A problem, as I see it, is the pretty general consumer mentality. It enshrines extreme passivity (the role of the consumer or "taker" in society) as if it were the role that offered the most power.
So, whenever anybody wants to position themselves in a powerful way or draw attention to themselves, they play the role of a disgruntled consumer, which is really the role of a clown, when you look at it for a second.
This also explains the phenomenon of Internet trolls.
-
Those who hold that social hierarchy has a purely rational basis operate on the basis of a Just World Hypothesis.
I was also brought up to see the world in these terms. They are quintessentially colonial terms by which one views reality. That is where shamanism comes in. It's teaches the opposite to this mode of valuation and hence imparts health giving insights. One must overcome the neurosis of the Just World Hypothesis and stop reverencing the powerful and blaming the weak (and doing this in relation to oneself as well, so far as one considers oneself powerful or weak.)
Initiatory experience provides an entirely different basis for valuing oneself and for self esteem. It confirm you as a valuable and fearless member of society on the basis of having looked the intimidation in the eye.
By contrast, those who do not understand the inner change that shamanistic initiation produces will continue to assert that if you've had to face your fears, there must be something wrong with you for having had them. As we all have fears of some sort, this ideology shows itself to be inhuman and anti-human.0Add a comment
-
I think atheists and those claiming to be skeptics will start to understand each other a lot better once they get their metaphysics out of their systems. I'm sure everybody thinks they are being quite 'rational' when they cast aspersions on women for their putative "emotionality", with assertions that follow along the pattern:"You're getting things out of proportion!" [You, as a woman, are too emotional to understand reality as it actually is.]"You are relying on a 'feminist faith'. "[You, as a woman, are too emotional to understand reality as it actually is.]"You don't acknowledge and accept human sexuality!" [You, as a woman, are too emotional to understand reality as it actually is.]"You need to grow up." [You, as a woman, are too emotional to understand reality as it actually is.]"You need psychological treatment!" [You, as a woman, are too emotional to understand reality as it actually is.]
And so on.Let me make it very plain: the idea that women have an essence that is defined by "emotion" is fundamentally a religious idea.The idea that men have an essence that is defined by cool-headed reason and the lack of emotional bias is also a religious idea.Western metaphysics is too crude to come to terms with complex sociological and scientific facts. Nonetheless, if you take an average human being and do the analysis on their general biological and specific neurological structures, you will find that all human beings, be they male or female, are both rational and emotional in ways that facilitate their survival in the world. If you want to learn about 'emotions' or 'feelings', study the work of Antonio Damasio, a neurologist who has a theoretical interest in this matter.When atheists retain the old religious dogmas that human beings have particular essences, they do run into trouble and they do seem incredibly irrational. Not only that, but they fail to listen to each other. It's easier to take the old metaphysical pathway and dismiss anything we don't understand as being "emotional" (implying, "irrational".) It is very likely that the issues that came to a head with Dawkins' careless remarks directed at Watson were a result of his tacit reliance of metaphysics -- causing him to dismiss ideas he could not immediately grasp, as being "emotional", rather than taking the time to understand where someone was coming from.
After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave - a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too.
The Gay Science, s.108
-- Nietzsche
0Add a comment
-
From a discussion on Facebook:I think there are those who are, in fact, biologically disposed to craziness. They used to be considered the medicine men and women of primeval cultures and they had an important role in the community as those who were thought to be in touch with the sacred. On the other hand, I think our current models of 'human nature' don't look at cause and effect of mental states well enough.Much of the reason for this is because of the way that metaphysics affects our ability to understand the societies we live in. Let us say that we live within a hierarchy of power of some sort. Metaphysics states that "the good" is located above us, in the higher levels of the hierarchy, whereas those with nefarious character structures are those who are relatively disempowered at the lower levels of the hierarchy.Once one has absorbed this implicit idea, it becomes nearly impossible to "see", much less imagine, how the behaviour or actions of those located higher up in the power system can cause damage or distress to those lower in the system. After all, "the good" (those with power) are surely only capable of causing "good" results, whereas those who are "bad" are more likely to cause their own problems in life. So, it becomes very confusing.We don't understand cause and effect well enough yet, mostly because we don't want to.UPDATED(expansion on the nature of cause and effect):
Those who have power in society (i.e. are not located in the lower levels of the social hierarchy) have a greater capacity for both good and harm than those who are lower down.
A capacity to achieve ongoing results will be systematized by one's place relative to the social hierarchy. Those who have power are thus those who have the greater capacity as causal agents of either good or harm. In a society where oppression is systematized -- for instance, where gender or race have implicit meanings concerning inferiority or superiority -- those who reinforce these social values are likely to be agents for harm.
As a general rule, those who are more likely to be damaged by power relations are at the lower levels of society, whereas those who are more likely to cause the damage are at the higher levels of society.
Despite this, the role of metaphysics in thinking is to confuse the direction of cause and effect, so that all "evil" seems to come from those who have long ago been disempowered, whereas all the potential for "good" is deemed to lie with those who already have substantial social power, but who do not however use it in the metaphysical ways --i.e "for good" -- as we like to imagine.2View comments
-
Someone wrote: "People who are Abused often become Perpetual Targets especially when they Speak Up. Even the Social Institutions react abusively. Something is wrong here Something Stinks."
To my mind, this points to the way that social organisations form an organic whole. More specifically, it is as if every person is no more than an cellular molecule within the organism of society as a whole. So, when something or someone is signified as "pathological", the whole immune system of society goes into attack mode, to remove that apparent foreign object. The thing is that this seems to be how society's systems of morality work. That which does not fit in is defined as pathological and expelled. Yet the definition of "pathological" is not independent of the way the system functions, but rather very much in relation to the social system works as a whole and, above all, the sorts of values and viewpoints that a particular system should promulgate in order to keep functioning in the same ways that it always does. In other words, systems (as a rule) are inherently conservative and will automatically move to defend themselves against devastating critique.
The subject of my thesis was labelled as schizophrenic, but whether that was a right or wrong label, I do see it as leading to a dismissal of much of his audacity and insights that were critical of various systems. It makes it easier to say: "Well, he was mad -- so his astute critiques were really ravings of a madman: we'll disregard his views so that we can carry on as normal."1View comments
-
1. The world has always been tipping itself into shit (that is the way of the world, politically speaking) and we are at the brink with global warming. Look at how Japan has been clobbered and continues to be clobbered -- the 2nd most proficient industrialised nation on Earth. Nonetheless, there remain all sorts of natural liabilities that accrue for believing in lies, as well as liabilities for being a fighter against bullshit. In the end, the liars must succumb, as has been the case (in general, although not in every specific instance) throughout history.
2. The sense of "win" is in the sense of the contradictions within particular ideologies becoming self evident, more or less through a process of attrition over time. For instance, one cannot maintain a position of male superiority whilst being afraid of "emotion". That contradiction will weaken you and eventually, over a long period of time, grind you down.
3. On Western dichotomies: Achieving greater emotional integration with the mind and body will tend to make one much more efficient without having to strive so much to get where one is going. It will simply happen by instinct.0Add a comment
-
Many men who mouth "truisms" about women -- those that happen to have a political sting due to them -- are far from aware that these are weapons that have been tried out and tested against women for a couple of centuries.Those men who do this obviously don't actually need to know the ins and outs of the philosophical arguments behind their rhetoric, nor do they even need to know HOW their rhetoric "works" to achieve its effect of silencing the voices that appear different from the norm. The deployment of such weapons is instinctive.The fact that the majority of these men DO NOT understand how their barbs and arrows work is evident in the fact that they don't seem to realise the disadvantages involved in their chosen weapons. They understand (from watching other men) the advantages, well enough. But what is hidden from public view and what takes a longer time to have a result are the personal disadvantages of using anti-woman tactics. As I have investigated, these involve a reduced ability on the part of these men to deal with their own emotions, increasing paranoia, alienation and suspicion of women, whose actual motives (not those imputed to them by anti-woman ideologues) become harder and harder to understand, social and psychological dysfunction and general unhappiness in life. That's the down side (in the long term) of using oppression to make oneself feel good.0
Add a comment
-
The problem with liberals who claim to be pro-feminist but actually are not is that they do not understand that what feminists are fighting against is a prejudicial SYSTEM. Many males who consider themselves pro-feminist are heavily imbued with gender essentialism. They have the attitude: "I will support her as a woman so long as she lives up to my standards and does not have the attributes of an hysterical lady. But if others bring on the heat, I will condemn her entirely, because, after all males are rational and women are emotional and she ought to be making more effort to embrace my standards."0
Add a comment
Add a comment