1. 0

    Add a comment

  2. The kinds of games people play against "The colonial" (an archetype in their minds):

    "Ah, you WANT to be mysterious... you fail to communicate your problems. Please, tell me again, what were they?? Oh! I see, rather petty compared to the natives that suffered under you, old chap, haw, haw, dontcha think?? And if you really expect us to "understand" you, as you keep begging us to do, well wouldn't a little effort on your part be worth the cost, you little high and mighty Lady of the Manor, haw, haw, haw."

    "The colonial" has to do penance to prove his or her humanity, otherwise it is presumed not to exist. Asking me to work overtime to communicate beyond what I have done for twenty years to explain why it is wrong to treat others as less-than-human is part of this. "Your humanity hasn't quite come across to us over here. Keep trying."  Twenty years on.
    7

    View comments

  3. There are some feelings that are politic to have and some that are not so. One of the strongest political feelings emanating from the newborn to the former colonialising countries is that people who are evil (i.e. whites who lived in the actual colonies) do not suffer, or if they do, one ought not to acknowledge this, for this would undermine the value of the suffering of those who were "genuine" victims of the colonial regime.

    I know I am not deluding myself as regards the moral reasoning stated above. This is profoundly ubiquitous, pervasive, and has seeped into most people's unconscious to become a form of "common sense". So, if you do not have any element of that reasoning in your consciousness, well done. You are exemplary, have passed the test of being a decent human being with flying colours, and you are out of this world. But, in any case, and if you haven't manage to escape the plague of contemporary reason, then this is just what I had expected, and it is normal, and too bad.
    2

    View comments

  4. In general, an education in the humanities can be most useful in enabling one to move away from a paradigm which interprets differences in others on the basis of morality.

    In a certain respect, the direction of this movement, if taken further than the norm, is away from positing an ideal state of unity connecting the whole of humankind, which is to be facilitated by "moral understanding", and towards an expectation that even the best friendships and relationships will have elements made up of irreducible political differences. Such differences must be understood to be as fundamental to the other's constitution as their biology in fact is.

    Whereas one's morality may be based on principles of ethics, one's politics are almost always based on implicit senses of belonging or not. This means that the two facets of one's thinking are rarely ever in direct synchronisation. One can sometimes feel the effect of the two principles working at odds when a relationship with a foreigner is suddenly disrupted by a sudden certainty that each of you has a different sense of allegiance to different peoples or places.

    The temptation, when this sense of differences suddenly becomes clear, is to try to solve "the problem" moralistically -- that is, by attributing the cause of the sense of disagreement to "misunderstandings" or undesirable emotional states. Often, however, no "misunderstanding" has actually taken place. Rather, the political boundaries that circumscribe the other's identity have suddenly become much more apparent. In fact, rather than considering a "misunderstanding" to have occurred, one should consider that what has occurred in such cases is "clarification".

    This clarification involves understanding the 'soul' of our political nature or what Nietzsche called an element of what is "unteachable" in us.
    0

    Add a comment

  5. When speaking to right wingers you do need to realise that you are both speaking different languages. The most common cause of confusion when speaking across the chasm of the political divide is that the right winger will hear your ironic musings as if they were suggesting serious causal relationships between things.

    The right winger is always on the look out for causes. In particular, he considers the issue of moral corruption as having a cause, or causes, that can be very easily traced and understood, through simple logical equations.

    The use of irony implies recognition that aspects of life do not follow a logical course. The right wing ideologue sees such a suggestions and nonsensical, or "silly", because he believes that life has to follow a narrowly logical pattern and that people always get their "just desserts". Except -- if it is he who isn't getting his.  Then, he is the one who is being victimised by life.

    That's why, in some other instances,  one's use of irony is taken to imply that one is mocking one's own causes.
    0

    Add a comment

  6. I'm far from being someone who theorises that the unconscious mind is largely a negative force, which mitigates against civilising processes. I'm not a Freudian. Rather, I see that in many cases, the unconscious minds of others are on my side. They are capable of telling me something about the others' experiences that they would never feel free to tell me themselves.

    It seems strange to say, but bullies, when they have appeared in my life, have always taught me something about the world in general, through sharing with me their world views. This is not, as I have suggested, an intentional sharing, but rather, one that always tends to happen inadvertently, and despite the self-image that the bully is trying to create.

    So, in one instance, I learned from a particular bully that he had been unsatisfied in his work for 40 years. His expressed ideology might have been: "So, suffering is normal. Suck it in. We've all had to endure it." Yet, the situation we were enduring was clearly contrived to make us suffer. This particular boss could have alleviated our suffering, but he chose not to.

    The contradiction of imposing suffering whilst acting as if this suffering was inevitable is expressed in the idea: "I had to suffer, so you will have to suffer as well."

    This is the unconscious mind of the bully speaking, and it is on my side. It warns: "If you follow the path in life that I have followed, you will be miserable. Don't follow it by any means! Look -- I am increasing your suffering as a disincentive for you to even stick around in this workplace. Trouble resides here."

    A bully, in general, makes not conforming a lot easier than conforming to the status quo. A bully is one who is exceedingly troubled by the costs that conforming to others' expectations have imposed on him. Had he had his life to live over again, he feels he ought not to have made the choices that denied him freedom. He nonetheless suspects that his character is just not strong enough to have made choices in favour of his own dignity and freedom. His suspicions about his own lack of integrity lead him to bully others. "At least, if I am not happy in myself, I have this compensation of extracting pleasure by watching others suffer," he says.

    As for me, I have always learned from the bully, by what is spoken to me by his unconscious mind. That, alone, is his "true self", as Bataille has suggested. That is the goodness that remains in the bully, despite himself; the part that yearns to communicate truthfully.

    "The costs I am imposing upon you now should make you think again about the path that you have chosen!" the bully says. "I care about you, as I care about the self that I ought to have fought for, but have lost. Accept this disincentive I am offering you now, which is all that remains of my capacity to speak honestly. Turn away, please. For the sake of humanity, turn away."
    0

    Add a comment

  7. Naturally, one becomes obsessed with identity in instances where one is devalued. But I also think that one identifies with one's own interests as a matter of course, too. What I am considering is that Buddhist "detachment" and the shamanistic dissociation away from morally identifying with one's egoistic interests have something in common --- although shamanism is ultimately less consistent in this, as compared to the Buddhism, because the shaman only wishes to dissociate from ego in order to make himself freer, and not in order to "transcend" or give birth to a moral system through the dissociation. A shaman may even choose to take a more egoistic approach at times, if that seems to suit the situation. The difference between shamanism and Buddhism -- although both practice detachment -- is that shamanism is a perspective that concerns itself with life in in a structural sense, whereas Buddhistic training is more oriented towards a moral outcome.
    0

    Add a comment

  8. 0

    Add a comment

  9. language and experience



    Entering a realm where experience is less mediated by language or culture can be quite scary. Language is kind of like a barrier against falling off your "cliff edge". So long as you can pin down the other person within language, you do not feel existentially threatened, but rather as if everything in life were firm, and always had been.

    The opposite to this is to remove soft of the safety net of language by not relying on this so much.  The fear of the loss of being is not to be guarded against by the rigid use of linguistic terms. That it is possible to do so is shown by sparring, wherein social conventions do not matter, but only the movement of the body itself, which conveys actions that one does not have time to interpret into "intentions". 

    Action versus the passive mode of interpretation are two very different levels of relating. I would not have been able to go to Zimbabwe and achieve anything like I did, helping a friend with his self-defence work, had I been concerned to lock meanings into place in any kind of rigid fashion. I think "identity politics" is precisely concerned with locking into place these kinds of meanings, so that others can seem more solidified than they are. However, you can't go under, over and around identity, if you are thinking in that way. I would have had to stay in the white suburbs for the duration of my stay, instead of passing freely between different realms.

    Shamanic regression is related to a broader psychological perspective than that offered by moralists. One is not "better" for being at the top of society, for instance -- one just appears that way due to being able to pass off one's failings and guilt as belonging to somebody lower down in the social hierarchy. This is a fundamental shamanistic insight.

    This is the the core insight of shamanism -- that the realm of society is not structured on the basis of morality, and nor can it be.  If it is associated with a system of morality, or a way to become morally pure, or a way to prove others to be morally in the wrong,  this is about as extreme a misunderstanding as I could imagine.

    0

    Add a comment

  10. The paradox of all things Colonial is that they involve movement, change, conquest, and ultimately, revolution. Conversely, the lack of change, such as the acquisition of land through inheritance, is considered to embody the ideal of "the good" in non-Colonial societies. Change is evil: Satanic. This is something that shamans who resisted colonization were able to sense, for they were already in the realm of change, and just had to take it some steps further; to push the process beyond the comfort levels of their masters.

    Shamanism is the opposite to Kantianism. Instead of the the rule of morality being based on abstraction, the drive towards freedom is based on spontaneity/impulse.

    The power invoked here is in the instability of matter, or in terms of Bataille, "Base Materialism".
    0

    Add a comment

About Me
About Me
Blog Archive
Blog Archive
Labels
Loading