1. Ever since I have returned to Perth from the UK, I have had occasional dreams that I am back there. Usually the obsession of my mind is transportation in some way, and the fear of losing my luggage, coupled with a secondary reconsideration and indifference about losing my luggage. A couple of nights ago, for instance, I left some of my suitcases, which were full of raw vegetables, on a city bus, because I could only carry two large suitcases full of shopping. I wondered if the bus company would send the other ones on to me, but I concluded that they wouldn't as I hadn't left a forwarding address.

    In last night's dream, I turned a corner on the street, towards UWA, which turned out to be Oxford University, New College. The streets were very labyrinthine, so I immediately lost my way upon turning the corner. I got out of the car to ask directions, and I was immediately immersed in the labyrinth, and the mardi gras that was taking place.

    I had to join the party -- which had only women in it -- because my car had been taken, by now, and put on a big truck by a big crane. I thought I'd have to pay to get it back, but it was just being removed for the mardi gras.

    I was in a room where there were benches to sit, and the women were getting changed. I found some vaseline and started to apply it to my face, and then I thought, "I wonder whose it is, and why I'm doing this?" I found that gravity was pushing me towards the door, as I sat on the bench, and I tried to explain this to the others, but it didn't bother them.
    3

    View comments


  2. 1. I'm very patient with people, and forgive almost any sort of error except the error of dishonest hostility.


    2. I'm exceedingly ruthless with people who commit the error of dishonest hostility with me.


    3. I don't have an ideology. I rely upon observation to determine what is what.


    4. Every time a nut attacks me without good cause (ie. every time a nut attacks) I make sure to do five times the amount of positive things on behalf of the left -- such as donate to the third world, whatever. I can also gain much just by watching and learning.

    5. I do believe, to a certain degree, in natural justice. I think people who treat others badly become sick inside.
    6. I think not all authoritarianism is bad -- especially in schools.
    7. I think most people fall for ideologies because they have not tested their own limits and consequently know very little about themselves -- or others.
    8. I think that if we are psychologically in order, we can tell whether others are speaking tongue in cheek or not. If someone fails this test, it is probably because they have become used to lying to themselves at a fundamental level.
    9. I'm getting fitter. My shoulders have hardened.
    10. Pork ribs.
    7

    View comments



  3. Comparing shamanisms: Nietzsche, Bataille, Marechera


    The immense task of a contemporary shaman is to use all means available to discover how to survive a huge historical crisis that has ended up wounding his or her psyche.  A modern shaman is generally one who has lived through sudden historical changes.    The  wounding of these changes compels deep and thorough investigation into the world as well as into the structure of one's psyche. The urgency and personal nature of this quest ultimately produces its fruit: profound insight into the nature of reality as well as access to means creative means of self-expression that are not available to those who haven't had to look so deeply.

    A shaman is a wild person and so a socially marginal one – although not by virtue of his or her original nature, but based on a return to Nature, through shamanistic initiation. He is not civilised, in the narrow sense by which Nature and Civilisation are seen to be at odds. Rather, he uses knowledge of Nature in order to enhance and prolong his own life, and to endure Civilisation. Thus one can compare Nietzsche's and Bataille's shamanism, as imparting very different strategies for shamanistic survival, on the basis of knowledge that has been obtained more or less in shamanistic ways (that is, via an ecstatic experience).

    Looking at it in this way, Nietzsche took his shamanism towards patriarchy and towards master race domination, which Bataille's approach managed to correct -- but not in time to save Nietzsche's reputation. Survival of a shaman is based upon the ability to innovate a solution to existential dilemmas as they present themselves. The paradigm that Nietzsche chose -- that of transcendence -- gave him fewer options for creative innovation in solving life's problems as compared to the one opted for by Bataille.

    To transcend the body is to risk social and psychological rigidity, as one departs further and further from the source of psychological nurturing. Aiming to enhance one's feeling of power (equated with a sense of intoxication) was an alternative means by which Nietzsche expected to gain a sense of revivification for his mind and body. Yet to descend into the body -- as Bataille did -- was to descend into this base, and to be nurtured by the very source of Being, itself.

    Marechera's shamanic solution was to perpetuate his inwards survival in a way very similar to that of Bataille, in opting for immanence rather than for transcendence as a method to draw in vitality. It was a risk, but a calculated one -- since the dregs of society provide more exposure to the raw substance of immediate reality than do those who live aloof, respectable, and above the thronging crowds. His capacity to live homeless, on the streets, was certainly reflective of his capacity for shamanic innovation.

    He had the capacity to dissociate, if need be, and the well developed inner self knowledge that would enable him to know best how to distract himself with entertaining stories. Yet to live in such objectively desperate circumstances for too long would deplete even an experienced shaman's inner resources. Thus the practical limits of everyday life represent a realistic limit to the fundamental shamanic principle of trying to influence reality to the point that it bends to one's requirements.

    Nietzsche had already gone too far in trying to perpetuate his own survival when he tried to develop a system of gender relations that would have robbed women of their agency. He was not able to perceive that this approach no longer was in line with his original principle of transcendence, but represented a descent towards a pre-Oedipal (very early childhood) type of arrangement of male symbiotic union with women, as in the psychological situation of the mother and child.

    To make women into symbiotic "part objects" for the sake of masculine supremacy -- which would have been the consequence of his approach, when generalised socially and politically -- would have compromised the shamanic masculinity, by making of it a kind of childishness and dependency. For the pre-Oedipal structure of relationship, whereby one is nurtured and the other gives the breast, is a quintessential example of extreme immanence.

    Far better to aim for immanence and nurturing to begin with,  as Marechera and Bataille actually did. At least each of them were shaman enough not to remain at this level, but to utilise their experiences of immanence in order to develop their creativity and schemes of thought.
    0

    Add a comment

  4. Note on methodology:

    My thesis approach is psychological, which may seem at odds with the literalistic nature by which shamans themselves interpret their experiences. However, the differences between the two approaches can be bridged via phenomenology: that is, one experiences the realm defined by pre-Oedipal consciousness as being very literal and direct. Metaphor ( a feature of language) is phenomenologically quite remote when one is experiencing life in this way.
    0

    Add a comment

  5. Let me say that an aspect of shamanism that is also in Nietzsche comes through his correct understanding of Nature, through de Sade.

    So he had access to the shamanism proper (in the sense of a correct orientation towards Nature) as compared to many of the new age papers on shamanism that I moved swiftly through today.

    Once again, let me offer a caution to "Nietzscheans" -- just because the true nature of Nature doesn't mean you have to submit to it. Even worse, if you try to force others to do so!

    The new age view on Nature, however, is that it is really nurturing and benign.



    It is considered "healing" to submit to Nature on the basis of a supposition that this is so.

    Yet shamanic healing does not come about through submitting to something which has intrinsic properties of being healing -- rather as one might submit to a hot bath at the end of a long day.

    That is why the destructive elements of shamanic initiation need to be emphasized more within the Western context -- not to give people the basis for macho posturing, but to warn them of the reality.

    Shamanic healing comes through an encounter with oneself as intricately related to raw Nature. It is not -- (another common misunderstanding) -- a way to grasp an epistemology that is unaffected by social content or cultural ideas. It is not neo-platonism. Rather it is a way to encounter a part of one's nature of which one had previously been unaware.
    2

    View comments

  6. I am inclined to have futuristic dreams, more often than not. Sometimes I am back in the past, doing something or other, at my old school, for instance. But always there is a futuristic element to the dream as well. I am anticipating how things might have changed.

    It is only when my creative juices have been almost emptied, by working too hard on my [expletive] thesis, that I have dreams that are sketchy at best, where the content seems to scrape the bottom of the barrel in reworking themes that I had virtually lost interest in.

    Last night, there were passenger planes landing at an airport in the middle of a war zone. The planes landed with all of their windows open, which I thought to be an interesting innovation. And they were routinely fired upon by anti-aircraft weapons upon landing.

    "Aren't you afraid of being shot down?" I asked the pilot.

    "Not really," he said. "It's the anti-gravity devices that all ground-bound vehicles are more afraid of."

    "What?" I said. "Does such technology exist?"

    "Yes," he said. "They use a beam. It's quite scientific."
    3

    View comments


  7. In Visions of Excess, Bataille takes his otherwise mentor, Nietzsche, to task for promoting a metaphysics of transcendence -- which Bataille perceived as a will to fall. He says that when Nietzsche clung tearfully to the neck of the old carthorse in Turin, he was exemplifying the state of having fallen from the psychological heights, which was an inevitable outcome of his philosophy of transcendence.

    Initially I thought that Bataille's criticism of Nietzsche was a way for him to develop an inroad for his own psychological approach, but it seems there is more to it than that. Bataille writes from a point of view of genuine insight.

    For what is transcendence, after all, if it is not transcendence of the body? Even in its guise of being a moral transcendence of the ideologies and proclivities of the masses, it is ultimately this.

    In order to understand the Icarian complex (the desire to attain transcendence and why it is bound for failure), one must consider the nature of the body, and how it is the psychological source and origin for all the pleasure we may have. (Nietzsche understood this implicitly, but did not take the logic of his knowledge far enough, so that be built certain contradictions - or "tensions" -- into his philosophy, and ultimately remained somewhat a man of his time.)

    To transcend those aspects of life to which one feels morally superior seems more than logical. However, to turn transcendence into a metaphysical principle, by which those who are destined to be superior distinguish themselves from their inferiors is more psychologically problematic. It may lead to an increasing psychological fastidiousness and separation from the thrall of life to the degree that one finds it difficult to feel the pleasure of the body any more. Ultimately, what one achieves this way is a self-transcendence, which makes it difficult to experience pleasure in life.

    When we compare the harshness of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil to some of his earlier works, we may already be able to see some of the internal logic of this philosophy of transcendence, and how it has done damage to the author.

    Already he is railing against women and promoting rigid traditional marriage as a way to right all wrongs. (In earlier writings he has a more realistic view of love as not requiring a permanent contractual binding.)
    Could it be that the author, having detached too much from everyday life through his practice of transcendence, was unable to generate his own feelings of intrinsic connectedness to sensual reality? Being unable to derive sufficient pleasure from it in a natural way (by way of internal reference to the body), he was driven to trying to generate the philosophical basis for a social system that would remove the option for marriageable women not to marry marriageable men. In other words, at the point of the failure of his philosophical system on a psychological level, he became an antifeminist, who tried to make the future social and political systems take up the slack for what had become internally missing and inadequate?

    To spell it out even more clearly: If Nietzsche, in his pursuit of transcendence, had lost touch with his body, he needed a woman to combine with him, to symbiotically become the body he'd lost touch with. This is what he was aiming for, and his psychological neediness was at the source of his antifeminism. For, one does not easily compel a woman to become a mere function of one's desperate psychological needs if she is feminist and free. One needs the force of a social system to make this happen.

    And in his last depraved attempt to use social forces to get what he ought never to have lost Icarus fell back to Earth --  but didn't know it.

    4

    View comments

  8. In the same manner that all Jews desire the Swastika, and Tutsis long for the Machete, I an envious of those whose prize possession is the penis.

    Now, please, carry on with your meals.
    0

    Add a comment

  9. Perhaps contemporary shamanism might be misunderstood as being simply masochistic -- in the way that I had originally been inclined to misunderstand Bataille.

    It seems so if one thinks non-dialectically, but not if one thinks otherwise.

    Think of any dangerous, extreme sport. From the point of view of the non-participant, these sports appear to be masochistic. I remember when I did about my seventh skydive, I still felt as if I was holding death close to me, like an icicle close to my breast, for the full duration of the 20 minute ascent. Having completed the jump, however, one feels as if one had developed the capacity to see through -- and beyond -- mountains. One has become superhuman.

    Shamanism is precisely like this. Like skydiving, it harnesses the death instinct in such a way that all sorts of limits are drawn upon it -- to the point that it is made to enhance the feeling of being alive, rather than to lead towards actual death (except in the case of rare accidents).

    Like skydivers some of us may have obtained a blueprint for repeating death-defying experiments with their own psyches -- without dying.

    Is it masochistic?

    Not at all, in the sense that such activities are thoroughly opposed to submissiveness of any sort.  The opposite is the case.

    I would trade blow for blow against any mechanism that was set up to put me in my place, since I have become naturalised to the enjoyment of all sorts of psychological extremes. 
    2

    View comments

  10. Hegel’s Phenomenology states:

    to uphold the work of death is the task which demands the greatest
    strength. […] Now, the life of Spirit is not that life which is frightened
    of death, and spares itself destruction, but that life which assumes
    death and lives with it. Spirit attains its truth only by finding itself in
    absolute dismemberment.
    It is not that (prodigious) power by being
    the Positive that turns away from the Negative, as when we say of
    something: this is nothing or (this is) false and, having (thus) disposed
    of it, pass from there to something else; no, Spirit is that power only
    to the degree in which it contemplates the Negative face to face
    (and) dwells with it. This prolonged sojourn is the magical force
    which transposes the negative into given-Being. (Hegel 19,
    translation modified. Cited by Bataille, “Hegel” 331; 282-83)4---

    SubStance #119, Vol. 38, no. 2, 2009
    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
Dynamic Views theme. Powered by Blogger. Report Abuse.