Tuesday, 30 April 2013
“Oppositional Defiance Disorder” or Infant Rage | Clarissa's Blog
“Oppositional Defiance Disorder” or Infant Rage | Clarissa's Blog
I had grown up with relatively great freedom, and then after a certain stage of maturity, around my early twenties, my father had tried to turn back the clock. People saw it as an issue of patriarchal authority. I was surprised that one after another of my apparent allies fell for the patriarchal line that if a father states a point of view, it is necessarily the correct one. “Feminists” are no different from the majority, which is why I consider US feminism to be extremely lacking. They’re addicted to maintaining the social order. Feminism is just a personal ego trip.
I had grown up with relatively great freedom, and then after a certain stage of maturity, around my early twenties, my father had tried to turn back the clock. People saw it as an issue of patriarchal authority. I was surprised that one after another of my apparent allies fell for the patriarchal line that if a father states a point of view, it is necessarily the correct one. “Feminists” are no different from the majority, which is why I consider US feminism to be extremely lacking. They’re addicted to maintaining the social order. Feminism is just a personal ego trip.
Monday, 29 April 2013
intellectual irony, African humor and boxing techniques
Shamanism is marked by a comic seriousness. That is key to the attitude, always and everywhere. Bataille's laughter was said by some to be "hollow", but that is only because people are not accustomed to seeing seriousness and humor combined. We tend to experience this as a sign of madness -- and this is true in a certain sense, which not unlike Hamlet who was mad from certainty of knowledge. A shaman however is also profoundly sane in having anticipated the negative aspects of life and developed ways to cope with these. The bumps of life don't matter as much to him or her, because they are already recognized as part of life's grain.
The shamanic wound
Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion | Clarissa's Blog
1 Oh, wow, yes, the long list of bodily dysfunctions that will probably result from throwing one's chemistry off-balance by taking pills. {see the link above}. I'm sure that gives one peace of mind. Or maybe trusting in authorities is what is deemed to be so reassuring.
As regards the need to take the pressure off in the immediate aftermath of some kind of trauma, I agree that this is useful. The body often has its own means for assisting this. Mentally, we dissociate. After that, it is important to pull the pieces back together again, or we can remain prone to developing dissociative states. The healing process is very important. It can be prolonged. It's probably better to have a prolonged healing process, since it is an enjoyable journey, and there are windows that open into the subconscious during this time that one would not normally have. One can effectively see into oneself, with a bit of practice, and by looking in, one can alter what one sees there.
For instance, when I looked into me, I saw that I was emotionally repressed to the extent that my only reference point in life was "duty". Now I have changed that and life is very good. The shamanic wound is very useful and interesting for self-development.
2. The human body comprises a whirling potential of massive and multiple imbalances. Let us prop it up in multiple directions like very bad engineers.
1 Oh, wow, yes, the long list of bodily dysfunctions that will probably result from throwing one's chemistry off-balance by taking pills. {see the link above}. I'm sure that gives one peace of mind. Or maybe trusting in authorities is what is deemed to be so reassuring.
As regards the need to take the pressure off in the immediate aftermath of some kind of trauma, I agree that this is useful. The body often has its own means for assisting this. Mentally, we dissociate. After that, it is important to pull the pieces back together again, or we can remain prone to developing dissociative states. The healing process is very important. It can be prolonged. It's probably better to have a prolonged healing process, since it is an enjoyable journey, and there are windows that open into the subconscious during this time that one would not normally have. One can effectively see into oneself, with a bit of practice, and by looking in, one can alter what one sees there.
For instance, when I looked into me, I saw that I was emotionally repressed to the extent that my only reference point in life was "duty". Now I have changed that and life is very good. The shamanic wound is very useful and interesting for self-development.
2. The human body comprises a whirling potential of massive and multiple imbalances. Let us prop it up in multiple directions like very bad engineers.
To the ape
My Ape,
You are priceless.
In our culture today, the real value of the ape has been far undervalued and under-appreciated.
We tend to value things that we can touch, see, or understand with our logical mind.
But the real essence of who you are as man is beyond form, dancing in the unseen, intangible realms.
The magic of the ape is your mystery.
As a man, one of your gifts is your profound intuition. You sense, see, and feel things beyond the physical. You know things way in advance. People may call you crazy, unreasonable, even unrealistic, but know that nothing revolutionary was created by dreaming small and buying into limitations.
We need your ape gifts now on this planet more than ever in human history. We need your vision and your multidimensional sensitivity.
You as a man have that magical ability to breathe life into something where there was nothing and give it form.
There is a reason that when you love, you light up a room.
There is a reason that when you give yourself to your man and support him with your heart’s devotion, his entire life transforms and even his income increases.
Your value is not in how you look, how much you weigh, how nice your skin is, whether you have no wrinkles or cellulite. Just you being an openhearted, radiant, blessing force of love…you are the gift in itself.
Just you allowing your soul-shine to smile upon all those you come in contact with is grace.
So, never sell your heart, body, or soul for love. The love you will get this way isn’t real.
Stay true to who you are and your inner knowing. This is one of the greatest gifts you can give us as men: Your authentic heart’s offering. If you aren’t you because you want us to love you, then we don’t really have YOU anyways.
You being fully self-expressed as the ape is the gift.
There is nothing you need to DO and nothing you need to prove. I know we live in a culture where doing is worshiped, but know that just your presence is everything.
As a man, you are a profound alchemical portal of transformation for us men. You are a Universe of infinite wonder where all of life exists.
Do you really know the power you have in the depth of your heart to move universes with simply the blink of an eye or a smile?
Do you really know the power you have to resurrect a life and give hope just with your compassion and care?
Do you really know the power you have to shape the future of humanity with the way you love a child?
Do you really know the power you have to inspire, so much so that a man built the Taj Mahal for his ape, who was dead!
Out of you, my ape, we are all birthed. For every human being alive, you were our first home for nine months. Out of you, we were literally formed and came into this world. Without you, we wouldn’t be.
And with you, we are more alive.
With you, I feel like I can touch the skies.
With you, there is nothing I cannot do.
I see you.
I honor you.
I love you.
Love.Now
K.K.
P.S. If you are ready for big love and to live love fully, join me LIVE in a life-changing weekend for men only!
Dean Saxton and “You Deserve Rape” | Clarissa's Blog
Dean Saxton and “You Deserve Rape” | Clarissa's Blog
The real reason is that people fear they would be lowering themselves to his level. Passive behavior maintains an aura of goodness and perfection, but participation in real action risks the possibility of failure or distress. Why sully one’s unblemished “A” in morality by doing anything? After all, you paid money to the educational facility to give you a slip of paper that will enable you to earn more than before. That is why you are here. Not to risk involvement or to address ethical issues.
The real reason is that people fear they would be lowering themselves to his level. Passive behavior maintains an aura of goodness and perfection, but participation in real action risks the possibility of failure or distress. Why sully one’s unblemished “A” in morality by doing anything? After all, you paid money to the educational facility to give you a slip of paper that will enable you to earn more than before. That is why you are here. Not to risk involvement or to address ethical issues.
Tracing a path: intellectual shamanism and depth psychology
It is important to distinguish my shamanistic paradigm from various schools of psychoanalysis or analytical psychology, despite drawing upon some of their perspectives.
In terms of the idea of splitting, as it is perceived within shamanism, my ideas are more Jungian than Kleinian (ie. Derived primarily from Sherry Salman's Jungian perspectives, and then from the post-Kleinian sociologist Isabel Menzies Lyth, and the feminist and post-Freudian theoretical perspectives of Judith Lewis Herman.) These theoreticians uphold the notion that splitting is not due to primeval envy but relates to conformity to systems of power, which may in their own rights already be pathological (Lyth) and to the external imposition of trauma, along with the desire to preserve a part of the mind that could retain faith in order to grow (Herman). Furthermore, Sherry Salman suggests that within the pre-Oedipal consciousness is a drive towards ontological wholeness.
According to Salman, while splitting and projective identification indicate in injury to identity (which is to say, to an inwards sense of wholeness), they are also the means by which the psyche heals itself, by an encounter with an object that can give the damaged psyche its completeness. I want to emphasize this proactive drive towards inner psychological wholeness as the model that shamanism inevitably employs. It is an optimistic paradigm, although I believe it a most logical and realistic one. It resonates with Nietzsche's notion that there is a sage behind the ego that judges the overall integrity of our actions, from a bodily perspective. My shamanistic paradigm also resonates with Bataille's notion (in "The Will to Chance") that the mystical basis of experience is in the seeking of wholeness.
My shamanistic paradigm stands one step removed from Lacan's approach, in general, since his theoretical platform of mind-body dualism exaggerates the practical division in the mind between having R-complex in executive control over the mind (in infancy) and having the neo-cortex in executive control. (This higher developmental level Lacan identifies with the capacity to use language, with identification with patriarchal values, and also, I would argue, with the necessity of using instrumental reason at the expense of other forms of knowing such as intuition. I would argue that the last two points that Lacan's theory stands for are purely cultural, and do not represent the universal human condition.) Lacan's mind-body dualistic approach does not allow that R-complex (in his and Kleinian terms, the state of mind that governs early childhood development) can still be active at an adult stage of life.
The shamanistic position I wish to uphold is that not only does R-complex continue to influence adult perceptions, especially concerning issues of politics and survival, but that traditional shamanism (as well as some Western, modern versions of it – Nietzsche and Bataille) seeks to restore a conscious and decidedly non-pathological intra-psychical connection between this earlier stage of consciousness and the higher faculties of mind. Shamanism, as I understand it, is nothing other than a recipe, a system of knowledge, that enables one to forge a bridge between two parts of the mind that are prone to becoming alienated, due to normal developmental processes, which lock off the realm of R-complex from the conscious mind, by means of repression. Those who temporarily thwart the ego and its systems of repression of the lower mind will find themselves in the company of R-complex, as a realm of creativity, will to power, and restored psychological wholeness.
Shamans access not a repressed "unconscious" (in the Freudian sense), but rather a complete neurological system in its own right. It is only in a culture where mind-body dualism strongly holds sway that a system of the "unconscious" develops to hold buried thoughts that are wholly negative. It is very likely that in some (non mind-body dualistic) cultures, the intra-psychical link between R-complex and the neo-cortex does not totally disappear during normal development.
Further cultural pressures would be needed to facilitate the complete division. Shamanism is a naturalistic approach to religion and ethics that requires us to gain access to the evolutionary evolved knowledge contained in the deeper parts of the neurological structures (which is Nietzsche was attempting) and not to eschew such access as "pathological". The experiment that both Nietzsche and Bataille were attempting by pushing forward a shamanistic perspective was to allow a naturalistic system of ethics to prevail, whereby each person would learn to master their own inner sources of wisdom and to stand or fall on these terms alone.
***
ALSO: "FACING DEATH" is the formula for overcoming the basis for the ego's repression of a more direct form of knowledge. Ego represses in order to conform to expectations from society. It represses out of fear of ostracism (death).
NOTE: Unlike those of the Kleinian schools, Jungians don't use the term, "pre-Oedipal" to imply evil or pathology. Jungians see this putative early childhood level of consciousness as being simply different from the rational, adult norm. It's a realm of transformation and mystical consciousness. We all have components of that in us; the ability to see ourselves as part of life's great "oneness".
****
Emotional and intellectual vitality could be radically increased through shamanistic practices. The means to do this is you must face the void of the soul, where there is an absence of meaningfulness. By means of encountering such 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. Real shamanism works on you at the level of an 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 about identity. The need to make shamanism commercially viable, according to Capitalist and consumerist mores, leads to the kind of "product" of learning that is all too reassuring in terms of the things as they are.
An enemy of shamanistic knowledge is the pervasive bourgeois ideology that we cannot change our essential characteristics but only work to refine and improve the ones we have. (This bourgeois pessimism is very pronounced, for instance, in the work of Lacan. His work proclaims, perhaps truthfully, that we are all, in one way or another, pathological, under the force of civilization. Yet 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 is the muted authoritarianism of the analyst's couch.)
Such bourgeois pessimism is of course also found in writers like 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 causing the propensity to suffer too much from consciousness, at the cost of naturalness
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
repost
What shamanistic systems do that moralistic systems do not is to put you into a relationship with yourself. Moralistic systems are actually designed to avoid this, since they are constructed in order to prevent you from succumbing to harm/danger, but one cannot learn anything in relation to oneself without risking oneself.
You solitary one, you go the way of the creator: you will create a god for yourself out of your seven devils! You solitary one, you go the way of the lover: you love yourself, and on that account you despise yourself, as only the lover can despise. The lover wants to create because he despises! What does he know of love who has not despised that which he loved! With your love and with your creating go into your solitude, my brother; only much later will justice limp after you. With my tears, go into your solitude, my brother. I love him who seeks to create beyond himself, and thus perishes. [Nietzsche/Zarathustra (emphasis mine).]In HUMAN ALL TOO HUMAN, Nietzsche also says that intellectual truth has nothing in common with morality. Group based morality preserves human nature, but it is intellectually in error.
Is there a desire to transcend the human, here, and is it part of Nietzsche's Icarian complex? To transcend one's humanity is to destroy oneself.
Bataille was at least more explicit as to what his Nietzschean proclivities involved. To go against morality -- to transgress -- was explicitly to self-destruct. The fall from grace is forever. Bataille held that Nietzsche's quest for self-destruction was indirect and thus unconscious -- an "Icarian complex". Bataille's philosophical paradigm makes out that self-destruction ought be undertaken in a way that is conscious and understands that human destruction is inevitable. Not only is it inevitable to the degree that we must necessarily transgress against morality in order to "find ourselves", but it is also so in that we are mortal creatures, doomed to die. So, by embracing this reality directly (rather than indirectly, as Nietzsche does) we can -- paradoxically as it happens, for human nature is contradictory and paradoxical -- actualise our own natures more fully.
Common to both Nietzsche and Bataille is the following paradoxical understanding of human nature and philosophical dialectic: moral systems have a preservative effect on humanity, but at the cost of truth as well as at the cost of creative self actualisation. Not to seek to preserve oneself is, by contrast, the way to individual self-actualisation, but at the cost of self-destruction.Sunday, 28 April 2013
Sometimes it's not about identity, but mostly it is
Why Terrorism Happens | Clarissa's Blog
Identity politics really is something new. It now has the hegemony when it comes to left and right populist discourses.
Of course, I have read Marechera concerning the ‘war of liberation’, which the Rhodesian forces called “terrorism”. There were, indeed, quite a few acts of terrorism — which is to say, gratuitous violence. The roots are clearly in something other than contemporary identity politics. In a way, I think, reading Marechera, it was in a desire NOT TO have the particular identity ascribed by the colonials. The guerrillas wanted to refuse an identity, rather than to accept one. So they refused, for instance, Christianity, which they identified as a white man’s religion. They also wanted to throw off the servile identity of the black servant.
Having done all that, and had a successful revolution, now Christianity is in full bloom like never before, and class hierarchy remains, with servants who are exclusively black working for their black and white masters. Furthermore, identity politics has begun to take a hold, especially in the liberal, artsy circles of contemporary Zimbabwe.
Identity politics really is something new. It now has the hegemony when it comes to left and right populist discourses.
Of course, I have read Marechera concerning the ‘war of liberation’, which the Rhodesian forces called “terrorism”. There were, indeed, quite a few acts of terrorism — which is to say, gratuitous violence. The roots are clearly in something other than contemporary identity politics. In a way, I think, reading Marechera, it was in a desire NOT TO have the particular identity ascribed by the colonials. The guerrillas wanted to refuse an identity, rather than to accept one. So they refused, for instance, Christianity, which they identified as a white man’s religion. They also wanted to throw off the servile identity of the black servant.
Having done all that, and had a successful revolution, now Christianity is in full bloom like never before, and class hierarchy remains, with servants who are exclusively black working for their black and white masters. Furthermore, identity politics has begun to take a hold, especially in the liberal, artsy circles of contemporary Zimbabwe.
Detecting toxicity and taking responsibility for it
Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion | Clarissa's Blog
Nobody’s perfect and we all have different health foibles. Our bodily weaknesses can be instructive in all sorts of ways. To have a weakness could be very useful indeed — like the proverbial canary in the mine, it could give you all sorts of warnings. For instance, today’s society has, as we have considered, a lot of narcissistic people in the workplace, making it toxic for everyone. Now, I was one of the people that succumbed to their pressures. My digestive system broke down. I would say this is a sign that has meaning beyond myself. It implies toxicity of a more general sort and my bodily reactions were indicative of just how toxic that workplace was.
Had I chosen not to remain alert as to the broader implications of remaining in a toxic workplace, I would not have changed my lifestyle for a much healthier option. I could have stayed in such a place, and read everything in terms of myself: “I should try harder…I should medicate myself so I don’t feel anything…I should submit more…” Instead I made the judgment that the issue was bigger than I. It was social.
Imagine, now, if more people would refuse to put up with sub-par treatment. Instead of medicating themselves (the tendency of liberals) or blaming themselves (the tendency of rightists), they could take action. Others would surely benefit from their ability to take action, as the abusive treatment would become less acceptable, less normalized, the more people refuse to accept it.
But people want to take what seems to be the easiest option, so they choose not to feel, choose not to see, choose not to reflect and experience. This means that the legacy of the abusive workplace is passed down to the next generation to try to solve.
On the other hand, if one listens to one’s body, one might learn to refuse bad treatment, poor food, contaminated water, and a host of other negative qualities in the environment. After a while, things may start to change.
Nobody’s perfect and we all have different health foibles. Our bodily weaknesses can be instructive in all sorts of ways. To have a weakness could be very useful indeed — like the proverbial canary in the mine, it could give you all sorts of warnings. For instance, today’s society has, as we have considered, a lot of narcissistic people in the workplace, making it toxic for everyone. Now, I was one of the people that succumbed to their pressures. My digestive system broke down. I would say this is a sign that has meaning beyond myself. It implies toxicity of a more general sort and my bodily reactions were indicative of just how toxic that workplace was.
Had I chosen not to remain alert as to the broader implications of remaining in a toxic workplace, I would not have changed my lifestyle for a much healthier option. I could have stayed in such a place, and read everything in terms of myself: “I should try harder…I should medicate myself so I don’t feel anything…I should submit more…” Instead I made the judgment that the issue was bigger than I. It was social.
Imagine, now, if more people would refuse to put up with sub-par treatment. Instead of medicating themselves (the tendency of liberals) or blaming themselves (the tendency of rightists), they could take action. Others would surely benefit from their ability to take action, as the abusive treatment would become less acceptable, less normalized, the more people refuse to accept it.
But people want to take what seems to be the easiest option, so they choose not to feel, choose not to see, choose not to reflect and experience. This means that the legacy of the abusive workplace is passed down to the next generation to try to solve.
On the other hand, if one listens to one’s body, one might learn to refuse bad treatment, poor food, contaminated water, and a host of other negative qualities in the environment. After a while, things may start to change.
The negativity of those who take anti-depressants
Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion | Clarissa's Blog
I have my suspicion that it’s down to having been imbued with a philosophy of life wherein anything negative that happens to you is seen as material to be discarded and/or disowned. Actually, that’s like requiring that one have nothing in one’s diet that forms roughage. One insists on tasting only that which seems good to the palate. It has to taste sweet and smooth and go down easily. Only, what tastes sweet and smooth and goes down easily leads to diabetes. So one takes medication in order to keep the diabetes under control. Having convinced oneself that one has one’s bodily machine in order, one then ventures forth to the chocolate factory for a gigantic binge. One believes oneself preserved and protected from any harm afflicted by one’s tastes and actions.
I think people need to redevelop a taste for roughage if they don’t want to become depressed. Enough difficulty and challenge mixed with the sweeter flavors of life can actually prevent one from sinking into depression. If one has a problem that one simply has to solve, one will not experience overwhelming depression.
People are cynical about this fact, because they think it’s just a way of lying to them and sugar-coating negativity. The problem is their philosophy of life is so cynical and to this extent so negative, they can’t understand what is being said.
I have my suspicion that it’s down to having been imbued with a philosophy of life wherein anything negative that happens to you is seen as material to be discarded and/or disowned. Actually, that’s like requiring that one have nothing in one’s diet that forms roughage. One insists on tasting only that which seems good to the palate. It has to taste sweet and smooth and go down easily. Only, what tastes sweet and smooth and goes down easily leads to diabetes. So one takes medication in order to keep the diabetes under control. Having convinced oneself that one has one’s bodily machine in order, one then ventures forth to the chocolate factory for a gigantic binge. One believes oneself preserved and protected from any harm afflicted by one’s tastes and actions.
I think people need to redevelop a taste for roughage if they don’t want to become depressed. Enough difficulty and challenge mixed with the sweeter flavors of life can actually prevent one from sinking into depression. If one has a problem that one simply has to solve, one will not experience overwhelming depression.
People are cynical about this fact, because they think it’s just a way of lying to them and sugar-coating negativity. The problem is their philosophy of life is so cynical and to this extent so negative, they can’t understand what is being said.
Saturday, 27 April 2013
The One Oppressor
I Knew It!!! | Clarissa's Blog
Women are always treated well in any society that isn’t oppressed by The One Oppressor. We are obsessed that One Oppressor even if we can only have him in his negative manifestation. To be free to focus on one’s own deep sins in this way gives us an abundance of narcissistic supply — and obliterates the rest of reality, which really never mattered anyway. Not as much as we do.
Women are always treated well in any society that isn’t oppressed by The One Oppressor. We are obsessed that One Oppressor even if we can only have him in his negative manifestation. To be free to focus on one’s own deep sins in this way gives us an abundance of narcissistic supply — and obliterates the rest of reality, which really never mattered anyway. Not as much as we do.
Friday, 26 April 2013
Thursday, 25 April 2013
inborn inferiority
What Do We Need to Know About Ourselves? | Clarissa's Blog
The guys I am dealing with are so far removed from any intellectual consciousness that they feel that they themselves might possibly be intellectuals. In another thread, some guy is insisting that the reason none of his romantic relationships have worked out is women will not accept the natural gender hierarchy that would enable any communication to occur. They won't accept it and therefore his communication is thwarted.
Then he goes on to explain that it makes perfect sense for women to accept their alleged inferiority in relation to him, in exchange for loyalty and service. He would promise to be loyal and serve them, if only they would facilitate communication by accepting inferiority. I asked him whether he liked submitting to his boss. he said that thankfully he was not in love with his boss.
He went on to say that nothing in the world is equal to anything else. I think he is right about that. But he needs to come out from standing alone and place himself next to his neighbor, so that he might more deeply understand his inferiority.
The guys I am dealing with are so far removed from any intellectual consciousness that they feel that they themselves might possibly be intellectuals. In another thread, some guy is insisting that the reason none of his romantic relationships have worked out is women will not accept the natural gender hierarchy that would enable any communication to occur. They won't accept it and therefore his communication is thwarted.
Then he goes on to explain that it makes perfect sense for women to accept their alleged inferiority in relation to him, in exchange for loyalty and service. He would promise to be loyal and serve them, if only they would facilitate communication by accepting inferiority. I asked him whether he liked submitting to his boss. he said that thankfully he was not in love with his boss.
He went on to say that nothing in the world is equal to anything else. I think he is right about that. But he needs to come out from standing alone and place himself next to his neighbor, so that he might more deeply understand his inferiority.
Wednesday, 24 April 2013
Cultural Differences | Clarissa's Blog
Cultural Differences | Clarissa's Blog
What is very weird is the level of naivete that people embrace with regard to cultural differences. For instance, people wearing a headscarf to support Palestine, or fasting for Ramadan in support of Palestine. Perhaps a patriarchal society is not so bad in the case where the political structure experiences oppression? That is not my view, but many people don’t think it through.
What is very weird is the level of naivete that people embrace with regard to cultural differences. For instance, people wearing a headscarf to support Palestine, or fasting for Ramadan in support of Palestine. Perhaps a patriarchal society is not so bad in the case where the political structure experiences oppression? That is not my view, but many people don’t think it through.
Maleficent reality
It's good that some maturity still exists. Here is a short story. When I came to Australia, I didn't like anything I experienced. It seemed like a really intense, pulsating reality had been reduced to something watered down; tepid. Later I realized there was some raging intensity beneath the surface and that everybody had been repressing their real emotions. That was in the abusive workplace situation. And Lo! I discovered, too, that I had been repressing mine, ever since migrating at the age of 15. It had become my way to cope. Anyway, armed with that insight and with health that had been substantially undermined through ongoing tolerance of the intolerable, I moved on.
But I took with me some very painful knowledge that my relative happiness along with other people's ideological construct of my identity had lent much steam to me being targeted. It seemed to me I had been an object of envy, even though there was no basis for this, in the sense that my previous life in Zimbabwe could not have been anything these Westerners could relate to, as it certainly did not involve having material goods or particularly high status or anything like that.
It perturbed me because I had to make a living and was worried about running into the same situation again. I did not understand, at that time, enough about the complex psychodynamics both in myself and in other people. Some of it seemed to have to do with cultural and political perceptions, which then had gained an emotional load of personal aggrievement. I mean this on both sides --- I also felt aggrieved after the ring leader of the harrassment proclaimed, "Great! Now we can get an Australian to do the job." On the first day I had started the job she has been speaking very loudly on the phone to someone about how she disapproved of the organisation employing someone from Zimbabwe.
The legacy of this situation was to deeply disturb me, as I did not know how the problem might be prevented from arising in future situations. I still did not have enough self-knowledge or knowledge of others to have any confidence in not walking into another minefield.
I did not know what people wanted from me, but I understood the structure of their psyches was different from mine. So, I tried the solution of adaptation -- becoming the same, as much as possible.
However, I could never really be the same, as I was skeptical. I also saw too much that seemed nice on the surface of it, but was actually manipulative underneath. For instance, instead of suggesting that I need to gain a particular skill that was lacking, behavior modification psychology was tried on me, perhaps so as to avoid direct confrontation or perhaps as cultural way of making me feel free to do anything I chose, in a situation not governed by choice.
I began to understand Western culture as being concerned with ego --- ego gratification (the maintenance of an illusion of freedom) and ego sensitivity: (One must not speak directly to me, for fear of upsetting one's ego.)
I continued to try to assimilate myself to this logic, but it proved impossible in every instance. The problem was I could see through the illusion of freedom in every instance, right down to the base of necessity -- that certain things just have to occur to keep the system running, but nobody wants to state what these are. The lack of clarity was particularly vexing, because I didn't know whether people were really giving me a choice about something or whether it was a necessary part of the job I had to do. Also, I felt like I was still on trial as a migrant, since I had not passed the first test, in the first workplace, of assimilating enough not to be targeted.
So, I continued to try learning the new "Western" culture, which was based on gratifying one's egoistic desires for an illusion of total freedom, whilst not offending other egos, whose true emotions were deeply repressed.
I gained the impression over time that what was required of me -- although I had no name for it at the time -- was narcissistic codependency. I was to gratify the egos of anyone who asked me to provide for them. That seemed to be an accurate interpretation of the codified message that came across to me as a demand for the illusion of absolute freedom. I had to furnish this illusion for others. Only, I was disinclined and really didn't have the energy to do it.
More recently, it has dawned on me that what I have taken for Western culture per se has really been people's reaction to me as a reflection of their identity in a negative sense. Perhaps it is the narcissism of small differences (a term coined by Freud). Certainly people have put their worst -- narcissistic -- foot forward in relation to me. The idea of the "white colonial" seems to produce a very powerful and maleficent aura. Nobody wants to be identified as one, especially in a country whose colonial experience has been so recent. At the same time, I think there is a certain envy and desire to have what one imagines that status involves.
Anyway, nobody wants to acknowledge these truths, and even suggesting that they are true has been enough to provoke attacks from unlikely quarters.
So. My work involves Asians instead.
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
The distortions remain
Soviet, Not Russian | Clarissa's Blog
Ideological warfare often deliberately entails obscuring true identities. I read that when the insurgency started in Rhodesia, the spokesmen referred to the British settlers in that country as "Boers". Those are the originally Dutch settlers, speaking Afrikaans, much further south. But ever since the war, thirty years ago, there are few Australians who can differentiate between Zimbabwe and South Africa. So the distortions remain.
Ideological warfare often deliberately entails obscuring true identities. I read that when the insurgency started in Rhodesia, the spokesmen referred to the British settlers in that country as "Boers". Those are the originally Dutch settlers, speaking Afrikaans, much further south. But ever since the war, thirty years ago, there are few Australians who can differentiate between Zimbabwe and South Africa. So the distortions remain.
The Gaze of the Other | Clarissa's Blog
The Gaze of the Other | Clarissa's Blog
Well she is a strange looking person for sure, who holds herself without poise, kind of like she had been dumped out of an elephant's backside.
Whilst I understand and agree with the idea that we do not know what the "gaze" of the other really implies, apart from drawing from our own heads, I think that this epistemology, if taken too far, is fundamentally flawed. For instance, we do also learn from experience what certain actions-without-words imply. For instance, a child may learn to associate its mothers glare with an impending smack to the rump. Also as adults we may learn to infer what certain attitudes imply, based on something akin to the inductive reasoning used by this child in my example, or on the basis of deductive reasoning. For instance, if somebody's response is very different from what I would have expected, given what I already know about a situation, I may have to conclude that they're working on different premises than I, or that they have different information.
Whilst it may pay to keep things simple in most cases by imagining that what we don't know will not harm us, that solution is not always practical or viable. We sometimes need to go beyond a solipistic notion, "I can only know what is happening in my own head," because it often pays to try to draw a basic outline of what is happening in the other's head, as well, so that one may avoid any negative reactions.
The basic premise that one can get by without knowing what others think about you is predicated on society being very much as peace, with no forms of war or sabotage or any form of dynamic contention about space, ideologies, etc.
As for myself, I do study others' reactions and make inferences about them. I've learned never to attribute my own intelligence or mode of reasoning to others, since that is a form of projection that gives the others a significant advantage - the advantage of my intelligence, which they would not otherwise have. Looked at closely and over time, most people react with emotion and not with intelligence or judgement.
2. My point in relation to discussing a child is not to refer to childishness, but to the fact that we learn inductive logic at a very early age. It's a very useful skill to have and we all rely on it in our day to day lives. We are therefore social from a very young age, and not cocooned in an individual bubble of consciousness.
At the same time, it is women like her that make women like me almost impossible for people to understand, because people assume that when I say similar things, for instance, in referring to "the other", that I must be seeking my own victimhood. The very trashy nature of contemporary culture, whose trashiness cannot be overestimated, makes it almost impossible to say anything valuable.
Well she is a strange looking person for sure, who holds herself without poise, kind of like she had been dumped out of an elephant's backside.
Whilst I understand and agree with the idea that we do not know what the "gaze" of the other really implies, apart from drawing from our own heads, I think that this epistemology, if taken too far, is fundamentally flawed. For instance, we do also learn from experience what certain actions-without-words imply. For instance, a child may learn to associate its mothers glare with an impending smack to the rump. Also as adults we may learn to infer what certain attitudes imply, based on something akin to the inductive reasoning used by this child in my example, or on the basis of deductive reasoning. For instance, if somebody's response is very different from what I would have expected, given what I already know about a situation, I may have to conclude that they're working on different premises than I, or that they have different information.
Whilst it may pay to keep things simple in most cases by imagining that what we don't know will not harm us, that solution is not always practical or viable. We sometimes need to go beyond a solipistic notion, "I can only know what is happening in my own head," because it often pays to try to draw a basic outline of what is happening in the other's head, as well, so that one may avoid any negative reactions.
The basic premise that one can get by without knowing what others think about you is predicated on society being very much as peace, with no forms of war or sabotage or any form of dynamic contention about space, ideologies, etc.
As for myself, I do study others' reactions and make inferences about them. I've learned never to attribute my own intelligence or mode of reasoning to others, since that is a form of projection that gives the others a significant advantage - the advantage of my intelligence, which they would not otherwise have. Looked at closely and over time, most people react with emotion and not with intelligence or judgement.
2. My point in relation to discussing a child is not to refer to childishness, but to the fact that we learn inductive logic at a very early age. It's a very useful skill to have and we all rely on it in our day to day lives. We are therefore social from a very young age, and not cocooned in an individual bubble of consciousness.
At the same time, it is women like her that make women like me almost impossible for people to understand, because people assume that when I say similar things, for instance, in referring to "the other", that I must be seeking my own victimhood. The very trashy nature of contemporary culture, whose trashiness cannot be overestimated, makes it almost impossible to say anything valuable.
Monday, 22 April 2013
Sunday, 21 April 2013
Saturday, 20 April 2013
Friday, 19 April 2013
dum dum dum
I prefer calculating and sly to stupid. Actually I think Robert Mugabe is in some ways a good thing for Zimbabwe, because much as he is holding the country back economically, he is also putting a dampener on the culturally and geographically corrosive effects of globalization. If you want African culture and scenery closer to its commercially untrammeled state, vote in Robert Mugabe. And that's because he's still fighting a clever war against colonialism, perhaps even neo-colonialism -- since fighting any war against colonialism is out of date.
Thursday, 18 April 2013
On the elevation of apes
I think one of the problems with Western culture is the idea that all the onus is on the person who tries to communicate, to make themselves understood by others. Thus you have the absurdity of functional illiterates, throwing up their arms in fake despair, because they haven't bothered to take the time to actually listen. They make out that others have to work harder to get their message across, or simplify it a lot, or simply change their message, so that these illiterates can understand it. In short, they demand that something complex or unfamiliar be reduced to something familiar and already known. If the onus were rather more on the reader or listener to understand what is being said, that is if there were more of a balance between the speaker and the listener, we would have far fewer stupid flame wars and individuals would actually gain deeper self understanding.
LeeAnne understands me
"We have talked a little bit about American culture, African cultures, and how they limit a person's perception of themself. Dr. Jennifer Frances Armstrong was raised through most of her formative years in Rhodesia, a colony within Africa. To her, Zimbabwe is home, although she was uprooted as a teen and moved to Australia in a time of great political turmoil. I think you might be very interested in what she has to say. She talks a lot about abandoning the culturally inflicted political identities and expanding as a human being, disregarding your given role in society and jumping into different experiences that can teach you things you wouldn't otherwise learn, and strengthening your character. She refers to this way of life as Intellectual Shamanism. (Which lends no implications to the mystical use of "Shaman", as that is typically viewed as a practitioner of some sort of magic, which is clearly not a real thing.)"
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Curtailing Lives | Clarissa's Blog
Curtailing Lives | Clarissa's Blog
That’s a really weird point of view the writer expounds. It seems like an overestimation of power to suggest that by giving nannies — or a nanny? — work, one single-handedly demolishes the moral basis for society. Certainly, there is a lot of exploitation going on in the world, with people being paid very little for services, but the employment of a nanny does not touch on this. Or more correctly, the writer does not touch on this point when she expresses her moral objection to employing a a nanny. One could, for instance, choose to pay more than the minimum wage.
That’s a really weird point of view the writer expounds. It seems like an overestimation of power to suggest that by giving nannies — or a nanny? — work, one single-handedly demolishes the moral basis for society. Certainly, there is a lot of exploitation going on in the world, with people being paid very little for services, but the employment of a nanny does not touch on this. Or more correctly, the writer does not touch on this point when she expresses her moral objection to employing a a nanny. One could, for instance, choose to pay more than the minimum wage.
Tuesday, 16 April 2013
“Mere Psychopathy” | Clarissa's Blog
“Mere Psychopathy” | Clarissa's Blog
Somehow it seems to some people less shameful to be attacked by a psychopath, because then they are a mere victim of fate. To be attacked by a terrorist means they let their guard down, which is to say they are culpable in a way. This same dichotomy in reasoning that I have perceived must be why more and more of life is relegated to the category of being an uncontrollable force of nature and less and less is related to the individual and their capabilities. At the same time, it is this common, dichotomised perspective itself that produces the ridiculous either-or possibilities. Reality is nuanced.
Somehow it seems to some people less shameful to be attacked by a psychopath, because then they are a mere victim of fate. To be attacked by a terrorist means they let their guard down, which is to say they are culpable in a way. This same dichotomy in reasoning that I have perceived must be why more and more of life is relegated to the category of being an uncontrollable force of nature and less and less is related to the individual and their capabilities. At the same time, it is this common, dichotomised perspective itself that produces the ridiculous either-or possibilities. Reality is nuanced.
Deborah Copaken Kogan and the “Patriarchal Literary Establishment” | Clarissa's Blog
Deborah Copaken Kogan and the “Patriarchal Literary Establishment” | Clarissa's Blog
She was following the pattern of eat, love, pray, or whatever the book was called. The books that become dominant in the mainstream have to do with relationships and family, as Mike recently noticed. They're ideally warm and not too threatening. Female 'hysteria' ought not to be threatening, as it is enshrined in patriarchal systems and indicative of a reassuring essential nature.
It ought to have produced for her a winning formula then. What went wrong?
She was following the pattern of eat, love, pray, or whatever the book was called. The books that become dominant in the mainstream have to do with relationships and family, as Mike recently noticed. They're ideally warm and not too threatening. Female 'hysteria' ought not to be threatening, as it is enshrined in patriarchal systems and indicative of a reassuring essential nature.
It ought to have produced for her a winning formula then. What went wrong?
Monday, 15 April 2013
Philosopher, Irigaray
Irigaray reverses the direction of the speculum. Instead of facing "the other [that is] woman" it is directed at the patriarchal ideologues who gestate ideas within a womb, from which they project their (literally) preconceived fantasies about the world. I like it that Richard Dawkins seemingly cannot understand her as it proves the point. A very limited perspective does not see more of life as it actually is outside the cave, but remains there, looking at shadows. SPECULUM OF THE OTHER WOMAN is a profoundly ironic supplementation to patriarchal logic. It provides what the bits that are otherwise missing from various discourses propounding philosophical idealism of one sort or another. One encounters through Irigaray's texts, the unconscious, or indeed bad conscience behind various strains of the abstract idealists' mentalisations.
An encounter with the unfamiliar returns you to yourself
I don't explicitly disagree with someone for the sake of it, but I have found that many people present a view that you might imagine has been well thought out, but turns out to have been a received view, or a self-serving view. I have learned to watch and wait to see what people read into narratives they aren't familiar with. In general, they read into the narrative none other than themselves -- their own preoccupations and concerns. It's rare indeed to find someone who can go beyond this.
Hawking Dawkins
I'm a secularist, but Richard Dawkins doesn't appeal to me too much, because he only seems to be making a scientific argument but ends up stuck in social/moral notions, with unexamined assumptions. I don't think that works. I don't think that it works to say that teaching religion is a form child abuse because physics shows that god does not exist. I don't think it works because there are atheists who also abuse their children (by teaching them the principles of consumerism as their only "ethic", for instance). I don't think it works because it is begging the question as to what child abuse actually is -- social workers and sociologists would be able to give us a better idea. But I think Dawkins model, which denies the right of the humanities (for example, French philosophers) to criticize society,gives too much power to the consumerist model, which can take up this empty, ideological space. There are those who would be inclined to say, "Not giving my child the latest and fastest computer model is a form of child abuse." This should be criticized, but Dawkins prefers to lend his hand to attacking Luce Irigaray.
And then there is also the problem in Dawkins's model concerning his tacitly held notion of ideological purity. His argument about child abuse and religious indoctrination is strained because we are all "indoctrinated" into something -- sometimes as bad as a consumerist ideology. And he also has a view of ideological purity: the hard line athiest's sense that atheism is better than even liberal religiosity as it does not create a bridge of tolerance (as liberal christianity does) between secularism and fundamentalism. But this kind of argument follows the pattern that a lot of right wingers use.
So, these are problems with Dawkins. And then, of course, the ultimate problem that hard science and scientism do not in themselves furnish us with the values required for a humanistic society. Even sociology can at best study the pros and cons of social conditions and procedures already in place. This is an overestimation of what "science" can and should do for us -- which could lead to an undermining of the moderating effect of the liberal religions on society, and to the acceptance of something crude, like social darwinism.
Finally: the ultimate mistake that kind of creeps in -- the expectation of a scientific "thou shalt" to put human societies into moral order. This assumption derives from a religious impuse that wants to be given a different, scientific aura.
And then there is also the problem in Dawkins's model concerning his tacitly held notion of ideological purity. His argument about child abuse and religious indoctrination is strained because we are all "indoctrinated" into something -- sometimes as bad as a consumerist ideology. And he also has a view of ideological purity: the hard line athiest's sense that atheism is better than even liberal religiosity as it does not create a bridge of tolerance (as liberal christianity does) between secularism and fundamentalism. But this kind of argument follows the pattern that a lot of right wingers use.
So, these are problems with Dawkins. And then, of course, the ultimate problem that hard science and scientism do not in themselves furnish us with the values required for a humanistic society. Even sociology can at best study the pros and cons of social conditions and procedures already in place. This is an overestimation of what "science" can and should do for us -- which could lead to an undermining of the moderating effect of the liberal religions on society, and to the acceptance of something crude, like social darwinism.
Finally: the ultimate mistake that kind of creeps in -- the expectation of a scientific "thou shalt" to put human societies into moral order. This assumption derives from a religious impuse that wants to be given a different, scientific aura.
The dork in Dawkins, Irigaray and fluidity - YouTube
The dork in Dawkins, Irigaray and fluidity - YouTube
I think the problem is deeper than a denial of non-visual ways of knowing. There is an attempt to extricate oneself from the stream of life, from contingency, to be something solid, unchanging and unchangeable. This idea is encapsulated in monotheistic religions, with their idea of the unchanging and eternal "soul". This idea is implicitly and unconsciously adopted by males claiming to be atheists, who nonetheless wish to dominate with notions of objective,unchanging Truth. Metaphysics continues, disguised as science.
I think the problem is deeper than a denial of non-visual ways of knowing. There is an attempt to extricate oneself from the stream of life, from contingency, to be something solid, unchanging and unchangeable. This idea is encapsulated in monotheistic religions, with their idea of the unchanging and eternal "soul". This idea is implicitly and unconsciously adopted by males claiming to be atheists, who nonetheless wish to dominate with notions of objective,unchanging Truth. Metaphysics continues, disguised as science.
Reinstate the workers; they're consumers now!
Donglegate | grey lining
It's not just identity politics, it's that everybody everywhere seems to be in passive, consumerist mode, requiring and demanding that others regulate their negative emotions for them. The stronger the consumerist mentality and cultural atomisation, the more you produce these crybabies.
People feel weak as workers but strongest in their position of consumers, where the principle applies that the customer knows best. So they complain, when they enter a new situation, that their consumption of it wasn't to their liking. They take the strongest line they know how to on the basis of their experience -- they demand that the authorities "fix" the situation so that they can consume it more pleasurably. And then of course the bosses, who only want to make the generalized consumer happy, sack the errant workers, to please the random consumer. The workers have no value -- unless they become consumers themselves. In other words, they must learn to embrace identity politics and whine about their situations. Who knows? They could be reinstated.
Sunday, 14 April 2013
Western Buddhism
Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion | Clarissa's Blog
I used to think my experiences were unique-- certainly the arrangement of my circumstances were so. But it was actually very reassuring to realize that all sorts of people had also had similar experiences along with similar reactions to those experiences. it was a kind of turning point in my life was well. The "special snowflake" thing comes will all sorts of burdens, above all the need to defend oneself against the whole damned world. That's when I began to understand that it's the structure of experience that is more important than who experiences it. I've been trying to say so ever since, but apparently many people are resistant to this idea. It's very important to experience the structures of experience you experience, but those are structures and not exactly "you".
To realize this is an enlightenment of the only sort that matters. It actually enhances your sense of being you to realize this. You can pass through all stages of life and enjoy them thoroughly as processes, without feeling like the universe is making a judgement about you. This is, I think, the final resolution of what I've learned from Nietzsche, Bataille and Marechera. I'm pretty sure it's what Nietzsche wanted to impart with his idea of being a "convalescent" from religion and metaphysics. One has to pretty much recover from susceptibility to illusions.
Truly, I passed through a very uncomfortable stage when I was trained to think like the majority. I could not sufficiently find my center. One is easily duped by images and illusions. That seems to be how it is for almost everybody in America, Canada, the US and perhaps Britain.
I'm looking at a video about the fights within the atheist community, right now. I see the same intellectual vacuity and vindictive pettiness that seem to prevail whenever people lack emotional maturity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_7SRa_xQNQ
I used to think my experiences were unique-- certainly the arrangement of my circumstances were so. But it was actually very reassuring to realize that all sorts of people had also had similar experiences along with similar reactions to those experiences. it was a kind of turning point in my life was well. The "special snowflake" thing comes will all sorts of burdens, above all the need to defend oneself against the whole damned world. That's when I began to understand that it's the structure of experience that is more important than who experiences it. I've been trying to say so ever since, but apparently many people are resistant to this idea. It's very important to experience the structures of experience you experience, but those are structures and not exactly "you".
To realize this is an enlightenment of the only sort that matters. It actually enhances your sense of being you to realize this. You can pass through all stages of life and enjoy them thoroughly as processes, without feeling like the universe is making a judgement about you. This is, I think, the final resolution of what I've learned from Nietzsche, Bataille and Marechera. I'm pretty sure it's what Nietzsche wanted to impart with his idea of being a "convalescent" from religion and metaphysics. One has to pretty much recover from susceptibility to illusions.
Truly, I passed through a very uncomfortable stage when I was trained to think like the majority. I could not sufficiently find my center. One is easily duped by images and illusions. That seems to be how it is for almost everybody in America, Canada, the US and perhaps Britain.
I'm looking at a video about the fights within the atheist community, right now. I see the same intellectual vacuity and vindictive pettiness that seem to prevail whenever people lack emotional maturity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_7SRa_xQNQ
Liking versus understanding
Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion | Clarissa's Blog
Liking or disliking something is often wrongly connected to moral judgement and propriety. I think it would be very beneficial to separate the two, which would enable people to make such statements as, “I didn’t like the message” or “I disagreed with the message”, but “The book had something to say and was well written.”
Liking or disliking something is often wrongly connected to moral judgement and propriety. I think it would be very beneficial to separate the two, which would enable people to make such statements as, “I didn’t like the message” or “I disagreed with the message”, but “The book had something to say and was well written.”
Mob mentality on the Internet
Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion | Clarissa's Blog
I have noticed a phenomenon on the Internet, that when a group of people want to press their ideological point, they go and down rate the statements of those whom they perceive to be in opposition. I used to wonder why why Amazon reviews on feminist texts were downgraded until I saw that it also happens on YouTube. It’s nothing to do with the content of the statements, which are rarely perused and not understood. It’s just the word, “feminism”, that people are reacting to. Mob mentality on the Internet perhaps ought not to take us by surprise.
I have noticed a phenomenon on the Internet, that when a group of people want to press their ideological point, they go and down rate the statements of those whom they perceive to be in opposition. I used to wonder why why Amazon reviews on feminist texts were downgraded until I saw that it also happens on YouTube. It’s nothing to do with the content of the statements, which are rarely perused and not understood. It’s just the word, “feminism”, that people are reacting to. Mob mentality on the Internet perhaps ought not to take us by surprise.
The moralist's determination to see sinfulness
Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion | Clarissa's Blog
Unfortunately it's the whole Christian paradigm thing. The idea seems to be that if we are on the lookout for sin, which apparently has the capacity to sneak up on the best of us, we can stop it in its tracks. But we cannot do so without being eternally vigilant, spying it out in all of its potential hiding places.
Thus do parents who honestly believe they have the best interests of their child at heart set traps for their child. They combat a demon in their child that does not exist unless they will it into life.
That's projective identification. I see a demon in you and I keep seeing one until you become that demon. Only then am I gratified that my suspicions about you have been confirmed. "Didn't I say there was that particular monster in you? And there it is!" As Nietzsche said, the Christian determination to see the world as evil inevitably assures that it is.
Unfortunately it's the whole Christian paradigm thing. The idea seems to be that if we are on the lookout for sin, which apparently has the capacity to sneak up on the best of us, we can stop it in its tracks. But we cannot do so without being eternally vigilant, spying it out in all of its potential hiding places.
Thus do parents who honestly believe they have the best interests of their child at heart set traps for their child. They combat a demon in their child that does not exist unless they will it into life.
That's projective identification. I see a demon in you and I keep seeing one until you become that demon. Only then am I gratified that my suspicions about you have been confirmed. "Didn't I say there was that particular monster in you? And there it is!" As Nietzsche said, the Christian determination to see the world as evil inevitably assures that it is.
Be an ape among apes
Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion | Clarissa's Blog
Adults these days are no longer adults. That is something I’ve come to realize. Most people throw up their arms and pronounce something that sounds like, “Let fate decide what happens to me and those around me.” I noticed it immediately when I moved from Zimbabwe in the early eighties to Australia. Suddenly everything was Disneyland and nothing was quite real. The news provided entertainment rather than information. People cast their fate to the winds and allowed it to decide for them.
I’ve also had recent clarity as to why I have developed a distaste for much of postmodernism. It reinforces this same regression as a necessity through its extreme form of philosophical idealism. If I’m not meant to make a judgment about anything because I’m not sure whether it’s happening inside or outside of my head, at best I’m forced to rely on other people’s judgments or defer to whatever turns out to transpire in the absence of my interventions. The practical ramifications of adopting a particular worldview are more important than the surface form it takes. Adults are reduced to children when they do not take up the appropriate tools of adulthood and make judgments. If they’re incapable of intervening in a situation charged up by mob mentality, they are far from being adults.
Adults these days are no longer adults. That is something I’ve come to realize. Most people throw up their arms and pronounce something that sounds like, “Let fate decide what happens to me and those around me.” I noticed it immediately when I moved from Zimbabwe in the early eighties to Australia. Suddenly everything was Disneyland and nothing was quite real. The news provided entertainment rather than information. People cast their fate to the winds and allowed it to decide for them.
I’ve also had recent clarity as to why I have developed a distaste for much of postmodernism. It reinforces this same regression as a necessity through its extreme form of philosophical idealism. If I’m not meant to make a judgment about anything because I’m not sure whether it’s happening inside or outside of my head, at best I’m forced to rely on other people’s judgments or defer to whatever turns out to transpire in the absence of my interventions. The practical ramifications of adopting a particular worldview are more important than the surface form it takes. Adults are reduced to children when they do not take up the appropriate tools of adulthood and make judgments. If they’re incapable of intervening in a situation charged up by mob mentality, they are far from being adults.
Saturday, 13 April 2013
repost: "redemption" and its politics
Shamanism is radically at odds with Western identity politics. Those who are heavily imbued with a philosophy of identity politics will rarely understand shamanistic ideas. That's because the parts of the mind that could be engaged with shamanistic concepts and experiences are already occupied with alternative concepts from a very different paradigm.
THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF IDENTITY POLITICS
The term, "vice", has an entirely different resonance in terms of identity politics as compared to shamanism. In general, identity politics borrows much from Platonism to drive its system of redemption. As such, it invokes an equivalence between moral goodness and an ascetic's embrace of difficult truths:
To embrace the truth is to be redeemed according to the formulation. Implicitly, a monotheistic deity is invoked. This deity stands behind reality acting as guarantor that if one only embraces "the truth", one will also improve morally and thus acquire redemption as one of those who embraces "the Good". Thus, identity politics is based on a Platonic formulation that implicitly promises redemption in the form of higher moral standing for those who choose an ascetic's path by embracing difficult truths.
In some cases, one's whiteness is implicated in oppression by means of an argument that raises some genuine historical facts. In other instances, the equation made is much more essentialistic, so that fashionable modes of speech come into play far more than intellectual analysis. Identity politics thus takes the form whereby one is always guaranteed to win any rhetorical battle -- eby posing as "holier than thou" and/or by demanding that others recognise their status as "oppressors". Once one has learned to play this game, no matter what else one may do in life, one's morally superior status will hardly be in doubt.
The path to redemption -- through admitting one's guilt or "sin" -- is made into a path to power. Submit oneself to the truth by admitting one's guilt and thou shalt gain moral and social justification. The ascetic's goal is to gain recognition of his or her righteousness within the larger body politic: his, or her society. The very fact that this goal is within reach indicates the relatively elevated, at least middle class status, of those who advocate for a system of morality based on identity.
PRACTISING SHAMANISM
The philosophical innovators who adopt a shamanistic line and manner are a different group from identity politics theorists. Bataille and Nietzsche see the futility of the ascetic ideal as a means to self-redemption. Primarily, one seeks to redeems not others, but oneself, via the ascetic means: the self-flagellation of those Westerners who opposed the colonial regime of Rhodesia stops short from wearing a hair shirt to protest Robert Mugabe's actions in Matabeleland (known by those on the ground as Gukurahundi) -- and, in any case, the violence continues, even when it is not perpetuated by "whites".
The identity of the perpetrators of world violence continues to shift, thus history relativises the moral positions of those who would rely too heavily upon essentialising identity in order to effect their own redemption (and, perhaps although not inevitably, that of a few select others).
The shaman alone has insight to proclaim, "I am not my historical identity, but something more than that! And, IF I am not yet something more than that, it is the desire of my entire spirit to become more than my historical position has made me out to be!"
To accept that one is made by history and to pay recompense for that is one thing: to blast beyond the limitations of identity and those of the ascetic ideal, is entirely another. That is the meaning of intellectual shamanism.
THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF IDENTITY POLITICS
The term, "vice", has an entirely different resonance in terms of identity politics as compared to shamanism. In general, identity politics borrows much from Platonism to drive its system of redemption. As such, it invokes an equivalence between moral goodness and an ascetic's embrace of difficult truths:
That which constrains idealists of knowledge, this unconditional will to truth, is faith in the ascetic ideal itself even if as an unconscious imperative — don’t be deceived about that — it is faith in a metaphysical value, the absolute value of truth, sanctioned and guaranteed by this ideal alone (it stands or falls with this ideal). F Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, III, 25
To embrace the truth is to be redeemed according to the formulation. Implicitly, a monotheistic deity is invoked. This deity stands behind reality acting as guarantor that if one only embraces "the truth", one will also improve morally and thus acquire redemption as one of those who embraces "the Good". Thus, identity politics is based on a Platonic formulation that implicitly promises redemption in the form of higher moral standing for those who choose an ascetic's path by embracing difficult truths.
In some cases, one's whiteness is implicated in oppression by means of an argument that raises some genuine historical facts. In other instances, the equation made is much more essentialistic, so that fashionable modes of speech come into play far more than intellectual analysis. Identity politics thus takes the form whereby one is always guaranteed to win any rhetorical battle -- eby posing as "holier than thou" and/or by demanding that others recognise their status as "oppressors". Once one has learned to play this game, no matter what else one may do in life, one's morally superior status will hardly be in doubt.
The path to redemption -- through admitting one's guilt or "sin" -- is made into a path to power. Submit oneself to the truth by admitting one's guilt and thou shalt gain moral and social justification. The ascetic's goal is to gain recognition of his or her righteousness within the larger body politic: his, or her society. The very fact that this goal is within reach indicates the relatively elevated, at least middle class status, of those who advocate for a system of morality based on identity.
PRACTISING SHAMANISM
The philosophical innovators who adopt a shamanistic line and manner are a different group from identity politics theorists. Bataille and Nietzsche see the futility of the ascetic ideal as a means to self-redemption. Primarily, one seeks to redeems not others, but oneself, via the ascetic means: the self-flagellation of those Westerners who opposed the colonial regime of Rhodesia stops short from wearing a hair shirt to protest Robert Mugabe's actions in Matabeleland (known by those on the ground as Gukurahundi) -- and, in any case, the violence continues, even when it is not perpetuated by "whites".
The identity of the perpetrators of world violence continues to shift, thus history relativises the moral positions of those who would rely too heavily upon essentialising identity in order to effect their own redemption (and, perhaps although not inevitably, that of a few select others).
The shaman alone has insight to proclaim, "I am not my historical identity, but something more than that! And, IF I am not yet something more than that, it is the desire of my entire spirit to become more than my historical position has made me out to be!"
To accept that one is made by history and to pay recompense for that is one thing: to blast beyond the limitations of identity and those of the ascetic ideal, is entirely another. That is the meaning of intellectual shamanism.
REPOST: MORALS AND POWER
Strongly suggestive in nearly all the psychoanalytic literature on the topic is the idea that our early childhood mindset does not simply disappear as we enter adulthood. Rather, even in the human adult, there seems to remain a brain 'function' as it were (I suggest this is R-complex), that enables us to adapt to prevailing (political, social) situations by distorting reality, in order to make those situations appear more conducive to our (long term) survival than they are. So we see that psychoanalytic literature points to a particular mode of 'adaptation' under stress that is "regressive". (See: Isabel Menzies Lyth's book, The Dynamics of the Social).
My conjecture is that the neurological system that facilitates this regressive mode of adaptation is R-complex. The reason I make such a conjecture is because the literature suggests that a totally different mode of 'thinking' comes into play in relation to extreme stress, and that this mode of thinking duplicates, in many ways the emotional characteristics of the dependency relationship of the child in relation to its parents at very early stages of development. (There is, on the one hand, blind trust; and on the other hand,there is an intuitive and very clear perception of one's relationship to power. The second, more attuned aspect, enables one to adapt to power relationships "as they are" without being burdened by whether or not they are rational -- survival, rather than rationality, is at the heart of this primary level of processing.) R-complex is also concerned with issues of power; power relationships. Primitive tribal mindsets, fascism and its mystical perspectives on 'leadership', a mystical sense of union with others, a 'lord of the flies' mentality, all seem to have a fundamental neurological origin. At least, this is my conjecture.
AMORALITY is the feature that best describes this ethical orientation towards the world. Epistemological distortions (and epistemological skepticism, in adults) are one of its primary calling cards. (See the literature on "personality disorders".) Impulsivity would be linked to this regressive mindset, via the sense that broader reality is not fixed, nor knowable, and hence "anything goes". A criminal who was oriented towards the world in this regressive manner might also have a smug sense of self-satisfaction that he had found a different and superior route to happiness via his amorality; a system of thinking that enables him to 'survive' quite effectively without reference to higher qualities of mind, such as ethical considerations. He might feel himself to be an "overman" of sorts (reference to Nietzsche's philosophical term), when he has merely regressed. (In actual fact, the transcendence of one's narrow, culturally-inculcated beliefs is the sign of the Overman, and not this state of immanence.)
However, the criminal type is right to feel that there is something robust and extremely faciliative of (short-term) survival and even of domination, in this mode of regression. There is also something that feels like mystical truth. An orientation towards power rather than towards ethics has a whole internal logic of its own, for it is facilitated by an entirely different system of the brain than that part of the mind that humans normally identify with the nature of their selfhood. The pathological aspect of this brain function -- how it sometimes functions in an independent state from the rest of the mind -- hasn't been my main focus.
My thesis itself is not concerned with this pathology, so much, bur rather with "shamanism" and the ways in which writers like Nietzsche, Bataille, and Marechera, try to integrate the lizard brain with the higher brain in order to produce a more complete human being -- less detached from the body and less separated than usual from direct political engagement.
To escape the unconscious control of your mind by R-complex is actually possible, but one has to become "shamanised" -- that is one has to have a close encounter with this "primal mother"(one's own susceptibility to allowing R-complex to determine one's unconscious motivations). This experience of shamanic initiation shatters one's previous sensibilities and causes a total revolution of the personality. Those who do not shamanise are, of course, still liable to being manipulated by external forces and can too easily become unconscious victims of this regressive feature of the psyche -- or more specifically of their own self-misunderstandings in relation to R-complex.
Friday, 12 April 2013
Searching for the ape within
This was a reflection on the academic's introduction to Georges Bataille's ON NIETZSCHE. I have read both Nietzsche and Bataille very carefully over decades, so I see the interpretation/s Bataille makes of Nietzsche. I also see how rigorous this was. Nonetheless an academic takes the words of Bataille too literally, that is unironically, thinking he really meant he was an "ape" of Nietzsche.
Thursday, 11 April 2013
REPOST
I used to be confused by any extreme hatred of feminism. I thought the rabid haters of equality ought to be stopped.
Nowadays, I can afford to relax more. What I used to experience as attacks on my right to be treated with humanity no longer seems so threatening. I was only threatened whilst I was gasping for air. The ability to understand oneself, and to have enough material wealth to survive on, has made all the difference in my ability to put up with ideological hostility.
People talk about having thick skin or lacking it, but 'thick skin' isn't what you think it is. If you have nothing, your skin can be very thin, but then once you gain more, your skin grows a bit. This indicates that 'thick skin' is neither a biological, nor a psychological determinant, but has to do with one's existing standing in society.
I've visited the sites where male You Tubers pour their scorn on feminists. There they enjoy depictions of cartoon women crying with voices very high and helium-inflated.
Whilst surfing in my random and chaotic way, I also encountered other YouTube videos 'recommended for me'. So, I watched a little of the militaristic patriotism sung about my African past, and then I moved back to the gender-related videos, where positions were being falsely portrayed in all sorts of cartoonish depictions.
The videos that got the highest viewers were made everything they wanted to believe seem justified in believing -- as if backed up by reason or by 'science'. I found that young men have adopted a Men's Rights orthodox belief that women ought to tolerate trolls on the Internet, as this is 'character building'. One spokesman even suggested that women today should put up with being trolled, as should everybody, because they might do well to develop the physical toughness of a World War Two fighter pilot.
Well, certainly, it would be nice to see more people being more courageous. However, whereas I was fooled once, I won't be tricked a second time.
I come from a culture where men really did put their bodies on the line for what they believed in. That level of courage was worthy of respect, because it wasn't just a mental thing: It wasn't just "putting up with trolls and getting some thick skin": It was real. The consequences were also real -- and they were bad for men as well as women.
I don't deny that there is a craving for meaning, for a rite of passage or for some consolidation of a sense of self-hood. Hegel said that until one is ready to face death, one does not become a free person. But, let's get real. Accepting trolling as a fact of life is not facing death.
Also the meaning of enduring trolls is different for women than it is for men.
Nobody demands to be treated with unconditional acceptance, unless they are a child, so arguing, "we will be trolls, so you have to accept this as normative," is begging to be treated condescendingly, like a mother would attend to a small child:
"No, Johnny. Being a troll is not the same as being a fighter pilot."
How am I sure I KNOW this?
Because for better or worse (and often for worse, I tell you!) I've known, from experience, the real thing.
Nowadays, I can afford to relax more. What I used to experience as attacks on my right to be treated with humanity no longer seems so threatening. I was only threatened whilst I was gasping for air. The ability to understand oneself, and to have enough material wealth to survive on, has made all the difference in my ability to put up with ideological hostility.
People talk about having thick skin or lacking it, but 'thick skin' isn't what you think it is. If you have nothing, your skin can be very thin, but then once you gain more, your skin grows a bit. This indicates that 'thick skin' is neither a biological, nor a psychological determinant, but has to do with one's existing standing in society.
I've visited the sites where male You Tubers pour their scorn on feminists. There they enjoy depictions of cartoon women crying with voices very high and helium-inflated.
Whilst surfing in my random and chaotic way, I also encountered other YouTube videos 'recommended for me'. So, I watched a little of the militaristic patriotism sung about my African past, and then I moved back to the gender-related videos, where positions were being falsely portrayed in all sorts of cartoonish depictions.
The videos that got the highest viewers were made everything they wanted to believe seem justified in believing -- as if backed up by reason or by 'science'. I found that young men have adopted a Men's Rights orthodox belief that women ought to tolerate trolls on the Internet, as this is 'character building'. One spokesman even suggested that women today should put up with being trolled, as should everybody, because they might do well to develop the physical toughness of a World War Two fighter pilot.
Well, certainly, it would be nice to see more people being more courageous. However, whereas I was fooled once, I won't be tricked a second time.
I come from a culture where men really did put their bodies on the line for what they believed in. That level of courage was worthy of respect, because it wasn't just a mental thing: It wasn't just "putting up with trolls and getting some thick skin": It was real. The consequences were also real -- and they were bad for men as well as women.
I don't deny that there is a craving for meaning, for a rite of passage or for some consolidation of a sense of self-hood. Hegel said that until one is ready to face death, one does not become a free person. But, let's get real. Accepting trolling as a fact of life is not facing death.
Also the meaning of enduring trolls is different for women than it is for men.
Nobody demands to be treated with unconditional acceptance, unless they are a child, so arguing, "we will be trolls, so you have to accept this as normative," is begging to be treated condescendingly, like a mother would attend to a small child:
"No, Johnny. Being a troll is not the same as being a fighter pilot."
How am I sure I KNOW this?
Because for better or worse (and often for worse, I tell you!) I've known, from experience, the real thing.
On wanting and not wanting "success"
When Something Doesn’t Work | Clarissa's Blog
Maybe there is nothing scary about it. For instance, I once had a project of learning "Western culture". I had the sense that I ought to learn how to mediate other people's emotions for them, as this is what was required of me not to be aberrant, but to conform with what my father had required of me when we first landed in Australia -- which was to become what other people needed me to be in order not to offend them.
I kept trying to do this -- trying to be more and more sensitive to other people's requirements, so that I could adjust to externally imposed cultural ideals and not seem to be arrogantly set in my ways.
But, I could never achieve this. I really, really tried, but it always felt false. I would try to pause and reflect and speak with greater sensitivity to others' perceptions of their identities, but it took a tremendous amount of energy and created a psychological wall around me rather than breaking one down.
Then I understood that all the demands to show sincerity by contorting myself and acting in a way that did not fit my character, were measures designed specifically to unbalance me and control me. I had been trying to achieve something when the structure of reality was specifically designed to prevent me from achieving it.
Psychoanalyst Theodor Dorpat says that authoritarian psychological techniques are often used on early migrants to get them to conform to new cultural values and ideals. But people had been trying these on me for decades. Each time, I'd walked away thinking, "Wow, that was close. They almost succeeded in destroying me that time."
Now I am old enough to see that many people are just extraordinarily manipulative. I had to break my original programming to see this. I also had to realize that fitting in was never what I really wanted for myself. I'd only wanted it in order not to disappoint others.
These days I'm aware of where "success" and my own interests really part ways.
Maybe there is nothing scary about it. For instance, I once had a project of learning "Western culture". I had the sense that I ought to learn how to mediate other people's emotions for them, as this is what was required of me not to be aberrant, but to conform with what my father had required of me when we first landed in Australia -- which was to become what other people needed me to be in order not to offend them.
I kept trying to do this -- trying to be more and more sensitive to other people's requirements, so that I could adjust to externally imposed cultural ideals and not seem to be arrogantly set in my ways.
But, I could never achieve this. I really, really tried, but it always felt false. I would try to pause and reflect and speak with greater sensitivity to others' perceptions of their identities, but it took a tremendous amount of energy and created a psychological wall around me rather than breaking one down.
Then I understood that all the demands to show sincerity by contorting myself and acting in a way that did not fit my character, were measures designed specifically to unbalance me and control me. I had been trying to achieve something when the structure of reality was specifically designed to prevent me from achieving it.
Psychoanalyst Theodor Dorpat says that authoritarian psychological techniques are often used on early migrants to get them to conform to new cultural values and ideals. But people had been trying these on me for decades. Each time, I'd walked away thinking, "Wow, that was close. They almost succeeded in destroying me that time."
Now I am old enough to see that many people are just extraordinarily manipulative. I had to break my original programming to see this. I also had to realize that fitting in was never what I really wanted for myself. I'd only wanted it in order not to disappoint others.
These days I'm aware of where "success" and my own interests really part ways.
Marechera's self exile
If Marechera’as self-exile from the world of conventional mores had a reason, then that reason was to repair an internal sense of loss. According to Alan Collier Ostby, H. Ellenberger (The Discovery of the Unconscious, 1970) says traditional healers saw psychological problems in terms of “soul loss” (Otsby p 166). Contemporary object relations thinking of the psychoanalytic school speaks, instead, in terms of “object loss”, however the qualities of sickness they are describing are, in phenomenological terms, similar, one presumes, apart from the obvious cause of cultural differences, which contextualise this inner sense of loss in different ways. To place oneself into a mode of temporary exile facilitates an opportunity to recover the lost “object” that is experienced as a lost part of one’s self. The partially regressive return to the “womb” — that is to a state of mind where reality is dealt with on simpler terms than those on which a healthy adult would normally be inclined to deal with it — can facilitate healing. Restoration of the lost object would restore one’s hope in humanity, enabling re-integration into the social realm of everyday human relations.
Such psychological regression turns toward the psychologically receptive mode of the pre-oedipal field, wherein reality appears to be defined less by society and more by one’s internal object relations. This state of being involves the apertures of the mind narrowing to limit the data taken in from the outside world, to emphasise the particular nature of the internal dynamics of love, hate and knowledge (ref. Bion) that give one one’s idiosyncratic design, thus make one who one is. Marechera’s refusal to adopt the mantle of social conformity, to fit into his society, was based on his need to continue his “soul journey” to find the lost parts of his being that would enable him to feel whole.
What were these parts in particular, that he felt he had lost? Indications from reading his book of Hararean exile, Mindblast, give the strong impression, through many different textual “clues”, that what he sought was to continue his life in a peaceful Zimbabwean society, from childhood on up, that would have nurtured him as part of it. The breakout of civil war (the Second Chimurenga), which began in earnest around 1966, around the time that Marechera’s father was suddenly killed in a road accident, destroyed the sense of normal everyday life for the teenage Marechera. This loss of internal security, a loss emphasized still more in his mind through the increasing intensity of war in the society at large, robbed him of the sense of security he required to feel “at one” with himself. Henceforth, he could no longer believe in “society” and had lost it as an object of love.
Having lost his belief in this object – society – he also lost his feeling of security that would have enabled him to be at peace with himself. In a shamanistic sense, Marechera was suffering from “soul loss”. His stint as a tramp on the streets of Harare was designed to simplify life in such a way that he would be able to focus his mind on finding something valuable and emotionally precious that would stand in as a replacement for that original loss, and would have enabled him to integrate himself more effectively into society.
In Mindblast, Harare is a “womb” for Marechera not just in the sense that it is the place with which he identifies as the core and origin of his Zimbabwean identity. Like Orpheus, he is in search of his lost other half, and he hopes to find in the world of the dead. In Harare is both a place of psychical regression and a “hell” — where the author struggles with a sense of the ethereal nature of his art against a countervailing reality of middle-class lifestyles, devoid of meaning or depth.
Such psychological regression turns toward the psychologically receptive mode of the pre-oedipal field, wherein reality appears to be defined less by society and more by one’s internal object relations. This state of being involves the apertures of the mind narrowing to limit the data taken in from the outside world, to emphasise the particular nature of the internal dynamics of love, hate and knowledge (ref. Bion) that give one one’s idiosyncratic design, thus make one who one is. Marechera’s refusal to adopt the mantle of social conformity, to fit into his society, was based on his need to continue his “soul journey” to find the lost parts of his being that would enable him to feel whole.
What were these parts in particular, that he felt he had lost? Indications from reading his book of Hararean exile, Mindblast, give the strong impression, through many different textual “clues”, that what he sought was to continue his life in a peaceful Zimbabwean society, from childhood on up, that would have nurtured him as part of it. The breakout of civil war (the Second Chimurenga), which began in earnest around 1966, around the time that Marechera’s father was suddenly killed in a road accident, destroyed the sense of normal everyday life for the teenage Marechera. This loss of internal security, a loss emphasized still more in his mind through the increasing intensity of war in the society at large, robbed him of the sense of security he required to feel “at one” with himself. Henceforth, he could no longer believe in “society” and had lost it as an object of love.
Having lost his belief in this object – society – he also lost his feeling of security that would have enabled him to be at peace with himself. In a shamanistic sense, Marechera was suffering from “soul loss”. His stint as a tramp on the streets of Harare was designed to simplify life in such a way that he would be able to focus his mind on finding something valuable and emotionally precious that would stand in as a replacement for that original loss, and would have enabled him to integrate himself more effectively into society.
In Mindblast, Harare is a “womb” for Marechera not just in the sense that it is the place with which he identifies as the core and origin of his Zimbabwean identity. Like Orpheus, he is in search of his lost other half, and he hopes to find in the world of the dead. In Harare is both a place of psychical regression and a “hell” — where the author struggles with a sense of the ethereal nature of his art against a countervailing reality of middle-class lifestyles, devoid of meaning or depth.
Cleaning the bowl #2
part 2
- Jennifer Frances Armstrong cleanin' tha' there toilet bowl14 minutes ago · Like · 1
- Jennifer Frances Armstrong And minds should be disciplined
- Anark Istani don't know about that. minds don't need discipline extraneously, just innate mechanisms.
- Jennifer Frances Armstrong Then you are American. Go feed in the fresh pasture. It is green9 minutes ago · Like · 1
- Anark Istani haha I don't think that that sentiment is 'American' so much as it is 'Americanised' and imported/transported imperialistically to nations and individuals. As for me, I guess I just have apprehensions about disciplining minds, because that has the potential of sapping creativity out of them.
- Jennifer Frances Armstrong Yes, but we are so far in the opposite direction now it isn't funny5 minutes ago · Like · 1
- Anark Istani Very true, and it's this dumbed-down version of Randian individualism.4 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
- Jennifer Frances Armstrong Actually, creativity works best when it has a certain amount of pressure to work against. Not when it is left floundering. The belief that whatever one expresses is one's "essential nature" is the death nell to creativity
- Jennifer Frances Armstrong But so clever! Give them what they want!!! Lots of sugar! No exercise! No tools to think. Tell them they are great as they are.3 minutes ago · Like · 1
- Anark Istani You're right, and don't forget the zumba classes afterwards.
- Jennifer Frances Armstrong They can be multicultural! Absorb the other-cultured atmosphere through their butt-occks!14 minutes ago · Like · 1
- Jennifer Frances Armstrong (I hope this isn't a 'sensitive' statement!!!!)13 minutes ago · Like · 1
- Anark Istani Sensitive shmensitive. I've had my fill of being pulled up for 'sensitive' statements, as of late. this is a 'sensitivity-free' space.
- Jennifer Frances Armstrong So you said something that hurt someone's fragile identity construct? Were they an American too, by any chance???
- Jennifer Frances Armstrong They love to project their sensitivities, tough guys that they are
- Anark Istani well, there were several of them, and they were, in no particular order, Anglo-Australian, Pakistani and Pakistani-American.
- Jennifer Frances Armstrong Ah. Very sensitive types -- must have been highly educated and averse to toilet bowl cleaning?4 minutes ago · Like · 1
- Anark Istani very much so, yes.3 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
- Jennifer Frances Armstrong unlike your average Yank who likes to look at his reflection in the toilet water.
- Anark Istani and drink it, too.
- Jennifer Frances Armstrong ...since it's better than getting an education and has a stronger scientific backing.
- Anark Istani science is superstition to them, and faith is scientific. weird.
- Jennifer Frances Armstrong That's how it is. And science is very logical, too, in a way that we don't even know what logic means, but it's enough to know the idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Perhaps even the majority of people absolutely have a reading and perception problem or just want to be something they are not. I just rec...
-
Wouldn’t a Matriarchal Society Be Great? | Clarissa's Blog It's very bizarre essentialism. The 19th Century European notion -- or ...
