transformation is shown to be radically at odds with conservatism, in the following passage:
Shamanistic self-transformation is a creative act which (more or less) assures hostile reactions from those who are psychologically committed to maintaining the status quo.
No doubt, Bataille derived his idea of transgression from Nietzsche, whom he identified with to the point of asserting, "I am Nietzsche'. The very powerful motif of destruction in Bataille's philosophical theorising is, by virtue of echoing Nietzsche, given an implicitly shamanistic structure. The meaning of "destruction" in Bataille's works can therefore be viewed, shamanistically, as a means for heralding in a very different future. "Transgression" -- sometimes referred to as "sinning" -- is the means the individual takes to expand his freedom to rule himself. This evokes the idea of challenging one's superego's restrictions, to broaden the range of 'human nature', making it more diverse and complex than previously.
Given that a core principle of any shamanistic project is to transform the character, in order to make it in some ways 'better' (--in the case of Nietzsche and Bataille, more robust--) one can venture to understand how more traditional types of shamanism might have worked. The differences between traditional shamanism and the "intellectual" types of shamanism explored above are not so vast.
My studies have led me to see that traditional shamanistic practices very often evoke the notions of regression (to an infantile state), of death and rebirth, and of doubling'(an initiate crosses 'the bridge' as 'spirit', leaving his body in the here and now). Although these motifs are often taken very literally within the bounds of traditional shamanism, intellectual shamanists like Nietzsche and Bataille take approaches that are much more self-consciously psychological, rather than 'spiritual'.
Instead of 'death and rebirth', we have 'destruction of the old law tables' in Nietzsche and 'transgression' or 'sacrifice' in Bataille. The intellectual shamanists have modified the traditional shamanistic motifs, to make them relevant for those who live today. Yet, the nature of the shamanistic experience, itself, is not that different. Both Nietzsche and Bataille invite us to encounter reality in a way that is not mediated by our strong sense of society's mores. We are to encounter "nature" in a more direct way than we had previously been allowed to do (having been prevented from doing so by our own Superego).
Whether one 'crosses the bridge' through psychological dissociation (helped along by peyote) (i.e. traditional shamanism), or through 'self-overcoming' and a contempt of 'pity' (Nietzsche) or through a transgressive self-destruction of one's bourgeois character structure (Bataille), one develops a sense of self-awareness that previously was remote from one.
In the case of intellectual shamanism, the 'shaman initiate' is capable of seeing that our image of the world is actually fabricated by our actively imaginative minds -- that what we take for actual 'reality' is really just group consensus casting a hypnotic spell over us. (In his consideration of the nature of this 'spell', Nietzsche saw not 'spirits' exactly, but rather active and reactive forces -- with the active forces embracing joie de vivre and the reactive forces posing as righteous moralisers.)
This depth of knowledge of the world, which transcends narrow, conscious awareness was the basis for Nietzsche's supreme philosophising. He implies to us that he came upon it by an initiation whereby he was "almost sacrificed":
The use of the terminology here is, once again, shamanistic, especially in terms of the idea that Nietzsche had obtained his initiate's knowledge of reality in "many distant, dreadful worlds". The entry into "other worlds" is possible for the shamanistic initiate -- one who has undergone the horrors of shamanistic initiation. This involves an encounter with one's social and cultural limits, through the temporary shattering of a habitual, narrow frame of consciousness.
In the case of Nietzsche, he sees that social mores are too delicate, too Christian in the respect of paying lip service to suffering. His shamanistic motifs in Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None (German: Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen) , particularly in terms of "a dangerous crossing" are supposed to encourage a break with these attitudes:
Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman--a rope over an abyss.
A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.
Moreover, Nietzsche's writing presses for a different sense of being in the world. Here, the shamanistic "dangerous crossing" is not represented, as in tradition, as the spiritual goal of an isolated shamanistic initiate, but as the goal for the whole of humanity. The movement from "ape" to "superman" is a process of metamorphosis, where "humanity" represents the half way point. The end point represents a total change in character structure.
The recovery of one's wholeness through incorporating the lost primeval aspects of one's nature can be considered to be a fundamental principle of modernist shamanism. At times, as in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the idea of transformation is overshadowed by a motif of destruction. Nietzsche's shamanic concept of transformation is shown to be radically at odds with conservatism, in the following passage:
Whom do [the good; the 'pharisees'] hate most”? The creator, hate they most, him who breaks the tables and old values, the breaker - him they call the law breaker. For the good - they cannot create; they are always the beginning of the end: - They crucify him who writes new values on new tables, they sacrifice to themselves the future - they crucify the whole human future!
Shamanistic self-transformation is a creative act which (more or less) assures hostile reactions from those who are psychologically committed to maintaining the status quo.
No doubt, Bataille derived his idea of transgression from Nietzsche, whom he identified with to the point of asserting, "I am Nietzsche'. The very powerful motif of destruction in Bataille's philosophical theorising is, by virtue of echoing Nietzsche, given an implicitly shamanistic structure. The meaning of "destruction" in Bataille's works can therefore be viewed, shamanistically, as a means for heralding in a very different future. "Transgression" -- sometimes referred to as "sinning" -- is the means the individual takes to expand his freedom to rule himself. This evokes the idea of challenging one's superego's restrictions, to broaden the range of 'human nature', making it more diverse and complex than previously.
Given that a core principle of any shamanistic project is to transform the character, in order to make it in some ways 'better' (--in the case of Nietzsche and Bataille, more robust--) one can venture to understand how more traditional types of shamanism might have worked. The differences between traditional shamanism and the "intellectual" types of shamanism explored above are not so vast.
My studies have led me to see that traditional shamanistic practices very often evoke the notions of regression (to an infantile state), of death and rebirth, and of doubling'(an initiate crosses 'the bridge' as 'spirit', leaving his body in the here and now). Although these motifs are often taken very literally within the bounds of traditional shamanism, intellectual shamanists like Nietzsche and Bataille take approaches that are much more self-consciously psychological, rather than 'spiritual'.
Instead of 'death and rebirth', we have 'destruction of the old law tables' in Nietzsche and 'transgression' or 'sacrifice' in Bataille. The intellectual shamanists have modified the traditional shamanistic motifs, to make them relevant for those who live today. Yet, the nature of the shamanistic experience, itself, is not that different. Both Nietzsche and Bataille invite us to encounter reality in a way that is not mediated by our strong sense of society's mores. We are to encounter "nature" in a more direct way than we had previously been allowed to do (having been prevented from doing so by our own Superego).
Whether one 'crosses the bridge' through psychological dissociation (helped along by peyote) (i.e. traditional shamanism), or through 'self-overcoming' and a contempt of 'pity' (Nietzsche) or through a transgressive self-destruction of one's bourgeois character structure (Bataille), one develops a sense of self-awareness that previously was remote from one.
In the case of intellectual shamanism, the 'shaman initiate' is capable of seeing that our image of the world is actually fabricated by our actively imaginative minds -- that what we take for actual 'reality' is really just group consensus casting a hypnotic spell over us. (In his consideration of the nature of this 'spell', Nietzsche saw not 'spirits' exactly, but rather active and reactive forces -- with the active forces embracing joie de vivre and the reactive forces posing as righteous moralisers.)
This depth of knowledge of the world, which transcends narrow, conscious awareness was the basis for Nietzsche's supreme philosophising. He implies to us that he came upon it by an initiation whereby he was "almost sacrificed":
270. The intellectual haughtiness and loathing of every man who has suffered deeply--it almost determines the order of rank HOW deeply men can suffer--the chilling certainty, with which he is thoroughly imbued and coloured, that by virtue of his suffering he KNOWS MORE than the shrewdest and wisest can ever know, that he has been familiar with, and "at home" in, many distant, dreadful worlds of which "YOU know nothing"!--this silent intellectual haughtiness of the sufferer, this pride of the elect of knowledge, of the "initiated," of the almost sacrificed, finds all forms of disguise necessary to protect itself from contact with officious and sympathizing hands, and in general from all that is not its equal in suffering. [My bolds]
The use of the terminology here is, once again, shamanistic, especially in terms of the idea that Nietzsche had obtained his initiate's knowledge of reality in "many distant, dreadful worlds". The entry into "other worlds" is possible for the shamanistic initiate -- one who has undergone the horrors of shamanistic initiation. This involves an encounter with one's social and cultural limits, through the temporary shattering of a habitual, narrow frame of consciousness.
Wednesday 9 February 2011
Precious feelings
If humans were all ONLY representatives of structure and universals, why bother with humanity at all? If one is interested in that level of abstraction, one would be better off studying pure mathematics. After all, abstractions only beget abstractions, with no benefit for humanity in sight.
The only alternative is to consider that universals (such as those relating to history and its production of identities) also have an emotional component, such that everything remotely human is also, necessarily, "all about humans and our precious feelings."
I think my position here is the most logical and unavoidable one.
Of course, this no way implies that we should indulge in emotionalism, but I think that the reason "feelings" are so fraught in Western society (and, indeed, so politicised) is because they have been denied for so long. If they were just another part of our beings,as they should be, we would no doubt pay them much less attention than we do now.
The only alternative is to consider that universals (such as those relating to history and its production of identities) also have an emotional component, such that everything remotely human is also, necessarily, "all about humans and our precious feelings."
I think my position here is the most logical and unavoidable one.
Of course, this no way implies that we should indulge in emotionalism, but I think that the reason "feelings" are so fraught in Western society (and, indeed, so politicised) is because they have been denied for so long. If they were just another part of our beings,as they should be, we would no doubt pay them much less attention than we do now.
Going Galt
The emphasis on punishment in controlling people isn't so illogical at all if you consider that class society generally produces people with a sado-masochistic character structure. So long as the rulers are playing their part as sadists and the powerless are playing their part as masochists, everybody is happy and the system functions as it is "supposed to".
So, really, "going Galt" in this context is a sadistic fantasy whereby the powerful consider how they can further punish the powerless. Likewise the perpetual punishment of women, including mothers and teachers, does not appear to create a disincentive to be either a mother or a teacher, so long as the powerful can count on the character structure of masochism to bind the powerless to their roles (especially in relation to the sadist), no matter what.
Clear eyed rationality is the last thing that sado-masochistic society expects, which is why I am at an advantage in relation to this tactic.
So, really, "going Galt" in this context is a sadistic fantasy whereby the powerful consider how they can further punish the powerless. Likewise the perpetual punishment of women, including mothers and teachers, does not appear to create a disincentive to be either a mother or a teacher, so long as the powerful can count on the character structure of masochism to bind the powerless to their roles (especially in relation to the sadist), no matter what.
Clear eyed rationality is the last thing that sado-masochistic society expects, which is why I am at an advantage in relation to this tactic.
Monday 7 February 2011
The limit of reversion to a primitive state: It's where you set it
I lived in one of the poorest areas of Zimbabwe, a "high density" area, in a country without social welfare. Zimbabwe is also a country that experienced a traumatic economic crisis in 2008. I would say that the crisis taught Zimbabweans to value life, to strive to get along, and not to obsess too much about the niceties of civilisation and its mores.
To me, this was evidence enough that humans are not victims of their emotions, or of their biology, but can adapt to tremendous degrees of stress and actually learn something positive from very negative situations.
However, we have to believe that we can do it. The ideology that we are merely animals and will therefore "revert to type" tends to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. You have to WANT to be something more than just an animal, in order to transcend mere biologism. But many people in more affluent situations don't necessarily want that. Their relative affluence has made them soft and so they put up no resistance to being treated -- as well as treating others -- like apes.
To me, this was evidence enough that humans are not victims of their emotions, or of their biology, but can adapt to tremendous degrees of stress and actually learn something positive from very negative situations.
However, we have to believe that we can do it. The ideology that we are merely animals and will therefore "revert to type" tends to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. You have to WANT to be something more than just an animal, in order to transcend mere biologism. But many people in more affluent situations don't necessarily want that. Their relative affluence has made them soft and so they put up no resistance to being treated -- as well as treating others -- like apes.
Thursday 3 February 2011
"Women's intuition" and patriarchal veil-making
"Intuition" could mean all sorts of things. The word itself still requires further elucidation.
If we are talking about the capacity to have correct hunches -- what is normally referred to as 'women's intuition" -- then the best explanation/definition I have heard is that this is a category of intuition possessed by all who are in a position of being oppressed. The capacity to anticipate the actions of the "master", to effectively "read his mind" can be a life-preserving skill -- and therefore one worth developing for anyone in an especially vulnerable position in relation to power. So, it is not just women, but others who have been a long time in a position of relative dis-empowerment, who will be likely to develop this skill.
Alternatively, one may wish to consider the question in relation to a different set of ideas. Supposing that "intuition" was the capacity to detect cause and effect, that is something entirely different from the capacity to have the right hunch about what someone will do next.
Certainly, many women have a better grasp of cause and effect than their male counterparts would have. This is because women were historically positioned to relate more directly to the concrete (empirical) world than men, whereas men were relieved of the everyday burdens of housework and child rearing so as to be able to become, in effect, Philosophical Idealists (people who relate to the world in terms of intangible abstract concepts) to a greater degree.
Philosophical Idealists have the tendency not to see cause and effect as stemming from the relations of the material world. Rather, they experience cause and effect as the influence of one set of abstractions on another. So, for instance, "cultural decline" can be viewed as having the abstract cause of "female insubordination". In such an estimation, neither of the two concepts -- one posited as "cause" and the other as "effect" -- need be given any concrete definition.
Similarly, patriarchal myths tend to have it that male creativity "causes" females to come into being, but never the other way around. This reversal of cause and effect is obvious.
Philosophical Idealism is the myth making of patriarchal religion, which is designed to cast a veil over real links between causes and effects.
Shamanism, Nietzsche and thinking
Overall, I think the effects of Nietzsche on the male mind are dissipation and degeneration. Wyndam Lewis referred to Nietzsche as a "vulgariser" and this never seemed more true than today. Women may still stand to benefit from his writings, though.
Wednesday at 14:13 · · Unlike ·
·
· · 50 of 58
·
o
Jennifer Armstrong It's paradoxical -- but focusing on oneself in a shamanistic fashion can be the opposite of narcissistic. One exploits ones own often negative experiences in order to help others have insights that can change them.
Gia Harris
I like the idea. Also concur that most people will wallow in their own crud and only truely look at themselves, or whatever story they hold so tightly it feels like a reality until it becomes unbearable or costs them too much. Unfortunately...See more
Wednesday at 21:50 · Like
o
Halina White Narcissism is counter productive, but focusing on self is entirely different. The difference between a self serving attitude and a self persevering one?
Wednesday at 21:50 · Like
o
JWJennifer ArmstrongWhat I'm getting at is the idea of shamanistic doubling. If I have a deep problem, it probably has its roots in society. For instance,when society undergoes some significant historical shifts, this will have an effect ...See more
Wednesday at 22:00 · Like
o
Halina White I don't think looking inwards is narcissistic at all. Quite the opposite, Narcissists look to the outside TO solve their inner turmoil. On the other hand, looking within to understand yourself, you realise you really cant save anyone else and can only lead by example.
Wednesday at 22:07 · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong Yeah, but I don't think that's how it works. I tend to use the word "narcissism" in the Freudian sense -- such that we have healthy narcissism which only becomes unhealthy if taken too far. So, any kind of self-care or concern for one's own well-being is "narcissistic". Only, in this limited sense, that is a GOOD thing.
Wednesday at 22:25 · Like
o
Halina White Different horses for different courses..there are labels for everything these days..
Wednesday at 22:31 · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong It does lead to some misunderstandings. I find the term useful in relation to understanding aspects of Nietzsche's "egotism". It's core seems to be healthy self-love that is related to an infant's struggle for survival against greater forces. So, in other words, its a very primary sensation that Nietzsche is tapping into and trying to appeal to, in his writings.
Wednesday at 22:35 · Like
o
Halina White Its buried as much as possible by 'society'.
Halina White Thats what I love about Nietzsche, you might not like him, but you just have to listen.
Wednesday at 22:40 · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong
I think we listen because he is capable of talking about these things that we partially remember from when we were infants, which have become long buried. This is what draws us to his writings. However, most people do not see him as a sh...See more
Wednesday at 22:53 · Like · 2 people
o
Halina White Absolutely, Jennifer. Humans will see whatever suits them, and will distort facts to serve them. I always say "the mind can convince us of anything", but our instincts never lie.
Wednesday at 22:57 · Like · 1 person
o
Adam Francis Cornford Personally, I could never stand the guy. His whole idea of the basis of human existence seems wrong to me. But maybe that's just me trying to convince myself that cooperation and compassion and equality of condition in a commonwealth are what makes life good...
Yesterday at 03:11 · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong He is best viewed as someone who stands right at the end of the transition from Feudal consciousness to fully blown Bourgeois consciousness (I see academia as a remnant of Feudal consciousness; of monastic study and the like.) Sure, if you are entering bourgeois consciousness, you have to rearrange your soul. But Nietzsche thought feudal spiritual hierarchies were more elevating.
Yesterday at 07:10 · Like · 2 people
o
Jennifer Armstrong That's why I think that those who are already bourgeois do not understand him. He was more about internal spiritual PROCESSES, rather than interested in a person proclaiming any final outcome as to what he had become. I notice that contemporary Nietzscheans do NOT understand the meaning of process; the joyful experience of transition for one state of being to another. They find this, in particular, most disturbing and will tend to misunderstand and attack whenever they see this happening.
23 hours ago · Like · 1 person
o
Jason Carter I had a response initially but Facebook must have consumed it.
12 hours ago · Like
o
Jason Carter In American high schools, at least in the '80s, most young males go through a "Led Zeppelin" phase. To me, this is what Nietzsche is to philosophy.
12 hours ago · Unlike · 1 person
o
Jennifer Armstrong Jason, you responded on my author site. Your response is still there.
12 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong Oh, and your response is also on my blog.Hope you don't mind. If so, will remove it.
12 hours ago · Like
o
Halina White Your Led Zeppelin analogy is very apt. Peoples idea of 'growing up' is always associated with physical achievements rather than personal evolution and hardships overcome. I am very fond of the saying you should "never judge the beggar in the street, he could be the buddha".
12 hours ago · Like · 1 person
o
Jason Carter "And if he says he's the Buddha, kill him."
12 hours ago · Like · 1 person
o
Jason Carter Nope. You can keep my comments up. I'm male, so like to leave my scent wherever possible, even in print on a computer screen.
12 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong Ok. Hopefully you are leaving your sense, too, although that is never for certain.
11 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong
Without "god" there is ONLY process, or processes. There is no eternal soul, hence no essences. Why depend on others to attribute qualities of power or value to you, when they, themselves, lack essences? There is nothing to guarantee t...See more
11 hours ago · Like
o
Halina White I see the the whole god thing as totally redundant, even if there was a god, its irrelevant. People always prefer to look to the outside for the "answers? (its easier than taking personal responsibility) rather than looking within and trusting yourself. That way they can always blame someone else.
11 hours ago · Like
Jennifer Armstrong
The god thing is kind of not so redundant as we tend to structure our psychology on the basis of essences. To the degree we do that, the god thing still has some play in our minds. We do lean on it unaware that we are doing so. Only via...See more
11 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong I'm also putting your stuff on my blog, Halina. Just for something to do. I'm about to start work in four minutes.
11 hours ago · Like · 1 person
o
Halina White Yes. our psychology manifests itself physically, and even ends up being law. However, I do think there is an essential self, when I see influential (yet long dead) people's vibration still pulsing, it makes me wonder about energy fields and what that means. Heck, I have no answers, only a lot of questions. People have more in common than they do differences that is why organised religion makes me see red. Life is fluid and nothing is guaranteed...
11 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong Well there is something that coalesces in the sense of identity, which makes life worth living. It's just not essentialistic in the way that language would seem to denote.
10 hours ago · Like
o
Halina White I think I know what you mean? When you sit with nature you start to get an idea how "small" you are....
10 hours ago · Like
o
Halina White Life might be bi-polar. Or maybe I am? Not clinical anyway....
10 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong It's not about being small at all. Having no essence could just as easily mean that you encompassed the universe. The point is that you know you exist whether or not anybody affirms it. (So you are no longer a victim of language or of other people's ideas.)
10 hours ago · Like · 1 person
o
Halina White I meant small in the sense of our own mortality and the cycle of life.
10 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong Oh, I suppose so. But I think there is a countervailing expansiveness. You feel part of infinity.
10 hours ago · Like
o
Halina White "You feel part of infinity" I like to think so....
10 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong No. No thinking.
10 hours ago · Like · 1 person
o
Halina White Working with the facts is all you can do legally. As it should be.
10 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong Facts have their place. I think that any kind of mystical experience that can teach you the difference between a fact and one's own perceptions (which are generally tainted in one way or another) is useful.
10 hours ago · Like
o
Halina White Facts are the only thing you can place laws on, but they are still formed by a (biased?) collective human code. This is where instincts and intuition come in, they DONT make any sense at all..hence philosophy, and it doesn't exactly fit in with the "acceptable"..
9 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong Our reception of facts is definitely mediated by our existing values. I think the basis for good judgement is not instinct or intuition but good epistemology.
9 hours ago · Like
o
Halina White I wouldn't disagree, understanding always helps make better decisions, but being practical appeals to me more, because it avoids getting caught up in (a possibly faulty) analysis exercise that could keep you 'paralyzed' from moving on..
9 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong
I think a lot of one's ability to distinguish facts from values is based on knowing that most people are incapable of doing this very much at all. You have to kind of expect them not to do this, rather than anticipating the opposite -- an...See more
9 hours ago · Like
o
Halina White
Thats the interesting thing about consciousness. All 7 billion people have them. Id prefer not to agree with you in that people people cant differentiate between facts and values but I cant help but agree. That is till they suffer long enough and have to make a decision to change...
Objectivity on the other hand is perhaps a discussion for another day....
9 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong It's not such a heavy deal as it seems. Objectivity is useful only to a particular kind of empirical thinking mind. Most people don't really need it that much.
8 hours ago · Like
o
Halina White There is a certain quality to objectivity that implies fairness, and nature seems to be anything but.
8 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong I think that is partly a mistake. Objectivity in the scientific sense does not necessarily lead to fairness. I think the principle of reciprocation leads to fairness, not objectivity. (In other words, matching subjectivities leads to fairness.)
8 hours ago · Like
o
Halina White Reciprocation and co-operation might be just the key to breaking the code!
8 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong Objectivity is energy devoid of its subjective forces. You have to work with subjectivity. Actually, it is the only way to be just and to protect yourself at the same time. If someone is harmful, you need to reciprocate just enough (and no more) to keep them at a distance. If someone is helpful, then showing the same attitude does in fact create the conditions for an alliance.
8 hours ago · Like
o
Halina White Which brings us to ying and yang, black and white etc.. Subjectivity is individuality which leaves little room for stereotypes.
8 hours ago · Like
o
Jennifer Armstrong Yes, language tends to essentialise us, lending us the social appearance of "objectively knowable" qualities, but it leads us down dead end roads in terms of self-understanding. Spontaneity is true subjectivity.
8 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Wednesday 2 February 2011
Nietzsche in historical terms
Nietzsche is best viewed as someone who stands right at the end of the transition from Feudal consciousness to fully blown Bourgeois consciousness (I see academia as a remnant of Feudal consciousness; of monastic study and the like.) Sure, if you are entering bourgeois consciousness, you have to rearrange your soul. But Nietzsche thought feudal spiritual hierarchies were more elevating.
That's why I think that those who are already bourgeois (and not in a state of transition themselves) do not understand him. He was more about internal spiritual PROCESSES (what it means to change from a more Feudal consciousness to one that is Bourgeois), rather than interested in a person proclaiming any final outcome as to what he had become.
I notice that contemporary Nietzscheans do NOT understand the meaning of process; the joyful experience of transition for one state of being to another. They find this, in particular, most disturbing and will tend to misunderstand and attack the object of Nietzschean metamorphosis whenever they see these processes happening.
Nietzsche's primeval quest and shamanism
Jennifer Armstrong
What I'm getting at is the idea of shamanistic doubling. If I have a deep problem, it probably has its roots in society. For instance,when society undergoes some significant historical shifts, this will have an effect on me and people like me.
The idea is that if I look inwards to solve my problem, I am seeking to help myself (I suppose that is the narcissistic impetus, if you will), but on the side of my shamanistic double, I am also doing much more than helping myself. Inevitably, if I solve my own problems, I will also have the insights that would enable me to solve other people's problems.52 minutes ago ·
XXXXXXXXI don't think looking inwards is narcissistic at all. Quite the opposite, Narcissists look to the outside TO solve their inner turmoil. On the other hand, looking within to understand yourself, you realise you really cant save anyone else and can only lead by example.46 minutes ago ·- Jennifer Armstrong Yeah, but I don't think that's how it works. I tend to use the word "narcissism" in the Freudian sense -- such that we have healthy narcissism which only becomes unhealthy if taken too far. So, any kind of self-care or concern for one's own well-being is "narcissistic". Only, in this limited sense, that is a GOOD thing.28 minutes ago ·
- XXXXXXXXDifferent horses for different courses..there are labels for everything these days..22 minutes ago ·
- Jennifer Armstrong It does lead to some misunderstandings. I find the term useful in relation to understanding aspects of Nietzsche's "egotism". It's core seems to be healthy self-love that is related to an infant's struggle for survival against greater forces. So, in other words, its a very primary sensation that Nietzsche is tapping into and trying to appeal to, in his writings.17 minutes ago ·
- XXXXXXXXX Thats what I love about Nietzsche, you might not like him, but you just have to listen.12 minutes ago ·
- Jennifer ArmstrongI think we listen because he is capable of talking about these things that we partially remember from when we were infants, which have become long buried. This is what draws us to his writings. However, most people do not see him as a shaman trying to effect a cure of himself and others -- which is how I see him. They're looking for an ally in some other kind of fight. They see him as a prophet for Men's Rights or something fairly conventional like that.
Unfortunately, because we do not have a field of discourse called "shamanistic studies", people end up projecting into Nietzsche's writings whatever they are desiring. They want to feel powerful JUST AS THEY ARE.
They do not want to see things differently (as the shaman urges them to do). They do not want to change.A few seconds ago ·
Jennifer ArmstrongWithout "god" there is ONLY process, or processes. There is no eternal soul, hence no essences. Why depend on others to attribute qualities of power or value to you, when they, themselves, lack essences? There is nothing to guarantee that their perceptions are the right ones, or that they go deeper than your own.
I've come to see Nietzsche as a shaman who stopped registering his insights too soon. The death of god has broader implications than he outlined.about a minute ago ·
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I've always longed for a rite of passage, ever since my late teens/early twenties, when I felt like I really needed some kind of initiation into something. I eventually got that by writing my PhD, which was in a final, satisfying sense (because of the approach I chose and the way I chose to understand the theory, experimentally) a shamanistic initiation. I did, almost, go mad writing it.