It is often said that narcissism, the creation of a false self, has its origins in feelings of deep, personal shame: a glib, but socially dexterous self is formulated to operate in lieu of the deeper, emotional self, of which one is said to have become ashamed.
But why is the deep self denied in the first place? To be ashamed of one's naked self might seem like a rational and reasonable reaction, but to me this deeper sense of shame defines the Western character as distinct from others, which is to say it seems to be a peculiarly Western characteristic. Others feel shame, but certainly not so profoundly, for not everyone seeks to replace the emotional underlay of existence with a an entirely different moral persona.
In the case of the Westerner, the real self is sacrificed, not with the intent of personal self-aggrandizement, but rather at the altar of morality. Deep shame wishes to annihilate itself by moral perfection. Appraising one's naked self as fundamentally sinful necessitates the construction of a false self, to represent moral perfection.
The death of the underlying emotional entity is fundamentally Christian. It may pertain to all of the Abrahamic religions, but I restrict myself to what I know. The Westerner feels excessive shame and therefore he does what he feels necessary, which is to kill completely kill his sense of shame. He may take pharmaceutical drugs to achieve this, but above all he embraces morality as a law. Freud, following in Nietzsche's steps, rightly condemned the rigid moral formalism of Kant as "the Oedipus complex" -- adherence to guilt as if it could become a formula for right living.
Shame in nakedness is our normative, primeval position, but this becomes replaced by guilt as a guiding factor. Shame still can operate as a moral compass in those who haven't lost it. But the Westerner's shame in himself is so great that he denies his animal self in preference of formal morality.
It may seem that little of value is lost in the way the Western psychological structure is orchestrated. What the Christian has lost is his primeval self, but he seems to have replaced it with a moral identity. Perhaps there is not so much wrong with that? He had got rid of conscious shame, at least, although unconsciously the burning still is intense, and henceforth he operates in relation to formal, moral demands, which make life simpler. He has got rid of his emotional, reactive self, but he has lost his inner compass.
For non-Western, non-Christian people, primeval shame was never so intense that they had to take extreme action and become self-murderers. Rather, the ones who ever feel this way are those who have viewed themselves as sinners. When the, shame was overwhelming, they killed their emotional awareness by embracing a redemptive system. Christian dogmatism or Kantianism or the redemption narrative of policing others locked them out from self-awareness.
But what is lost in the erasure of self-awareness for the sake of moral absolutism? The fundamental casualty is the whole realm of personal experience and trust. The deep Christian dare not trust his personal experience, for all of his experiences are orchestrated on the basis of his need to deny the intensity of his deep shame. Had his fundamental shame been less intense, he would not have lost touch with it to an extreme degree. He would still have it as his compass.
To have a compass is to experience a world of wonder. To allow it to speak for one and through one is an expression of primeval nature. Shame is never eradicated but why should it have to be, when it's a gentle lever?
I move through life on the basis of my shame and shames. My fundamental shame gives me a sense of northern baring. My shames are subtler indicators of particular experiences as they relate to aspects of my character. Because I haven't lost my sensitivity to original shame, I operate effectively in the realm of instinct.
I've met countless people who do not understand the operations of instinct. Someone might say to me, "Oh, you met some guy online and you've been together for over ten years! Didn't you take a risk to meet someone in that way?" When I hear such exclamations, I am not sure what they're angling at, for I operated on the basis of primeval instinct and therefore there was almost no risk. Had I tried something outside of my abilities, it could have ended differently, but why try that? Don't I have an intricate sense of shame?
Shame is my compass and it is inextricably intertwined with my sensations of enjoyment. When I engage in martial arts or other warlike activities, my shame decreases and my joyfulness expands. Should I restrict myself to detailed work or follow rituals that are narrow or routine, my shame cannot be easily contained. I learn that these tasks aren't advisable for me. Thus, I avoid them. My instincts carve a path for me. To not do what I am cut out for would make me inclined to hang my head.
Not to have this basis for self-knowledge that is shame would be entirely awful. I would have no relationship, but would be adrift on a sea of indecisiveness, waiting for the next professed expert to point me on my way. I'd have to trust them as I wouldn't really be able to tell what was right or wrong. My instincts would have atrophied, which would have necessitated an endless search for a strong, externally existing commanding power to give my life a purpose.
More: http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/the-loss-of-basis-for-shamanic-doubling.html
But why is the deep self denied in the first place? To be ashamed of one's naked self might seem like a rational and reasonable reaction, but to me this deeper sense of shame defines the Western character as distinct from others, which is to say it seems to be a peculiarly Western characteristic. Others feel shame, but certainly not so profoundly, for not everyone seeks to replace the emotional underlay of existence with a an entirely different moral persona.
In the case of the Westerner, the real self is sacrificed, not with the intent of personal self-aggrandizement, but rather at the altar of morality. Deep shame wishes to annihilate itself by moral perfection. Appraising one's naked self as fundamentally sinful necessitates the construction of a false self, to represent moral perfection.
The death of the underlying emotional entity is fundamentally Christian. It may pertain to all of the Abrahamic religions, but I restrict myself to what I know. The Westerner feels excessive shame and therefore he does what he feels necessary, which is to kill completely kill his sense of shame. He may take pharmaceutical drugs to achieve this, but above all he embraces morality as a law. Freud, following in Nietzsche's steps, rightly condemned the rigid moral formalism of Kant as "the Oedipus complex" -- adherence to guilt as if it could become a formula for right living.
Shame in nakedness is our normative, primeval position, but this becomes replaced by guilt as a guiding factor. Shame still can operate as a moral compass in those who haven't lost it. But the Westerner's shame in himself is so great that he denies his animal self in preference of formal morality.
It may seem that little of value is lost in the way the Western psychological structure is orchestrated. What the Christian has lost is his primeval self, but he seems to have replaced it with a moral identity. Perhaps there is not so much wrong with that? He had got rid of conscious shame, at least, although unconsciously the burning still is intense, and henceforth he operates in relation to formal, moral demands, which make life simpler. He has got rid of his emotional, reactive self, but he has lost his inner compass.
For non-Western, non-Christian people, primeval shame was never so intense that they had to take extreme action and become self-murderers. Rather, the ones who ever feel this way are those who have viewed themselves as sinners. When the, shame was overwhelming, they killed their emotional awareness by embracing a redemptive system. Christian dogmatism or Kantianism or the redemption narrative of policing others locked them out from self-awareness.
But what is lost in the erasure of self-awareness for the sake of moral absolutism? The fundamental casualty is the whole realm of personal experience and trust. The deep Christian dare not trust his personal experience, for all of his experiences are orchestrated on the basis of his need to deny the intensity of his deep shame. Had his fundamental shame been less intense, he would not have lost touch with it to an extreme degree. He would still have it as his compass.
To have a compass is to experience a world of wonder. To allow it to speak for one and through one is an expression of primeval nature. Shame is never eradicated but why should it have to be, when it's a gentle lever?
I move through life on the basis of my shame and shames. My fundamental shame gives me a sense of northern baring. My shames are subtler indicators of particular experiences as they relate to aspects of my character. Because I haven't lost my sensitivity to original shame, I operate effectively in the realm of instinct.
I've met countless people who do not understand the operations of instinct. Someone might say to me, "Oh, you met some guy online and you've been together for over ten years! Didn't you take a risk to meet someone in that way?" When I hear such exclamations, I am not sure what they're angling at, for I operated on the basis of primeval instinct and therefore there was almost no risk. Had I tried something outside of my abilities, it could have ended differently, but why try that? Don't I have an intricate sense of shame?
Shame is my compass and it is inextricably intertwined with my sensations of enjoyment. When I engage in martial arts or other warlike activities, my shame decreases and my joyfulness expands. Should I restrict myself to detailed work or follow rituals that are narrow or routine, my shame cannot be easily contained. I learn that these tasks aren't advisable for me. Thus, I avoid them. My instincts carve a path for me. To not do what I am cut out for would make me inclined to hang my head.
Not to have this basis for self-knowledge that is shame would be entirely awful. I would have no relationship, but would be adrift on a sea of indecisiveness, waiting for the next professed expert to point me on my way. I'd have to trust them as I wouldn't really be able to tell what was right or wrong. My instincts would have atrophied, which would have necessitated an endless search for a strong, externally existing commanding power to give my life a purpose.
More: http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/the-loss-of-basis-for-shamanic-doubling.html
No comments:
Post a Comment