-
There was that quip from Stanley Fish when I studied postmodernism: It was to the effect that somebody is always going to be silenced and run out of town and the important thing is to make sure it isn’t you who is silenced.I recall thinking, “Well it always has been me, ever since I arrived in Australia and my identity was considered too dangerously right wing for me to even be free to express anything that was bothering me at the time. And migrants can have a lot of things they need to ask questions about; a lot of things that bother them.The censor had worked so well and so preemptively in my case that nobody ever stopped to ask me whether I really had a Rhodesian identity (as they assumed) or a Zimbabwean one. A Rhodesian identity would have been conservative and ideologically hard right (had I actually grown up to be an adult in that culture, which I hadn’t) whereas a Zimbabwean identity was to the far left. In fact I’d lived in both cultures and in the Zimbabwean one quite peacefully and without incident, until my parents decided to uproot me.
I was then, and still am now, the victim of preemptive censorship.0Add a comment
-
It is missing my point to say, “People have always been like this” when I am pointing out that the psychological structure is different now from what it was before. I mean it would be nice if I could see my point was first understood for what it is, before being disagreed with and denied, othewise it would seem like I am simply unobservant or idealistic, making things up as I go along.
By the way, my point has nothing to do with ideologicallly criticising capitalism. I’m suggesting that it is necessary and possible to stand outside of a competitive viewpoint that would tend to posit that any and all positions are primarly or innately competitive and self-interested. If this isn’t done, then it will seem only as if I am making an ideological statement, which would have to be assumed to be self-serving, as all ideological statements are. But I’m very much NOT AT ALL interested in having a left versus right debate, especially in the terms fixed by current ideological denizens. My paradigms are intellectual and abstract, not ideological, and have to be addressed as historically engineered structures, not ideological propositions. That is, we need to take the sense of competition out of what I am putting accross in order to understand the structures in a purely scientific or intellectually disinterested way, not in a way that makes the world seem all too narrow by viewing reality solely in terms of competing ideological propositions.
In short: I am not interested, either now or in the future, in competing with you.0Add a comment
-
I struggled for close to two decades to separate my own sense of self from the stronger force of history, but in the end I found that one simply has to come to terms with certain aspects of the past that have had the impact of an overwhelming force, and continue to do so. The triumph of self-determination one had sought originally then becomes the secondary one of being able to convey one's grasp of intergenerational trauma as it impacted on my situation through historical shifts. Over a period of a couple of decades, I had to fight on three fronts to release myself from historical bondage.
CF.
http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/repost-phd-transgression-and.html0Add a comment
-
To make it clear: I am saying that if people understand human nature as intrinsically evil because prone toward "fascism" then they are constantly at odds with themselves -- not relaxed and happy people who know themselves very well. Since the modern position is to "do better than the past" and get beyond "fascism", people are not really at ease with their human nature. I do not trust such people because their attitude toward themselves already indicates that they are not to be trusted.
his is a continuation of my thesis. Modern people (being those who are keen to forget history for fear their natures would make them fascists) lack a sense of ease with themselves, because they think their inner natures are fascistic. They are therefore untrustworthy, just as they do not trust themselves as their own natures sit uneasily with them. Therefore they are uncomfortable people to be around, and tend to repulse friendship. Since, on some level they must feel this to be so, they project their chance of redemption into the future, where presumably exists a Utopia where everyone gets along. In the meantime they insist that those who come across them must necessarily "persist": or "endure" or await the golden moment in the future when they become all that they ought to be. Unfortunately, it is a narcissistic tangle.0Add a comment
Add a comment