Tuesday 28 June 2011

A Nietzsche Primer

I observe that US politics is basically made up of right wingers versus 'liberals", but that neither team avoids a fundamentally moral agenda in the majority. Morality is a way that actual political (i.e. definitively not "moral") forces manipulate the masses.
In actual fact, what is at stake with political manipulation is rarely morality, but power and wealth. Only later, (after such power has been well established), will "moral" justifications for the power also be fully consolidated (in a process akin to conditioning of the masses). So, justifying one's political goals in terms of morality would be at best a secondary mode of thinking that fails to observe the material advantages or disadvantages at stake. At worst, it is self-deception.

Gender differences and projection

1. Most people don't seem to realise how much they are projecting various qualities onto others. It's easy enough to do when people don't feel they need to deal with any repercussions for treating others in a very casual way and according to their own needs and feelings. The specific danger, I think, is that one goes along with others' programmes in order not to make waves. I have discovered from past experience that even a small amount of perceptual distortion, as a result of being who the other person expects you to be (rather than who you are) can have very great consequences.

2. Gender differences are overblown. So much of it is projective identification. If I treat you like a big man, it is quite likely you will use my energy to become one. By contrast, if you treat me like a sulky crybaby, because you think that is what estrogen "influences" me to be, it will be near impossible for me to convince you that I am otherwise.

Monday 27 June 2011

Shamanism or the Abrahamic religions: It's one OR the other!

Those whose implicitly embrace the tenets of the Abrahamic religions CANNOT understand Nietzsche nor shamanism. After all, why seek for answers concerning good or evil if the truth is already known?

In Western culture, it is particularly difficult for women to follow the Nietzschean/shamanistic way of truth seeking, because they are already cast as evil actors in the minds of those who embrace the notion that there are pre-existing truths. We easily appear suspicious.

"He who seeks may easily get lost himself. All isolation is wrong": so say the herd. And long did you belong to the herd. The voice of the herd will still echo in you. And when you say, "I have no longer a conscience in common with you," then will it be a lament and a pain. Behold, that pain would be created by that selfsame conscience; and the last glimmer of that conscience still glows in your affliction. But would you go the way of your affliction, which is the way to yourself? Then show me your authority and your strength to do so!

Saturday 25 June 2011

yo yanks

1. I've learned to be very wary of Americans because they are very emotional people, very invested in their self-images and not easily able to see a different cultural point of view, in my experience. As a female from a particularly stiff upper lip sort of culture, I find most Westerners misread me all the time. Because they are so used to wallowing in emotions of one sort or another (an article on Spielberg's way with movies put me onto that factor), they tend to assume that given my gender and my putative "Westernness", I oughta be a lot more emotional than they are -- hence, I must be hiding something or whatever. They need to realise that their propensity is not shared by everyone and that gender roles are a cultural construct.

2. I spent a lot of time working on being more "emotional" -- i.e. able to express vulnerability and joy. I've stopped now, because I realise it was partly, at least, an effort towards cultural adaptation -- which shouldn't be necessary. I do despise those people, though, who proclaim that I am "not what I seem". If they need to do a double take on me, perhaps to come up with the opposite view to their original perspective, they are not perceiving holistically enough to start with. 

Wednesday 22 June 2011

Postmodernism, Christianity, Nietzsche

Postmodernism, in general, constructs a situation of having a sense of movement and of going somewhere whilst not actually being able to move. Why is this?

Postmodernists will always have their own views as to what postmodernism(s) is(are) about. At the level of the capacity to espouse an intellectual idea, you will certainly see quite a bit of variation - as much as acquiescence to the systems of late Capitalism will allow.

At the level of actual behaviour, however, the capacity to adapt or transform one's situation seems to be limited by the fact that postmodernism(s) generally enjoy a philosophical blend that is an equal mix of Nietzsche and Christianity. Nietzsche and Christianity are, however, intrinsically opposed. One can dilute one's basic Christian attitude and disposition with some Nietzsche and this MAY improve your overall personality in terms of making your religious drives somewhat impotent. This is about as far as postmodernism goes, in my opinion.

As a particular example, consider how Nietzsche, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, notices that "up to now [revenge] has been mankind's chief concern". (Penguin 1961: 162) Nietzsche's Zarathustra counsels against this spirit of revenge -- and in it's place a mental state of affirmation.

Yet, herein we have a problem: there are those who would misread an injunction against 'revenge' as an injunction to remain passive, simply because Christianity has taught them over the ages to equate inaction (allowing the Lord to avenge one) with 'morality' -- and, also because religiously inspired action (that is mistaken for all kinds of action) is inevitably reactive rather than creative.

Christianity has so dominated the general culture's understanding of what it means to act (courageously, for instance), that it even gives Nietzsche's writings a false flavour of moral prohibition: Instead of "thou shalt act to morally justify oneself as being good Christians", the postmodernist who has internalized Christian values reads the Nietzschean injunction as: "thou shalt prohibit thyself from acting, since any acting only takes place on a moral basis -- and you ought to be above that."

So that is the danger of mixing Nietzsche and Christianity. It leads to a feeling that one is prohibited -- by morality, as it were -- to act. Nietzsche, however, holds that a noble person acts nobly, without any need for a specifically moral framework to give meaning or direction to one's actions. So that is the danger of mixing Nietzsche and Christianity. It leads to a feeling that one is prohibited -- by morality, as it were -- to act.

Nietzsche, however, holds that a noble person acts nobly, without any need for a specifically moral framework to give meaning or direction to one's actions. See the difference? It may seem small, but it is everything.

On appealing to Nature

The ways and means of Nature and the natural world are generally far broader than any of the metaphors we might selectively choose to illustrate our expectations of them.

That is why it's always very interesting to investigate the ideas of those who appeal to nature concerning how men and women should behave. It doesn't take much time to see that the lines they draw between what ought to be viewed as natural and what ought to be viewed otherwise are self-serving.

My view is that if anybody wants a return to Nature, they should be prepared to accept whatever nature serves up -- that is, without drawing any arbitrary delimitating lines on Nature. So, for instance, if the "zebras" are ganging up and preventing the "lions" from eating their prey (that is, to prevent them from raping them), then this, too, should be construed as "nature" -- meaning there is nothing you can do about it.

Thursday 16 June 2011

preaching passivity

It's the postmodernist core -- don't do anything because you risk making things worse and you will only become as bad as your oppressors, if not worse. Instead, focus on morally perfecting your soul so that you tolerate anything except those who have the mark of the beast on them (the former white colonialists). Be blind sheep, but do vent your hostility against the chosen targets, for they and they alone are evil personified.

Wednesday 15 June 2011

misconstructions of shamanism

Ah, fearless feeling. Make friends with all the emotions and layers of ego. Progress is not minimizing the murky stuff and maximizing the admirable stuff. Progress is authentically becoming aware of all the layers without judgment or fear. Yes! I am the greedy death-mongering capitalist. I am the weak-minded addict who cannot kick the habits of consuming industry's products. Yes, I am the shallow, self righteous bastard who thinks I've evolved because I learned the language of social activism. Now that is clear, I stand unafraid of my many layered self, ready to act from my expanding heart and internal mission. : )

44 minutes ago · Like

· http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/195471_675948032_1316261_q.jpg

Jennifer Armstrong Haha.

43 minutes ago · Like

· http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/195471_675948032_1316261_q.jpg

Jennifer Armstrong Well, I'm not entirely sure that this is progress. That is more like premature self-satisfaction, perhaps.

42 minutes ago · Like

· http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/161590_100000604291511_7519292_q.jpg

Pylon Jigme Can you fight within the dualism. Struggle against patriarchy, for instance, without becoming it's own antithesis (mirrored reflection)? For, indeed, that which you resist, persists.

35 minutes ago · Like

· http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/195471_675948032_1316261_q.jpg

Jennifer Armstrong Yeah, but you don't need to fight within metaphysical dualism. At the same time, you don't need to collapse yourself into a self-embracing narcissism, as indicated in your sentences above. The dualism you enter is between yourself and your self. http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/THUS_SPOKE_ZARATHUSTRA_.aspx?S=18

32 minutes ago · Like

· http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/195471_675948032_1316261_q.jpg

Jennifer Armstrong ‎...but of course, if you are superficial, you will interpret shamanistic injunctions superficially (and narcissistically) -- which is why Bataille's writing is deliberately ambiguous so as to lure all simple-minded narcissists to their death.

31 minutes ago · Like

· http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/161590_100000604291511_7519292_q.jpg

Pylon Jigme

‎~my personal heart meditation~
Phase 1: admit that all that is in the world is also in me. Phase 2: admit that none of us can completely avoid entanglement with systemic murkiness. Phase 3: feel inside your belly the connection you have wit
h all that is. Phase 4:know that some practices/behaviors Serve the self/whole better than others. Phase 5: know that all practices/behaviors have consequences and whatever you think or do is "practicing something" and "manifesting something". Phase 6: after practicing on the mountain top, do not stroll into the valley and slay the villagers. Phase 7: trust unified emergence. All of us are scout ants looking for the food source that will sustain the ant hill. As a whole, we will find the path. If we separate our hill into factions, we also separate ourselves within.

13 minutes ago · Like

· http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/195471_675948032_1316261_q.jpg

Jennifer Armstrong Ok. I'm not sure that has anything to do with intellectual shamanism, but it is a way of living which might serve to suit. I don't feel things particularly that way.

8 minutes ago · Like

· http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/195471_675948032_1316261_q.jpg

Jennifer Armstrong Yours sounds like a programme for moral propriety, moderation and nurturing self-awareness to the point of enhancing niceness.

8 seconds ago · Like

A response to some provocative questions about 'contemporary shamanism'

Jennifer Armstrong: I derived the idea of contemporary shamanism as a solution to bourgeois modes of consciousness; especially within Western culture (I'm not sure if there is a non-Western mode of consciousness that is properly bourgeois. The French revolution and its anti-aristocratic concept of progressivism is properly European, rather than deriving from other continents. The 'bourgeois revolution' per se engendered a particular psychological disposition and mode of consciousness that splits the mind and creates internal self-alienation.) But, let me go through and see if I can draw any relationships between the other spiritual traditions you have mentioned. I confess that I was not familiar with Malidoma Some or Fela Kuti before now – they are both very interesting.



>Contemporary Shamanic death – like “being hit by the 20th century train” or “coming home with a knife in your back” (Marechera-style) is an intriguing term. I would like to understand what you mean by it in reference to five other integrating experiences. How are they different/similar?

>1. Traditional Shamanic death (Malidoma Some – for instance)


My research has led me to suppose that shamanistic "death" is in fact a condition of shamanistic rebirth – and actually in terms of the innate psychological mechanisms that are activated, they are the same. I think, therefore, that traditional shamanism tapped into the knowledge that ego death was a process that invited (laid the ground for) spiritual rebirth. Perhaps not all experiences of ego death are productive. Some experiences may be so devastating that one does not recover from them – but in the case where one does, the condition that is bestowed is that of shamanistic initiation. One has learned a thing or two from the experience and has become wiser – although not in any tangible or intellectually obvious sense. It's more of an ontological shift – as subtle (but decisive) difference in one's sense of personality and identity.


>2. The hesychast’s “dark night of the soul” (Saint John of the Cross – for instance)


Christian mysticism does have some shamanistic elements, as with certain aspects of the character of Jesus. If one were to be left alone to find one's own way out of the "dark night of the soul", without any formal religious doctrine to direct one towards a pre-existing conclusion, I would equate that roughly with shamanism. Religious doctrines and dogmas, however, remove a fundamental dimension of shamanistic experience, which is that the initiate must find his or her way alone. One doesn't discover the true nature of life – that it is a thin membrane of consciousness stretched over an abyss – if one constructs a doctrine of salvation. Shamanism is, rather, a religion of the damned – more precisely, it is a religion FOR the damned. It is the eschewal of easy doctrines of hope and salvation, since by sacrificing hope one obtains one's shamanistic death – and rebirth.

>3. Traditional Buddhism’s (non-dualistic meditations of death and impermanence)

Yes, I think shamanism is very close to some aspects of Buddhism, especially those you mention. Of course, once again, it is not the same as Buddhism to the degree that Buddhism becomes doctrinaire or offers a way to salvation, for instance through reincarnation or moral perfection.


>4. The angst and ecstasy of Fela Kuti’s music

From the very little I read, I would say there could be a strong link. Music itself is very much linked to shamanism. The beat of the drum is supposed to regulate the shaman's soul journey.


>5. The authenticity of Che Gevara’s life?

I don't want to make too much of this link, because Guevara has been so obviously coopted by Western culture as representative of a kind of pop psychology revolutionary ideal. Also, the tendency to elevate one person above another as a prime example of a particular condition goes against the grain of shamanism, which is an equal-opportunity pathway. To put it another way, it is everybody's birthright to return to the womb and to be reborn. The results of such shamanic initiation will vary widely. For some, perhaps it will make of them revolutionaries. Others will becomes something entirely different. Death and rebirth leads to a certain fearlessness and contempt for conformity – but there are different levels of this experience and different outcomes from tapping into the deeper parts of one's psyche. The process of death and rebirth taps into pre-existing innate propensities. If those propensities are healthy, one can become a much better person. It is not beyond reason to think that some people might become worse as a result of initiation – they might tap into previously hidden qualities of hatred or resentment. In general, I think the process of death and rebirth makes one more aware of what one is – and therefore enhances authenticity.



>As far as “Body self-awareness” and “corporate-existence awareness” – both the inter-layering of existential/psychological and social/political seem to exist in all of these above mentioned experiences once high levels of integration are achieved.

Yes, in general, although doctrinaire elements can interfere with this.



>The apparent contradiction in the personalities and views of characters in Marechera’s writings – I agree that this is not likely a post-modern inclusivism? Could it also be explained by an Asian view of existence that accepts two apparently conflicting views as “truth” (both – and) rather than the classical occidental view of (either – or)? Could all existence be a form of layered consciousness that is continually emerging and once confined by words, can never really be captured in its fullness? Thus Marechera’s apparent contradictory affects; is it possible that he is not pointing to political “rights” and “wrongs” as much as an “emergence” of what best serves us as a global community? A “praxis”, wherein we begin with a conscious path, find sticking points, evaluate the consequential effects, and navigate again with our new learning (A Hegelian dialectic, if you will).



I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, but I do think that ideological filters of consciousness make us see personalities and behaviour as more consistent than they are. It is to Marechera's credit that he saw more of the inconsistencies. I have noticed, for instance, that Western psychology, in particular, deems that we are all "identities" with particular categorical definitions. Consequently, if I act outside of the expectations regarding my particular identity, many people in Western society are quick to offer ad hoc explanations as to why my behaviour, whilst seeming not to conform to the definition I am supposed to be, nonetheless approximates a certain kind of conformity. To be able to understand that identity is merely a subjective, ideological construct is perhaps the quintessential shamanistic insight. The ad hoc explanations are supposed to save us from stress, by making the world seem more logical and predictable than it is. Therefore, one must face one's own fears and a lot of stress, to realise that reality has a form that goes beyond our expectations of it. In an existential sense, this is really the substance of shamanistic death and rebirth.


>What is it like for you to experience your own shamanism via program of “scholastic-speak”? Do you experience any colonization because of the paradigm you have chosen t express your experience?

Scholastic speak doesn't lend itself very well to communicating the shamanistic experience, but then very little of ordinary communication is capable of communicating such a thing. Georges Bataille makes much of the fact that non-ordinary forms of communication are required.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Monday 13 June 2011

the gay Syrian blogger hoax

I haven't been following the story the gay Syrian blogger all that closely, but my initial impressions were that it appealed to the very Western construct of identity politics. To make a stand in the name of one's right to have a particular identity held little interest for me. In Zimbabwe, issues of social justice are far more fundamental than those concerning identity per se. For instance, women don't fight for the right to be respected as "women" and to be given "choices" so much as they fight for the right not to be subjected to systematic violence. The two approaches might seem similar or almost the same, but in the first instance one is fighting for the validation of a concept, whereas in the second instance, one's fight is far more practical (and the nature of the fight is often pragmatic, rather than theoretical.)

reflection

Sometimes it can be very useful indeed to refresh one's memory as to how misogyny tends to function. Otherwise, one can doubt one's original perceptions.

Yesterday, I engaged with two misogynists who had no idea they were misogynists. One of the cases was more complicated than the other. The simpler case proved to be most instructive, because it clarified for me that much misogyny originates with the type of male eros that 'needs' an external source of emotion in order to feel gratified. This is why the formula that women are emotional and men are rational is so hard to move. Empirical evidence points otherwise in all sorts of ways, but nonetheless a certain kind of male's drive to feel that his intelligence ought to be reflected in an emotional pool, deemed to be "woman", is very strong and thoroughly blinding.

Initiation: what it implies

An initiation ritual does something to your character structure --it adds something and it takes something away, making one's destiny more fated, more certain. My PhD was like that for me, because I wrote it in such a way as to take seriously Nietzsche's injunction, "live dangerously". This meant that my thinking was very independent indeed and far from academic assistance. The way this changed me was that I gained a hell of a lot of self respect. I established my right to be thoroughly independent. What I lost through the thesis process was the sense that I was a particularly special person in some shape or form, or that my ego amounted to very much. I was much more gratified to be counted in the ranks of those who have thought and acted dangerously. I mean, bravely.

Tuesday 7 June 2011

psychopathology, "soul loss" and shamanism

I'm not sure how accurate the information is below, but it does resonate with the shamanistic idea of regression to infancy in order to cure pathology (termed "soul loss"):


--------------------------------------
Note: this text is from:

Only in neuroscience is there true hope for these incomplete people. The key lies in awakening the cerebral cortex of the brain, which is risky because sociopaths are much more prone to seizures than the rest of the population, and that -- an uncontrolled blast of electrical discharge spreading through the brain and causing violent convulsions -- is likely to be the first response from brain pathways that, after years or even decades of silence, are suddenly flooded with impulses.

But if the devices of neurosurgeons can be tweaked to avoid this shock, and all else related to this idea is workable, it's feasible that small electronic devices planted in the brain (these already exist, but are not yet being used for mental illness) could open up a closed connection.

That leaves us with the problem of whether a lifetime of scattered information can ever be set into order. Probably the best that could be hoped for would be a kind of retraining -- like what is now done with stroke survivors and head injury patients -- that would be both intensive and compensatory.

One of the things that would be necessary would be to try to socialize the person whose congenital birth defect made such a thing completely impossible before.

Whatever intervention is used, be it drugs or computer chips or what have you, it would probably -- I'd say certainly -- be excruciating for the patient at first.

With no knowledge of how to cope with the emotions the rest of the world has been dealing with all their lives, the recovering sociopath would be rendered as vulnerable as a baby.

Which makes sense, because some of the most basic aspects of the human mind would be developing from the primordial stasis in which they had remained since birth!

A person thus treated would never be fully normal, but the human brain is amazing in the way it adapts and continues to develop all through life.

And given the utterly joyless and meaningless existence a sociopath leads, any improvement is better than none.

The matter of missing neurotransmitters in a sociopath is, of course, another problem. Would "waking up" the cerebral cortex eventually stimulate production of these? Or would they have to be synthesized?

Only time will tell.
Shallow affect when no one's paying attention to them Cold, dead eyes Possibly very charming Deceit and manipulation are key features

Note: There are comments associated with this question. See the discussion page to add to the conversation.



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_if_someone_is_a_sociopath#ixzz1Oahg0utC

anti-feminism and the ultimate object of masculine fear (woman)

And I had done a hellish thing,
And it would work 'em woe:
For all averred, I had killed the bird
That made the breeze to blow.
Ah wretch! said they, the bird to slay,
That made the breeze to blow!

Nor dim nor red, like God's own head,
The glorious sun uprist:
Then all averred, I had killed the bird
That brought the fog and mist.
'Twas right, said they, such birds to slay,
That bring the fog and mist.

The fair breeze blew, the white foam flew,
The furrow followed free;
We were the first that ever burst
Into that silent sea.

Down dropped the breeze, the sails dropped down,
'Twas sad as sad could be;
And we did speak only to break
The silence of the sea!

All in a hot and copper sky,
The bloody sun, at noon,
Right up above the mast did stand,
No bigger than the moon.

Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean

Monday 6 June 2011

Anti-feminists: naive and self-defeating

1. Anti-feminists themselves convinced me that their position had no value or credibility. This is specifically in the sense that they want to side with those who appear to them to be 'dominant', in order to borrow their power. But, those whom they select to emulate have an agenda of their own (and a mind of their own) that these mimicking males do not take into account, due to the very abstract nature of their thinking about gender. You can't just side with a male and expect him to work on behalf of you and against women, because of your gender. He has his own (a)gender and you will get flogged.



2. The men are locked in a Freudian contradiction. As Lacan points out, rather obliquely, a traditionally feminine woman does not exist; cannot exist. Femininity is a lack of existence in the sense that it is a lack of backbone.
He said: "Woman does not exist."

Traditional femininity is roughly equivalent to women being turned into emotional slush -- the residue of personhood but without the contents. When men say that this is what they want us to return to, I don't believe they understand what they think they want. Imagine the return of the harridan, the harpie, the hysteric?

Wednesday 1 June 2011

What is the difference between shamanism and other kinds of teaching?

One key point that defines what shamanism is or isn't.

Shamanism embraces a state of primeval innocence. Moral systems require that one embrace a system of knowledge. Shamanism differs from all other forms of philosophy or ideology that gain their authority on the basis of morality. Shamanism is the recalcitrant younger brother or sister of the system that demands moral authority, because it retains its naivety so as to remain true to itself. Whereas most religious systems proclaim a teaching about what good and evil, shamanism is a return to a state of being wherein such knowledge has not yet come into existence.

Hear Nietzsche, through his "prophet" Zarathustra:

WHEN I VISITED MEN, I FOUND THEM SITTING UPON AN OLD SELF-CONCEIT. EACH ONE THOUGHT HE HAD LONG SINCE KNOWN WHAT WAS GOOD AND EVIL FOR MAN. ALL TALK OF VIRTUE SEEMED TO THEM AN ANCIENT WEARIED AFFAIR; AND HE WHO WISHED TO SLEEP WELL SPOKE OF `GOOD' AND `EVIL' BEFORE RETIRING. I DISTURBED THIS SOMNOLENCE WHEN I TAUGHT THAT NOBODY YET KNOWS WHAT IS GOOD AND EVIL -- UNLESS IT BE THE CREATOR! [Zarathustra].

A shaman embraces "non-knowledge" with regard to everything previously known, in order to open the doors of the perception to the world anew. She in effect creates the world anew through her new manner of perception.

Cultural barriers to objectivity