1. I hadn't been able to articulate what I have sensed many years ago until now. It seems that not being socially conditioned to think a certain way means that it is harder to find the tools to express certain ideas. At such a time of development, one one must accept that one's perspectives lack the power of effective articulation. Until finally, through persistence over time, a change in paradigms, mirrored by a change from within, can allow furnish one with the means to speak. One finds one's voice, at last, concerning a particular subject matter.

    As I am now able to speak, I will say that it now is so clear to me now why it is that those who risk themselves are more powerful, psychologically speaking (which is to say, "shamanistically speaking".)

    For those who read Nietzsche: If you want to be an overman, risk thyself. Don't go beating your breast and vamping on women. Risk you. (Risking the women around you is hardly the same thing.)

    Those who risk themselves will deal with life in a fluid way. (It almost gets to sound quite feminine at this point, but shamanic fluidity means in Nietzsche's terms, acting by instinct*). In terms of Nietzsche's hierarchy of human beings, the greatest are those whose instincts do not let them down.)

    Those who want a formula for life -- and indeed, those who try to impose a formula for living on others -- would seem to be lacking in the secret of shamanism. Such types are without self-reliance and fall short of a Kingdom or two when it comes to psychological health.

    ___
    *Not base instinct, but rather from out of one's character
    0

    Add a comment

  2. http://home.iprimus.com.au/scratchy888/CHAPTER%20the%20black%20insider.htm
    0

    Add a comment

  3. http://home.iprimus.com.au/scratchy888/HOUSE%20OF%20HUNGER%20CHAPTER.htm
    0

    Add a comment

  4. That which shamanism does is put you in touch with what you already know, but have not had the capacity or power or desire to really KNOW FULLY up until the time of the shamanic initiation.

    That is why Nietzsche speaks of the mode of (shamanic) inspiration as giving one light feet, and a feeling that everything one writes is automatically inclined to hit the nail on the head. He is speaking of the sensation (and to some degree, the quality) of shamanic inspiration. He is not speaking, by any means, of divine inspiration in the prophetic mode.

    He is certainly NOT telling the truth about anything in that conventional religious sense -- but this is how he is most commonly misunderstood.

    There are people who are attracted to his writings because the vitality of the shamanic (simultaneous) self-destruction and self-transcendence has a powerful magnetic pull on any human psyche that isn't already quite dead. Attraction doesn't imply understanding, though, and these who become Nietzsche's followers (and that despite the fact that he said he didn't want any followers and rebuffed them) are usually inclined to misread the basis of their attraction to Nietzsche (his shamanistic quality of burning like a shooting star). They think they were attracted to the "truth" of his insights. Rather, they were attracted to his mode of relating his insights in an extremely authentic -- which is to say, shamanic --way. They sense that Nietzsche's whole self is behind his perspectives in every way, and that it is above all a UNITED self (not one that is conventional and divided against itself) that thinks in this way. That kind of authenticity in honesty and honour is so very rare that it strikes one with the force of a thunderbolt (that is, if one is still alive at all). But then comes the subsequent misunderstanding, which is the overall fatal misreading of one's own reaction.

    Instead of finding their own way to shamanistic self-transformation and to an authentic perspective all of their own, his followers latch onto some element of Nietzsche's own ideas, such as his misogyny (a feature that is quite conventional in the context of 19th Century historical terms). Being hostile to women, his readers conclude, is the way to cause their inner lights to burn more brightly. They believe that they must have initially been attracted to Nietzsche because of this kind of "truth". They attribute his misogyny as providing the source of his magnetism -- that is as the source of his capacity to speak shamanically. They mistake cause and effect, and overly identify with ideas that have no value in themselves, except for the capacity of the shaman-magician to breathe burning authenticity and life into his thoughts.

    Such a misunderstanding is worse than death. It turns those who were attracted to a genuine expression of someone's authentic selfhood into bitter old men, whose self-misunderstandings have led them to lose their ways.

    Is there redemption for such prematurely aging men?
    0

    Add a comment

  5. http://home.iprimus.com.au/scratchy888/HOUSE%20OF%20HUNGER%20CHAPTER.htm
    0

    Add a comment

  6. One of the main difficulties in reading texts that have a strong shamanic streak in them is that one may very easily mistake their tone. It's not the common one, today. Consider Nietzsche and Bataille, for instance. The most common tendency is to read them as if they were making statements from the point of view of the transcendental imperative: "Thou shalt". We are familiar with this tone from evangelical preachers, and so it seems to be the most natural way to read the characters of these philosophical writers.

    Yet both Nietzsche and Bataille take pains to frame their ideas as being the product of their own insights and inspiration. They are honest enough in this, and this quality of their rigour sets them apart from all protestant preachers and their ilk.

    The tone of their writing is that appropriate to shamanic inspiration. The writing is supposed to seduce, to hypnotise you into adopting a certain perspective, so that you see things in a different light. The safe-guard against the possibility of readers becoming robots/zombies for the new cause is the intellectual rigour of the writers, which reminds the reader that what they are dealing with is a perspective --one of among, quite possibly, many. Bataille is direct enough to use the term "seduction" to describe what his form of "mystical" initiation involves. Nietzsche, likewise, gives ample warnings about how perspectives tend to vary -- although Nietzsche also loads the die by claiming that his own perspectives are the most noble. Nietzsche, then, deliberately or inadvertently, is more of a direct manipulator of perspectives compared to Bataille. The latter is more rational.

    Shamanic texts can be tricky as I've just suggested, and the best way to read them is on the level. That is, you should imagine someone whispering some new ideas into your ear. Do you agree with them or disagree? Accept them or refuse them? You will need to rely upon your own "inner experience" in order to decide. You'll need to make the right decision.

    Reading Nietzsche's tone on the basis of granting the reader equality with the writer, what comes across in Nietzsche is a certain paternalistic reassuring quality in his mode of seduction. He wants to reassure his readers that even if they have to die for his ideas, everything will be okay in the end. By contrast, Bataille's tone is icier. (One feels in it the dampness of the French countryside.) He wants to create a deep uneasiness, which will be matched by the reassurance only you can generate for yourself. (Bataille will even tell you how to do it.) Bataille wants you to embrace the worst possibilites imaginable -- and accept them as probably likely.

    At bottom, however, which means at the very foundations of their thinking, both Nietzsche and Bataille maintain their stance of intellectual rigour. It is on the basis of acknowledging that there are no transcendental values, that Nietzsche justifies to us his assertion of his own estimation of appropriate values. Bataille, in turn, embraces a thoroughly anti-positivistic version of knowledge. True knowledge is emptied of particularised content. It is Socrates' statement: "I know that I know nothing." Yet the simplicity of this statement betrays a hidden world of complexity -- this is not a positivistic statement by any means, and ought not to be taken as one. Rather, to know "nothing" is to refuse to be satisfied with little piece-meal supplies of information. No knowledge is enough: One's attitude to knowledge is insatiable.

    This kind of skepticism at the bottom of both Nietzsche and Bataille's philosophies is thoroughly shamanic. It is key to shamanism to understand that knowledge is created, not discovered. It is known that a shaman with sufficient skill can transport his created values into the real world, and cause them to grow up there. Nietzsche and Bataille, both understanding this shamanic principle, left signs through their works that they knew they were working with experimental modes of knowledge.
    3

    View comments

  7. Marechera's writing style has been viewed as "elitist", and perhaps the way in which the novella and the nine stories of The House of Hunger have been written would provide ample evidence for this point of view. That being said, the attribution of "elitist" to what is fundamentally a shamanistic style of writing -- (The House of Hunger is where the budding author discovers his style) -- misses its mark. For what we see in The House of Hunger , as in his later works, is the harnessing of intellectual ideas as well as well as mythopoetic ideas derived from the local Shona culture (as well as Marechera's own imaginative embroidery of his local time and place) in order to tell a story of shamanistic initiation and transformation. It is always this inner story that is primary, and essential to understanding in any of Marechera's works.

    The intellectual ideas that he appropriates, in order to tell the story of how oppression led indirectly (and by no means inevitably) to the expansion of his mind, are always bent and honed to suit this particular purpose of story-telling. The ideas he uses -- whether Jungian or Freudian or pan-Africanist in their nature -- retain only some of their original theoretical consistency and become merged with notions derived from very different schools of thought, in Marechera's writing. His work is far less elitist, then, in terms of what is generally implied by this term: in terms of an approach being chosen so as to advocate for one's intellectual superiority. Rather, we see that various ideas and theories of thought are taken from the Western and African contexts in which they were originally generated, and used by Marechera to form a skin or exo-skeleton that will define the outline of his "inner experience".

    This emphasis on "inner experience" is more than just hinted at by Marechera's seemingly eclectic approach to stylistic matters. It is based on shamanistic ways of making choices between different sources of material during the processes of writing. This tendency to differentiate between the "exoteric" (as in the types of material that Marechera uses in order to point to something about his state of mind) and the "esoteric" (the state of mind itself, which is revealed only by experiencing the work holistically, and not by any means just in terms of its parts)is also shamanistic. In fact, we see the inception of this type of thinking -- a mode of of thinking that Marechera was always to employ in his writing -- in terms of the differentiation between the inside of the "house of hunger" (the emblem representing Marechera's psyche)and the outside of it. The novella of The House of Hunger can be seen esoterically as involving the budding author's learning to distinguish between inner experience and experiences that are determined from the outside of one's mind, and caused by historical inevitability. It is the power of inner experience that is given value and precedence to determine quality of life, at the end of the novella. This is not to suggest a break from reality, or that the author descended into solipsism -- but rather, to the contrary, that a firm shamanistic dualism has been established to distinguish the knowledge that one has of "the inside" (that is, knowledge of the self) from that which one has concerning "the outside" (that is, the partly knowable external world, which is now seen to need the imaginative powers of a shaman-creator to supplement it.)

    The charge of elitism also seems misplaced when one considers that it is not a shaman's task to disperse intellectual knowledge, so much as to differentiate between social and cultural forces that enhance the experience of life and those that serve to dampen or kill "inner experience". This is what is what is meant by referring to a shaman's "ontological knowledge". An encounter with death imparts this knowledge. The death of ego is represented in The House of Hunger , when the protagonist is unable to distinguish between the inside of "the house" (his psyche) and its outside. His self is thus "dissociated", and yet to its advantage, is given ventilation and room to breathe. (It's a different metaphor that the writer uses at this point -- the all too tight "stitches" that hold together the author's head (symbolising his fraught character structure) no longer pull so tightly anymore. It's a holistic depiction of how temporary psychosis led to the expansion of his mind despite his original inner resistance to this process of expansion. This is a story of spontaneous "shamanic initiation". It is often viewed as a sickness that is brought about by "spirits" or a wounding of the mind and body. The author's way of writing about it has nothing to do with feigning an elite stance against the world. Rather, he incorporates intellectual and aesthetic material from the widest range of sources (African and Western), in order to convey the nature of his transformation. (His writing should be considered to be broadly culturally inclusive, rather than by any means "elitist".)

    The value of shamanic initiation, as I have said, is that the one who undergoes it receives "ontological knowledge". The person who "faces death" through shamanic initiation understands implicitly the relationships that humans develop with the spectre of death (that is, death as symbolically constructed, death as a common means of psychological self-compromise that facilitates certain types of human social organisation, and death as existential threat or "limit".) Marechera's writing in The House of Hunger and beyond reveal a preoccupation with these concerns. Shamanic healing is involves using the techniques of dissociation and projecting of one's ego elsewhere, to cope with this now known enemy -- the spectre of death. The goal is to use one's knowledge of how the human psyche is constructed (knowledge gained during initiation) to outwit danger and death. Shamanic dualism (as previously described) enables one to escape the spectre of symbolic death by taking on different forms. Symbolic death is a human construct, and therefore, has conventionalistic predilections, which do not take into account the possibility of shamanic transformations. We see here a useful transformation in "The Writers' Grain" when the protagonist encounters "Barbara's father in the valley":

    'I'll get you in the end, you rascal!' he screamed.
    But I bit the silver button and turned myself into a crocodile and laughed my great sharp teeth at him. (p 33)


    The use of shamanic knowledge is not just in terms of a folklorish context, however. The psychological knowledge of what can be achieved by dissociation, splitting, projection and magical thinking is real. One with shamanic knowledge understands how these psychological devices are commonly used in everyday human society, and how they may advantage or disadvantage those who use them. Access to this kind of knowledge marks the shaman as potentially a real political player:

    While I was cursing [Barbara's father], a voice I did not recognise said:

    "You thought it was all politics, didn't you?'

    But there was no one there.

    I sneered.

    'Isn't it?'

    And I sullenly turned myself back into human shape. (p 133.)



    A shamanistic approach does have political advantage in that it takes a holistic approach to human affairs. It disregards the common human need for repression as well as forms of mind-body dualism that do not allow for an equal expression of both of these sides. Therefore it is capable of seeing more at once, and from a wider angle, than most more theoretical positions are capable of taking in at one time.
    0

    Add a comment

  8. To spell out the meaning of the Overman in a less esoteric fashion than I have attempted before, the power that belongs to the Overman is that of continuing to risk himself. Failing to risk himself, he loses his iridescence, his youth and his relevance.

    So it is that the males of Rhodesia, despite their noxious ideology, were iridescent in their own ways, because they constantly risked themselves (in war and so on). So it is that when they fled the country and migrated, they put an end to risking themselves and became bitter, and lost relevance.

    To risk oneself is to stay forever young, because the energy that forms you is never allowed to become crystalised, to become rigid. It is always subject to more heat, to becoming fluid and to reforming you again. If one gender risks itself and the other one doesn't, it is the latter that will become older quicker than the former -- hence may women aged very quickly within the Rhodesian regime.

    That is the secret of the shaman (risk of self) and it is the secret of the 'Overman'. It is the whole secret, and it is in a nutshell: Risk yourself if you want to go beyond what humans have been; are insistent upon being today. Risk yourself if you want to retain your youth. Risk, if you want to remain relevant.

    Now to the practice of trying to dominate women: 1--What's so interesting about you that any woman would simply let you? 2--Why this obsession with this one thing?

    If it's your constant sameness that you think is attractive, then think again.

    Here is a parable. It's the story of "left hook" Jack.

    Once upon a time, Jack entered the boxing ring. Nobody thought he had it in him, because he was a reedy looking, boy, not yet 17, who had one thing going for him: his inner determination.

    His opponent was at least twice his size, a hardened fighter in his prime. Yet, in the second round, Jack, who was a southpaw, managed to manouever himself into a position where he delivered the knockout punch to his opponent. Nobody had thought he could do it. It was a left hook.

    Henceforth he acquired a number of followers, who were very excited about their own perspectives concerning Jack's achievements. "It's the left hook that has all the power!" they proclaimed.

    Some of these followers wanted more than to follow, so they set themselves up as Jack's advisors. Notably, they wouldn't have to risk anything themselves, but would be up for sharing some of the glory when Jack demolished more of his opponents with his magnificent left hook. This was the logic of their thinking, and as logic goes, you couldn't fault it.

    His followers, however, were not boxers themselves, and had never risked themselves. They only knew what they had seen, and they kept repeating it amongst themselves "One knocks another out using a magnificent left hook."

    Jack was gratified that so many people wanted to advise him. He listened carefully to all they said:

    "Keep a stiff left hook position at all times!"

    "You know what works now, so don't risk trying something new."

    "Plant yourself in the ground, and don't move. Rely heavily on your one definite skill -- your capacity to use your left hook."

    When Jack heard all of this well-meaning advice, he smiled to himself, for it was clear that his advisors knew absolutely nothing about boxing. He had to remain unpredictable, not "adopt a position" and stick to it, in order to win another fight.

    He turned and shook his head ironically at all his followers. "You don't understand the game of boxing at all!" he said.

    His followers and would-be advisors were outraged, however. "We BELIEVED in you!" they shouted. "We had all our hope and expectation that you would adopt -- and stick to -- the required form!"


    0

    Add a comment

  9. Science itself teaches the male his destiny. But why does the male refuse to conform to it? The sperm that succeeds is broken down by the ova -- broken down and reformulated. This is the quintessential example of shamanisation (or what Hegel, in his wisdom, calls "sublation"). In a shamanic sense, we can say that the winner sperm becomes "dissociated" and that its materials are reappropriated for something other than it, for something beyond what it had been.

    This, by the way is the same principle by which the "Overman" (in Nietzschean terminology) is constructed -- not by being what he is, but by going BEYOND himself, by becoming something more than what he was. This, by the way, does not mean chimping around and pretending to be the social darwinistic "winner" -- the ape at the top of the castle! (a horrible miscarriage of interpretation, if ever there was one):

    All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man?

    What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame.


    Here is more about the shamanic destruction of "what is" that is supposed to lead to something beyond the currently favoured monkey identification of Western humanity:

    I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive.

    I love him who liveth in order to know, and seeketh to know in order that the Superman may hereafter live. Thus seeketh he his own down-going.

    I love him who laboureth and inventeth, that he may build the house for the Superman, and prepare for him earth, animal, and plant: for thus seeketh he his own down-going.


    It's sort of hard to get across, though, that Neechy doesn't want us to play at being monkeys. He wants us to 'shamanise'.

    It's a hard message to take, since the male would rather be a monkey than create beyond himself.
    3

    View comments

  10. The capacity to do something new -- it is key to Modernism, but it is not so easily achieved as one might suppose. The human mind moves in grooves, and according to habit, in its normal state.

    Jazz (the production of which would not be possible without "inner experience" in Bataille's sense), boxing, ongoing guerilla warfare (including that of the psychological sort) all require the capacity for unpredictability.

    But the human mind naturally goes within habitual grooves...
    0

    Add a comment

Popular Posts
Popular Posts
  •  Different domains. As long as the control of the domain is not interfered with, both can win at their own games. As an ENTP, I tend to take...
  •  I love it. But Twain was in a sense too optimistic as travel is not always the answer. Or rather nothing beats being a local yokel and expe...
  •   What is a good book by Nietzsche to read in order to understand how he thought that people have an innate nature? Basically arguing nature...
About Me
About Me
Blog Archive
Blog Archive
Labels
Loading