Tuesday 31 January 2012

Guilty liberals et. al.


Many liberals have guilt complexes and try to transfer their sense of guilt to someone whom they believe to be more culpable.  This is not to critique liberals, but only the guilty sort. Their attitudes are irrational, because they don't see that we are all implicated in some degree of oppression or some degree of sin by omission. This is what it means to live in a contingent world: we can never find perfection because we were never born into the material conditions that would guarantee anything like perfection. I apologize if this sounds obvious, but the level of self deception is high and it is plain to see that such people are deluded at the most fundamental level — about the kind of world in which they live.

Secondly, they are also deluded in feeling that they can mitigate their guilt by deflecting it.

Rightists are also like this:  they believe their worlds were perfectly happy until blacks and women came to pick up after them and work for them.   When there were only white males in the world -- that was a state of primeval innocence!


Irony and the ascetic priest

As one who becoming decidedly old, who having thrown myself into all sorts of experiences, has learned several things, I will state that there are two types of people in the world.  An aging person's well-being and entire happiness in life depend on knowing the difference between the two.

There is a difficulty here that may not be underestimated.  Just about everybody and his caterpillar wants to be considered a debonair male or lady of the world.  Some will represent themselves as very tough minded individuals, easy to get along with, ready to roll with the punches.   They even want to be your friend or good acquaintance, to show you that they're worthwhile individuals.  Only, it turns out they're looking for a platform to preach their message of how I ought to be a better, more moral, more sensitive lady than I already am.   I'm not the right kind of lady for them.  I'm not a man's lady, with very considerate lady-ways.   I'm too much myself, my own lady's lady -- and, now, I ought to stop it!

Nietzsche refers to a concept of the "ascetic priest".   This is a fine fellow who only wants what's best for me.  He may be a secularist or libertarian who knows what's best.   More often, he's a guy who's got religion real bad.  Sometimes this "religion" is secularism.  It might be Nietzscheanism (turning Nietzsche into a dogma, particularly his anti-feminism).   "Rationalism" that doesn't take into account humanity's irrational roots, but demands that every human being must suddenly behave as if the world has suddenly sprung out of Data's hip-bone,  is also party to a ludicrous miss-step.  These are of the ascetic priest cast,  condemning whatsoever they don't understand with a hoity-toity swagger.

Clumsy, they may be.   But all too often they get through the defences of naive and good-humoured people.  Before I learned to recognise the type, I considered such individuals too harmless and too intellectually uninteresting to be intent on laying down the law to "a feminist".   Repeat experiences have taught me how it was not possible to be more wrong.

The calling card of ascetic-priestly piety is always and forever the inability to recognise written or verbal irony.  Over and over, they trip over this last step of the staircase.   They may be brain-damaged, but this is not going to stop them from trying again.  (Quite to the contrary, my dear lady!)

I learned this lesson:  the ascetic priest is hostile, to his dry old bones, to ladies' ironic flair.

Neuter your pets


Monday 30 January 2012

The injured party is the one who feels the most offence


Zivira:
Herein lies the problem – most women believe that they have communicated their hurt to their husbands, but most husbands only have memories of their wife’s bad attitudes. All those times a wife thought she was simply expressing the cry of an injured heart, her husband only perceived hostility, coldness, or hatred. She felt like she was begging for tenderness and sensitivity, and he backed away because he thought he was being attacked.-Reb Bradley
Harare, Mashonaland East

Jennifer Frances Armstrong: Yeah, well by expressing that she was injured, she was actually damaging his sense of moral righteousness. So, he experienced it as hatred.



Icarian complex


There is a great degree of mastery required at Bataille’s end as well as any other dimension of human existence  -- only it is a different kind of psychological mastery, in some respects, from that of Nietzsche (at least from that which Nietzsche was conscious of having).
Can you maintain your pride in yourself and still “fall from grace”? Freud wasn’t wrong about the power of the superego and to try to do both of these at once stretches you in opposite directions. I’ve tried this and for quite a long time. It creates interesting and distant perspectives. 
It’s very strange.


Friday 27 January 2012

Draft Chapter 3--my father's memoir


Whilst in kindergarten some bulldozers arrived and started to flatten a hill on the other side of the playing fields.  We were told this was for a new hostel.  One day, my mother said to me would you like to go to boarding school.  My dad thought it would be very good for me.  I had now reached a stage in life where didn't want to avoid challenges.   If everyone was saying to me this is good for you, I realised they wanted me to do it.  I was six at the time.  In due course, the bulldozers left and this square block of building started to rise. In due course,  mother took me to the shops to get kitted out with a uniform, which was khaki shirt and shorts, grey socks with a red strip, red belt, grey tie, with diagonal red stripe, grey felt hat.  
Everything was put into a metal trunk with my name on the outside and I was bundled off to boarding school.  I'd never been to boarding school, had no idea what to expect.  I found myself in a long dormitory with eighteen or twenty beds, covered in yellow quilts with lockers next to each bed.  A mosquito net hung over each bed.  They were white.   Matron came in and allocated each of us a bed.  She did her job and that was it.   So then, matron came and collected any tuck we had, such as biscuits, sweet bars.   Every mother, knowing their kids were going to be away for some weeks would give them enough sweeties to last three months.   Medications were collected at the same time.  We all got into pyjamas and into bed.  We had earlier been taken into the shower room, a longish room with twelve shower heads. 
We were told to take our clothes off, whereupon some of the boys started to twist their towels up and flick each other with the towel.  Matron would stroll along and check we were all using soap.  Then we'd all brush out teeth.  I remember the ablution block for the smell of toothpaste.  So then, we all went downstairs to the dining room and we were allocated a table.  Ten boys to a table, five down each of the sides, sitting on benches.   Then somebody at the head of the table would start to serve up food on each of the plates and you were told to eat it.  Then suddenly everyone stood up and a teacher said, for what we are about to receive, may the lord make us truly grateful. 
Everyone then sat down with a big clatter of plates and started to eat.   Then the person invested with the authority to serve, either a teacher or a prefect, served up the dessert.  Eventually I began to vomit a lot and decided I would have to take steps to do something about this, so I stopped eating.  One day I went into lunch and the sweets was as an orange fruit salad.  I might have guessed it wrong as I was only six, but I think I worked out I didn't eat for six weeks.  At the end of the meal, we all stood up and the teacher said, for what we have just received, may the lord make us truly grateful. 

TOP 30 REASONS WHY WOMEN DON'T RECEIVE PAY RISES


TOP 30 REASONS WHY WOMEN DON'T RECEIVE PAY RISES

1.You have secret sin – Lam 3:44; Psalm 66:18, 90:8; 1Peter 3:12
2.You are not tithing – Malachi 3:10
3.You are not fasting – Mark 9:29
4.You are not asking in faith, believing – James 1:6; Mark 11:24
5.You are not reading the Bible regularly – Romans 10:17
6.You are not in fellowship with God – John 15:7
7.You pray after your own lust – James 4:3
8.You do not pray with spiritual authority in Jesus’ name – John 14:13-14
9.You are not praying loud enough: don’t whisper, speak audibly – Matthew 16:19
10.You are too greedy: be more thankful – Philippians 4:6
11.You don’t ask – James 4:2
12.Your prayers are not big enough, don’t be petty – Mark 11:23
13.Your prayers are too vague, be specific – Matthew 7:9-10, 21:22
14.You presume God will answer your prayer your way – Isaiah 55:8
15.You are not praying in accordance with God’s will – 1John 5:14
16.You are impatient: it will be answered in God’s time – Matthew 6:7-8
17.You are not persistent, pray until it is answered – 1Thessalonians 5:17
18.Your prayer is already answered, you just don’t know it yet – Daniel 10:12-13
19.Your prayers are too long – Matthew 23:14
20.You don’t spend enough time in prayer – Luke 6:12
21.You doubt and harbor unbelief – Mark 9:23; 1 Timothy 2:8
22.You are not helping God answer the prayer – 2Thessalonians 3:10
23.You are not praying the right way (prayer formula) – Luke 11:1
24.You are holding a grudge with someone else: forgive – Matthew 5:23-24
25.You do not have the proper environment to focus – Matthew 14:23; Mark 1:35
26.You’ve rejected God’s counsel -1John 3:22
27.You are not praying in the Spirit – 1Corinthians 14:15; Jude 1:20
28.You need to pray in agreement with another – Matthew 18:19-20
29.Your prayers are too public; pray in secret – Matthew 6:6
30.God did answer; his answer was ‘No’. – 2Corinthians 12:9

Now replace "prayer" for "petition" and "God" for "Boss".




Wednesday 25 January 2012

Three Battles with Sensei Craig Monie



STAY SANE AND SAVAGE Gender activism, intellectual shamanism

The parable of the colours


Once upon a time, there was a madman. This was no ordinary guy, however, but one who heard messages from on high.   The messages pained him and brought him shivers of ecstatic pleasure.

There was a voice carried in the midst of a storm to elevate his heart.  It came as if from behind a rainbow -- a stream of fractured white light.  The sound of his deity carried all away along the rainbow until it reached him.   In dulcet tones, it made itself known: "See those colors, red and blue?  How free and separate they are!  Their bondage chains are broken and now radiate they most vividly into thine eye!  Behold the separate colors 'blue' and 'red'!"

The deeper-than-usual-man went apart from his fellow male to meditate awhile.  He has discovered 'red' and 'blue' as separate identities.

This holiest-of-men drew himself even further apart from his fellow man.  He began to write the tablet of the law that only vain and foolish idol worshipers would ever question:

-1. Blue and red are fundamentally separate colors, a fact uncontested by all pious men .

-2  Blue must be made to stay on its side of the spectrum and red must be made to stay on its opposite side.  For them ever to shift or merge is both malicious and impious and those who perform this technique of mixing will be punished .

-3. The nature of blue shall be to depict coolness and tranquility.  The nature of red shall be to depict urgency and enthusiasm.  Blue is not permitted under any circumstances to depict enthusiasm:  It is 'blue'.

-4. The two colors ought to radiate and shine in splendor for the glory of the universe.

-5.  These laws inscribed above depict the status of all things in the realm of nature itself. It is evil and sinister to go against fundamental laws of nature.

----
BUT NATURE LAUGHED!

Monday 23 January 2012

Nietzsche

In the Preface of Human All Too Human, Nietzsche outlines the project that was also to be mapped out and re-formulated in more detail by Bataille. In more well-known Freudian terms, to get control over one's Superego and to master it, rather than to have it controlling one from above.

More to come later, but the three stages of becoming healthier he describes are:

1. Starting from being the unquestioning servant of one's Superego.
2. Losing a sense of ego in the sense of no longer taking anything personally, but transcending "for and against" (thinking about right and wrong).
3. Adopting a perspective based on these earlier stages of experience, whereby one understands that "injustice" is written into the framework of all things.  This insight accompanies a state of being whereby one comes to master Superego and thereby to gain mastery of one's "for and against".  One might put this in a different way by saying one's "for and against" become relativised on the basis of having seen oneself transcendentally -- from a distance.  They are now no longer absolute and rigid and one is no longer unquestioningly subservient to them.  Thus, one is healthier than previously.

It may never gets so far that someone has a desperate need to be an identity that isn't the consumer unit -- most people have a desperate desire to be one that IS the consumer unit. That's because Superego (the device that makes us conform from within) is going to make us conform to the prevailing paradigm/s. This is why intellectual shamanism counsels that one should depart from everything one thinks one "knows" or feels to be true about oneself and one's world.
By sacrificing one's "self"as one mistakenly understands it to be, one has a much greater chance of finding one's true nature.  (This principle is in some ways more Bataille's than Nietzsche's.)

Why I write

My feelings, my emotions, like sheep, had gone astray and I had no idea where they were or what they were up to.  I was in my late twenties at this time and I knew something was wrong.   My life was dominated by attitudes of duty and hope for a better life if I pleased the correct authorities.   And I had every intention of pleasing them with all my might - so much so, I was coming apart at the seams.  I had no concept of pleasing myself.

I realize that many people would consider the attitudes I describe above to be ideal ones for a young female.  This was far from true.  My health was suffering and I would catch viruses much of the time -- signs indicating that I'd become a spiritual anorexic.

So, I began writing to feast on my own lamb stew or in Jung's less malicious prose, "to water one's own garden".

All of my writing has been an attempt to track down and reintegrate my emotions.

This is why there are certain modes of critiquing any of my work that are wholly wrong.  My writing is not, for instance, inherently emotional.  I worked hard to get this feeling effect.  Also, I don't need to be told to take a good, hard look at myself to figure out what, from a right-wing perspective, I need to change.  It should already be obvious, not least on the basis of good manners -- I really don't need to be told to go ahead and do what I've already been doing over all these years, to find out what needs to change.    I'm also not a female stereotype, pent-up with emotions that just want to come pouring out at the slightest touch. If that had been so, I would never have chosen the self-discipline of learning to write.

A friend from a similarly repressed culture recently told my of her disappointment in viewing a movie, Diary of a Geisha. She observed that the book had been very poorly rendered into film because the character seemed like a "Western girl", very emotional.

"At that age, she would not have known what she was feeling."


Sunday 22 January 2012

The structure of shamanistic observation


From Nietzsche:

But someday, in a stronger age than this decaying, self-doubting present, He must yet come to us, the redeeming man, of great love and contempt, the creative spirit whose compelling strength will not let him rest in any aloofness or any beyond, whose isolation is misunderstood by the people as if it were flight from reality-while it is only his absorption, immersion, penetration into reality, so that, when he one day emerges again into the light, He may bring home the redemption of this reality; it's redemption from the curse that the hitherto reigning ideal has laid upon it. The man of the future, who will redeem us not only from the hitherto reigning ideal but also from that which was bound to grow out of it, the great nausea, the will to nothingness, nihilism; This this bell-stroke of noon and of the great decision that liberates the will again and restores its goal to the Earth and his hope to Man; this Antichrist and Antinihilist this victor over God and nothingness-He must come one day.

Power itself is the medium we all move in. We can't renounce relating to others in terms of power even if we want to, but we can observe how power functions and step back from that.  That is like stepping out of time and out of reality temporarily.  One observes reality better from this position of detachment and it buys one time to think before acting.

Shamanism is not asceticism in any way. It renounces nothing. In this it differs very much from Christianity, which would posture as if to forsake an interest in power in order to appear more "spiritual".

Saturday 21 January 2012

Psychiatry: An Industry Of Death 10/10

Leans too much towards right wing conspiracy ideas, but hey, what's not to like?




I agree with the guy who says, "psychiatry IS politics". The tone is a bit alarmist, though.

Try shamanism. Aim for a baseline experience of nature, not moderated by social notions or ideas.  You will find out what is missing in your life and restore it.


STAY SANE AND SAVAGE Gender activism, intellectual shamanism

Human Nature, ready to rule the roost

In many quarters of society, it's considered quite urbane and natural to refer to human nature in terms of the conditions of domesticated and wild animals.

Workplace harassment is dismissed as a natural expression of "the pecking order".   We often hear reference made to "alpha males" and humans willingly acquiesce to the idea that what works best to keep others in line is both "the carrot" and "the stick".

Given the near universal acceptance of barnyard metaphors and appeals to certain idealized versions of "the wild", I find it astonishing that whenever I choose to casually refer to people in these terms, umbrage is taken.

For instance, someone might greet me casually, according to the dictates of the wild and the pecking order with "hey gal!"

To this, I respond, "hey ape!"

My response is always reasonable and wholly consistent in accepting the predominant world view that humans haven't quite made it to human status yet.   In other words, we only recognize each other hazily and in accordance with sado-masochistic notions of gender and racial hierarchy.


We might try harder, but we cannot seem to budge:  perhaps more carrot and more stick is necessary?


What is metaphysics?

Metaphysics is: "The assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

For instance, if one believes that different people are constrained by inner essences to behave according to their "genders", often this is metaphysics.

Tuesday 17 January 2012

Minefields of language and culture

Over the years -- over very many years -- I've realized that the way I communicate is different from many people, perhaps even the majority.   I've realized I have an inside-out soul.  Also an upside-down soul.   I'm not entirely alone in this.  Mike has one too.   "When my father died and I was still six, I shut out all emotion in order to cope."  That is how he describes his progeneration of an upside-down soul.

Perhaps most people experience their reactions to the world on the basis of emotion.  They then become aware of the emotion and try to tame it and control it.   This capacity to tame the emotions defines the progress one typically makes from childhood to adulthood.   In my case and in Mike's, out natural progress has to be in the opposite direction -- from stoicism to greater feeling-integration.

Language itself becomes contorted when an innate propensity for emotionalism rather than stoicism is assumed.   Even empathy may be a contributing factor to meaning going off course.  For instance, in not understanding something I do, another may exhort me to "act with more self control", when in fact my level of self-control is extremely high.   It would facilitate communication better if I understood why something had to be a certain way and not another, rather than pushing me to act in a manner of even colder, rarefied detachment.   The assumption that bringing my emotions to heel would enable me to see anything more clearly is wrong.  The would only lead to socially defined meanings becoming much more opaque than ever.

These mechanics of distancing become even more relevant with regard to my writing, where I tend often to use terms outside of their regular social meaning, adopting intellectual terms to embody certain aspects of my experience. I'm sure at times I have given these meanings my own slant to the extent that they no longer have precisely their original definition.  Nonetheless, they have my intended meanings, which are generally self-consistent (unless I'm still in the process of intellectually refining what the terms actually mean to me.)  I'm never concerned with socially formulated meanings in any of my writing.  I am only concerned with how people read -- or misread -- my personal sense of partially obscured or underlying cultural structures.  I'm fascinated, in other words, by the way people draw forth implicit meanings or understand connotations.  In relation to this, I'm interested in finding out about the emotional structures of various perspectives.

The ability to understand the implicit meanings will enable (or obstruct, in some cases) communication. In a cross-cultural situation, the meanings are often misread and communication is thwarted.

Someone who is moving away from an emotional way of responding to the world  will probably misread the actions and ideas of someone who is the process of moving towards a more emotionally integrated view of the world.  They will see moments of release from the necessity of stoicism, for instance, as a shameful loss of self-control. However, if one has self-control almost inevitably and necessarily, one may not be so alarmed at losing it through episodes of humor, even when this involves a risk of being profoundly and irrevocably misunderstood -- indeed "read backwards".

I enjoy cultures where having stoicism at the base-line of one's character is considered normal and I find it akin to walking in a minefield whenever I engage with cultures which have the opposite assumption at work.

STAY SANE AND SAVAGE Gender activism, intellectual shamanism

Boxing for fitness class 18 JAN 2012



STAY SANE AND SAVAGE Gender activism, intellectual shamanism

Monday 16 January 2012

Power/identity through perversion


Jennifer: The system exerts a tremendous amount of force to push us into certain roles and into adopting certain "perceptions".


Karen: As opposed to a powerful and intrinsic knowledge of one's own gender/race equality and right.Oh yes...prescribed or recreational drugs are certainly a big keeps of the status quo.


Jennifer:  Well the "intrinsic" knowledge can also be wrong and limiting. That's why I propose the shamanistic thing of self-knowledge through perverting the dominant paradigm. i.e. create various perversions of it and find out if any of those are  suitable for you.

Note: The term, "perversity", offers an ironic take on this matter above, since those who defend the dominant paradigm will always view any kind of creativity in dissent as "perverse".

Sunday 15 January 2012

ego reification

The corrective to Nietzsche's self-sacrifice via elitism or "transcendence" is of course Georges Bataille, who is clearly of the left and addresses the problems of modernity as a closer contemporary of you or I.

The problem of bourgeois society IS the reification of the ego -- that is, the assumption that a concept of oneself defines one's actual identity I think that liberals in general cannot understand a critique from someone of my bent, who takes up the Nietzschean tradition. They imagine that it would be impossible not to reify the ego or to avoid doing so would mean to denigrate (perhaps even to disintegrate) the ego. This is typical bourgeois black or white thinking.

One cannot develop actual subjectivity unless one sacrifices the aggrandizement of the bourgeois ego.  Yet this (apparent, rather than actual) sacrifice does not reallyt lead to nothing or negation, even though that is the danger and the threat that Bataille's writing announces.

Saturday 14 January 2012

Gender versus maturity


My experience with Western society is that gender roles are conventionally a division of labour, whereby males are expected to do all the hard lifting in terms of solving life’s problems and women are expected to reciprocate by processing their (male) emotions for them.
This keeps everyone at a very infantile level, because the system of assigning genders to do certain roles can only work by means of projective identification. How can a woman process the various emotions a male might be feeling unless he projects them into her, to begin with? She accepts them as “the emotional one” and performs a hygienic role of allowing him to be unimpeded by emotions in his work.
Certainly I think this is what many men and women are reacting to. It’s where gender politics can go wrong, because often people are reacting to the dismantling of this practice and the way it leaves them out in the cold. It’s absolutely necessary for this system to be dismantled, but it means each person has to be an individual in their own right, not a function of part of one. Many “men’s rights” guys freak out because women are no longer playing their expected role. They are reacting to the betrayal of expectations concerning this role. Women, too, dig their heels in and refuse to budge when they create systems of female solidarity that reinforce the view that women are fundamentally emotional and sensitive creatures. We are not.
The feminist project is for both men and women to be stand-alone adults. This is a process of evolution and many people are getting hurt along the way. I’ve often feel hurt myself having to say, “I know you need me to play this role of processing your emotions for you, but I’m not available for that.”
Fortunately, my husband does not require that kind of service to feel whole. He’s done all the emotional work necessary to get himself to level of being where he is a really attractive man.


Ideological sensitivity

A misleading idea is that feminism is about sensitivity, a variation of "sisterhood".  This may be related to the idea that one achieves a sense of belonging by embracing an identity.   I do not attach an identity to my actions, so my actions are not immediately understood.   Those who uphold the ideology of identities can easily point out "inconsistencies" in my attitudes, just because being human is an inconsistent act.  To "belong" one has to submit to correction by others, who believe they are called upon to make you consistent.   Inconsistency is held to be the worse possible condition for anyone, that has to be stopped at all costs.

Humanity, spontaneity and pleasure, therefore have to be stopped at all costs.  All ideologies command this.


Friday 13 January 2012

Newsflash: war is worse than anarchism!


DID YOU ASK WHAT'S WRONG WITH WAR --DAMBUDZO MARECHERA

There are no wrong words, right?
There are no wrong trees, right?
There is no wrong sand, right?
I’ve slept the world in frilly
underwear
Dreamed I buggered all the little boys
who are future leaders
Fucked all the funny little girls made of
thatch and ghandy
My anarchist arse has shat on society
And LOOK millions of open flies
are homing in on your wide-open lips.

Nietzsche, Bataille and "facing death"


  1. I have a huge amount of knowledge about Continental Philosophy. Absolutely huge. I’m not always keen to communicate it as the structure of these ideas are not linear or rational. Nietzsche, for instance, wrote in an aphoristic style and suggested that he could only be understood by those with “long legs”, who could step from one peak of a mountain to another. I’ve managed to achieve this feat of fully understanding Nietzsche, after many years. I still can’t convey what I’ve understood, at least not effectively. I’m not sure it’s even advisable to try. People ought to read Nietzsche directly and then read Bataille’s take on him. It’s all about letting go of safety and servility — an action that can feel to some people like “facing death”.


apes in capes: the human condition

I’m not an introvert. I’m slightly to the side of extroversion. All the same, I've adapted to a rather introverted lifestyle because I find too many conventional social assumptions to be alarming. The pop psychology embraced by all too many, including university professors, makes my head spin with its degree of wrongness. For instance, there is the idea that what others believe they observe about you must necessarily be more objective than what one observes about oneself. The illogical and obscene nature of this assumption is something I have no will to deal with. It’s just crazy.

Mirror, mirror on the wall: the shamanistic disposition


It's my sister's birthday, today.

When I was five, I wrote a card for her that began with the letter A underlined. It said: "shy is 4 yis old." After that, I began writing backwards because I was looking into a mirror to correct my handwriting as I wrote.

At that tender age, I had been misled by authoritarian advice, which held that if you want to check your speech, check it in the mirror. If you want to check your handwriting, ditto. The assumption is that if you were looking at either directly, you would be too subjective in your analysis.

Of course, this advice later became the foundation for my idea of shamanistic doubling: you can obtain a kind of difference of perspective by distancing or dissociation. This will produce unpredictable and novel results, which enhance experience and creativity, whilst at the same time producing a form of objectivity that runs counter to authoritarian mores.

UPDATED:
Q. But is shamanism really a form of intentional dissociation or is it the ability to access an expanded and perhaps more true version of reality?


A. One loses one's sense of attachment to mundane and conventional forms of behavior, when one dissociates. These no longer seem as necessary or as inevitable as before. Consequently one sees the truth, that one's capacities for LIVING are much broader than one had assumed.

Tuesday 10 January 2012

The cult of the individual

In all sincerity, I’ve had “the individual” up to here [Points to above the head or so]. The ideology of the individual has been taken to such extremes nowadays that it is become actually impossible to communicate anything of importance. People just assume you’re on the game of trying to make yourself sound special, making them free to dismiss anything that doesn’t automatically flatter their views of themselves. This ideology is killing the life of the mind. Everything is going down the plughole in honour of this cult of the individual.

 I'm all for actual individualism.

Sunday 8 January 2012

Stalking one's emotions

Emotional literacy: It's something I have struggled with until about five years ago.    This relates back in part to not being from a very individualistic society.  It also pertains to the reality of the war, with which I grew up. It used up all of our emotions, so we didn't filter much feeling into private concerns. By about the age of 26 (I had migrated to the First World ten years before), I realized that I was thinking and reacting very differently from how many had expected me to respond.   I learned a little bit about my personality -- that I was most inclined to make intuitive leaps in logic, based on pattern awareness, but that my processes were not very linear.   I also realized that I had little idea what my emotions were at any particular point in time.  I was out of synch with them.

That's why I began writing -- to try to stalk down my emotions.   It wasn't easy; they were very evasive due to years of repression.   Also, the change in cultural scenery didn't help, as my original character had been formed in an entirely different environment, so common explanations, which pertained to the way reality was organised as per Modernity, did not have any meaning for me.   Worse than this, they distorted my understanding of myself for a long period.   More often than not, other people's "help" was in the form of a paternalist projection.   These projections had much to do with how people perceived my gender and my historical background, which were in terms of inappropriately applied Modernist categories.  Also, there was a lot of negativity about "colonialism", which made it even harder for me to understand myself.

In the end, I was able to achieve a very high level of emotional literacy only by giving up the project of adapting to Western culture or trying to understand my emotions in its terms.

Talking to Asian people finally enabled this development, as they are unaffected by Western history and so do not have a negative reflex reaction to my identity as a "colonial".

doppelgänger

This interesting article came from Clarissa's blog. It's particularly appealing for me since, the doppelgänger concept was part of my theoretical platform for my thesis. I said that shamanism functions by means of creating doppelgängers in a state of dissociation. The difference between shamanism and pathology would be that the dissociation is intentional and is carefully observed and studied by the other half of the self. It’s a means of acquiring knowledge, but not in the normal sense of western epistemology, where knowledge is supposed to be divorced from experience and emotion. As Nietzsche points out, that kind of objectivity would be useless in terms of enhancing the human experience of life, and is part of the ascetic ideal — which he was trying to conquer in order to make human life meaningful. Thus Bataille (Nietzsche’s 20th Century student) avoids the trap of the wrong kind of knowledge-seeking by referring to mystical experience as ‘non-knowledge’.

Saturday 7 January 2012

My feminist conversion

Because I  hailed from a very right wing society where it seemed men were elusively noble -- (that is, not quite in the sense of being so, but rather as shadows of nobility inspirited on warlike grey horses) -- my conversion to feminism was via a rough and lonely road.

My conversion was achieved through Western gender dynamics, but would not have been the same without the contributing factor of my incredible naivety.

The structure of relationships in a contemporary Western context mostly, if not always, go like this.  The Western men will adopt the attitude that they are free agents and free spirits, worthy of engaging with and relying upon.    They should be trusted implicitly.  Time reveals that these wonderful men are incapable of achieving anything out of the ordinary.   After some time, it becomes evident that they believe nefarious forces are holding them back.   At the point of this proclamation, just when one is wondering what or whom these nefarious agents of disaster might be, the tide of reasoning points to YOU.

You, as a woman, are the inherent cause of all the deep unhappiness that besets every male:  each of them is deeply unhappy -- and it is ALL YOUR FAULT.

In particular, you, yourself took the faulty step of thinking you could rely on males to be whom they said they were.  This shows a typical case of feminine "over-sensitivity" that in turn means that women have nobody to blame for being deceived by male proclamations, but themselves.

So, it was that after a period of ten years or so, the Western male himself convinced me that I had to embrace feminism for the sake of logical consistency -- or risk losing (more of) my sanity.

Friday 6 January 2012

All forms of discourse are not the same


Not all forms of discourse are the same.  They vary according to intent.  Some are designed to assert power and some are designed to raise and examine questions.

Consider the extreme difference of outcome if "I don't know what my identity is" is taken to represent a state of emotional confusion as opposed to being an intellectual question.

In the second instance, a high level of curiosity is combined with a personal psychology that is capable of detaching self-esteem from the issue of identity.  When read as an emotional statement, devoid of intellectual content, the question seems to imply an emotional deficit. The outcome of interpretation could not be more different.

I relate this back to my own experience, over the past ten years. Since I am an intellectual who also happens to be female, a regular occurrence for me has been having statements or questions I've made in the form of an intellectual question being reduced to a statement about emotional states as such.

No doubt, intellectual questions and attitudes must be extremely rare in the general population to warrant the consistency of pushing this wrong angle. Also, according to traditional metaphysics, women are "emotional" not "rational",  so the category my statements are too often placed in, where they become distorted, has an external and historical origin.    These meanings appended to my statements or my questions then have no relationship to my personal psychology.

I would be happy to relate more intellectually to most of my correspondents, but many of them seem stuck at a metaphysical-emotional level of processing ideas.  Sadly, this means they will also be inclined to impute their particular worldview and perspectives to me.

STAY SANE AND SAVAGE Gender activism, intellectual shamanism

Wednesday 4 January 2012

More on what shamanism isn't


An understatement commences right here: shamanism is not an approach designed for self-esteem building.

Nor is it a means for moral edification. Whilst building self-esteem through worthwhile activities or edifying oneself morally are necessary and valuable, shamanism is still not the means for this.

A good analogy: the paint work in one's house has become worn and shoddy. There are already too many layers of paint to call for a simple repaint, so a paint-stripper is advisable. Shamanism is the chemical reagent that will remove the glossy sheen from inside your house.

Shamanism is inimical to the project of building an identity, since it eschews self-deception and social identities are useful fictions at best. Shamanism holds that one does not earn an identity or develop self-esteem from others. To attempt this approach would make one a victim, since others can freely deny you your very identity.  So long as one wishes to "command respect" from others, you give others power to control you.

Shamanism is the paint stripper that breaks down the illusions -- it removes the gloss of your psychological attitudes that keep you in a mode of sadomasochism. It removes the paint that you and others, through social collusion, have long been smearing over reality.

What's underneath may not be to our liking, but in time it can be polished, to radiate.

Nietzsche's Zarathustra advised his readers that some people ought not to lose their illusions as they are better off with them. To be free in this way could lead some people to commit suicide. Nietzsche thought  most were not free enough for this freedom; that they needed to limit their capacity to be honest with themselves.

One's self-esteem needs already to be high to manage life without the typical self-deception that is the belief in the redemptive qualities of a moral system or, indeed, the false map of the world that is metaphysics.

What intellectual shamanism isn't

Intellectual shamanism is about destruction of identity, not the formulation of identity in order to build self-esteem.  That is a recipe for servitude.


  • Garreth Gothaven is not shamanism the rule you use to lead one to uncovering their potential.?
    14 minutes ago · 

  • Jennifer Frances Armstrong no --it's not a human potential movement.
    13 minutes ago · 

  • Garreth Gothaven correction not lost but thats where the pendelums swing is currently, in any case for thngs to be the way they are was a product of human effort... Nw it is also pan africanist human effort that works to seduce man to an alternative state
    9 minutes ago · 

  • Garreth Gothaven if not a potential movement what is it then?
    8 minutes ago · 

  • Jennifer Frances Armstrong Just leads to more self deception -- trying to correct others in order to gain power over them. Very slimy.
    4 minutes ago · 

  • Garreth Gothaven i am not enforcing an identity politics per se but rather a cosmopolitanism in its strictest sense where equality and self esteem is not obtained by paddling another groups illusion of civility
    2 minutes ago · 

  • Jennifer Frances Armstrong Few people are actually capable of being themselves because they prefer lies and self deception. Shamanism is the capacity to be oneself. You can' t be that whilst you're trying to get power over others or build an identity to deceive them
    2 minutes ago · 

  • Jennifer Frances Armstrong If people want no longer to be deceived, they ought to stop deceiving themselves -- stop trying to construct an identity
    about a minute ago · 

  • Jennifer Frances Armstrong Others can only deceive you because you are so willing to deceive yourself. You think that creating an identity will "command respect" from them. That is a basic level of self deception about the world and how it functions
    A few seconds ago · 




  • Jennifer Frances Armstrong You can't reduce masochism by creating an identity with the intention of "commanding respect"
    4 minutes ago · 

  • Jennifer Frances Armstrong That is actually a recipe for masochism.
    3 minutes ago · 

  • Garreth Gothaven so in a shamanistic aproach how would you reveal to a 5 year old black girl that the blond barbie doll is not better than a black doll at the same shop (not even a barbie too) is the 5 year old girl simply suffering from her inner desire for self deception
    about a minute ago · 

  • Jennifer Frances Armstrong Why do you think a shamanistic approach would be suitable for the moral edification of such a child?
    A few seconds ago · 

  • Jennifer Frances Armstrong Most people deceive themselves, because of power relations and their natural way of handling them.
    2 seconds ago · 


Cultural barriers to objectivity