Escaping the Matrix — How we the people can change the world
by Richard Moore. Published by The Cyberjournal Project, Redwood City, California
http://escapingthematrix.org/
Found out about this in an old issue of "Communities Magazine" (winter '06) by Molly Morgan. The part I shared with the author about how much I liked it is:
"...it is crucial to ...find our common identity, and come together as humans, moving beyond the ideological structures that have been created to divide us from one another. The current political systems were not designed..."
Basically, the author, Richard Moore seems to be articulating what indigenous folks worldwide have been trying to get out to the *strategically challenged* followers of colonialism (old and new) since the beginnings of their tresspasses, i.e. moving beyond dualistic forms of seeing each other.
Here's one excerpt from http://escapingthematrix.org/red_pill.html :
Our Harmonization Imperative
Our societies and political systems are characterized by competition and struggle among cultural factions and political parties. When we try to change this system by forming adversarial political movements we are playing into this game – a game rigged so that elites always win. If we really want to change the system, we need to learn how to come together as humans, moving beyond the ideological structures that have been created to divide us from one another. We are all in this together, and a better world for one is a better world for all. It’s not about winning, nor really even about agreement: it’s about working together in pursuit of our common interests.
To conclude, the "Table of Contents" section says a lot as well!:
Foreword
The Matrix
Are you ready for the red pill?
Imperialism and the Matrix
World War II and Pax Americana
Popular rebellion and the decline of the postwar blueprint
London banking elites and the strategy of oil-based dominance
World War I and the House of Morgan
The Anglo-American alliance
Abandoning Bretton Woods: the petrodollar scam
The neoliberal project
9/11 and the New American Century
The management of discontented societies
The UN and the new-millennium blueprint
Capitalism and the Matrix
Civilization in crisis
Elite responses to the crisis
A brief history of humanity
Natural evolution: competition within a cooperative web
The nature of primordial societies
Cultural evolution: stability within adaptability
Origins of civilization: inside and outside the Garden
The co-evolution of conditioning and hierarchy
We The People and the Transformational Imperative
We the People and cultural transformation
Lessons from our long experience of struggle
Our Transformational Imperative
Our Harmonization Imperative
Adversarial systems and representative democracy
Representative democracy and elite hegemony
Divide and rule: the role of factionalism
Our Harmonization Imperative
The dynamics of harmonization
Meeting dynamics: collaborative & adversarial
A gap in our cultural repertoire
Two promising meetings
The Michigan conference
Maclean’s “empowered dialog”
The Rogue Valley Wisdom Council
The role of a facilitator
The dynamics of harmonization
Collective wisdom: an ancient heritage
We the People
Envisioning a transformational movement
In search of a path to social transformation
Harmonization and cultural transformation
Cultural transformation at the level of community
Community empowerment as a transformational movement
What are the prospects for such a movement?
Political transformation and regime intervention
Social transformation
Transformation: the means are the ends
Envisioning a liberated global society
The basic paradigm: harmonization and community sovereignty
Regional affairs
A model for global self-governance
The management of the commons
The maintenance of peace
Democracy and property rights
Constitutions
The transition process
The moment of convergence
Common-sense economics and the management of the commons
Repossessing the commons
The global conversion project
Reflections on humanity’s future
Cultural evolution in a democracy
Education outside the Matrix
Democracy and personal liberation
Afterword
With knowledge comes responsibility
References
Bibliography and online resources
(...)
Media and propaganda
Online news and information
The current regime and how it got that way
Toward a sensible society
Dialog and community empowerment
What books have been pivotal to you? Please share below in the comments section
Books from off the top of my head include:
Wasase by Taiaiake Alfred
Stickman by Paola Igliori
The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/)
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Friday, November 30, 2007
Engineering opinion department: The Artist's Way
=============
'artists are the antennae...' --Ezra Pound
==============
(re-edited for clarity, January 2008)
The following were posted in a forum promoting the artists' workbook entitled "The Artist's Way" by Julie Cameron. i've edited it in a way to make it more readable for those who weren't on the forum.
For those of you unfamiliar with this book, it became *very popular* quite suddenly a few years ago amongst many creatives in the business art "community" (or lack thereof), and was touted as especially allegedly "helpful" for those whom have, for some supposedly "unknown" reason, found themselves experiencing the phenomenon called "artists' block" and related challenges to making more money and living the materialist life we've all been socialized to think is just dandy and even "responsible".
One might assume that this isn't *such a big deal* until you begin to understand that the naive artists whose attention is hooked by this book are *also* being hyped-up to separate themselves from fellow artists whom are labled in destructive ways like "crazymaker".
Typical of "self help" books that get plugged in mainline society as being "exceptional" these days we see a certain pattern where:
A) Contexts for situations can never be more thoroughly explored much less found to lie within the institutions and their constructs that we're to uncritically subordinate to, but only in those who are having a hard time adequately assimilating (for reasons which escape most well-indoctrinated folks in our thought-control-oriented suiciety).
B) Rational explanations for why others, say "Crazymakers", do as they do are not to be adequately understood; they are to be labeled, reduced, and excluded!
My original reply to one of the happy promoters of the book:
My response to D, a happy promoter of the book on the forum mentioned above who posted various links to help sell it... She asked what my specific problem with the book was, and whether i had actually read it. Here's what i said:
D, i had a big problem with the way [Julie Cameron, the author] reduces and labels a group of artists who are exhibiting the *very real* (and crucial) symptoms of living a colonized (i.e. systematically alienated) life. (Yes, I'm saying that *all of 'society'* is a colonization attack on all whom are put through it in compulsory or otherwise duped ways, i.e. "the manufacture of consent").
Further, the author labels as "bad" (i.e. "crazymaker") the most potentially threatening group (to the social order) and seeks to further separate these very sensitive *social antennae* from those creative people who are even less in touch with their intuitive rebellion (from the "normalized" situations of artists working to enhance the social order).
Instead of promoting deeper thought about how some people can become "crazy" in the face of art cult-ure and all of its superficialities (which act as tho this is completely "normal") Cameron works to isolate these folks she has labeled and the reader with various cheap shots. Of course, by that time in the book, everyone reading "The Artist's Way" has already been bedazzled by the formula that *fills a void* (which virtually no one adequately demystifies) so they quite easily go along!
Thus a Bandwagon effect is put into action, and rebellion --especially that which is not yet even close to being articulate--is blocked from even coming to the veritable surface!
No wonder her book was allowed to shoot quickly up to the "Best Seller" list! No wonder all the commissars of the art industry LOVE this book! This is what propaganda is all about! This is classic thought control hoodwinking a majority (of often mediocre artists, hence their ability to fit into the business at all) while scapegoating a minority!
Consider Noam Chomsky's remarks in the preface of his book _Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies_ (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-preface.html ):
"A large part of this task is assumed by ideological institutions that channel thought and attitudes within acceptable bounds, deflecting any potential challenge to established privilege and authority before it can take form and gather strength. The enterprise has many facets and agents."
And only adding to divisions and alienation! Same old story!
Of course, such labeling and discrediting wouldn't have happened in communities, say, where intense folks are interpreted as *Gift givers* (i.e. shamans). Communities not fully "developed" like in Africa or other Native/indignous communities world-wide. Hadn't the Western Civilization art ghetto been already so deeply corralled (i.e. sensitives not being given any frame of reference to articulate their dissent from a profit-oriented, consumer art society, thus drinking away their pain), this wouldn't have so easily slipped past! (There may be challenges in the margins, but no "Art Magazine" "worth their salt" would publish serious dialogue amongst artists! No!)
And so thought control continues hardly challenged. And dissidents told to "get therapy" or be labled with these increasingly hostile reductions (let's not forget "Oppositional Defiant Disorder", now reportedly being used on adults as well as kids).
Every institution --including "the art world"-- which wants to continue having "a seat at the table" of *privileges* has to play this meta game. And it's no biggie scapegoating those minorities whom can't fight back. That's "normal" in thought control societies like ours.
i'm a working artist as well, yet my face has been repeatedly slapped with reality to a point where i was "lucky" to begin stumbling upon various subjects around institutional analyses which have similar patterns between them. Not a far stretch, then, to apply such to the art "community", especially when one sees the very real politics happening!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "As domains of experience become more alien to us, we need greater and greater openmindedness even to conceive of their existence."--R.D. Laing in _The Politics of Experience_ from: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace
'artists are the antennae...' --Ezra Pound
==============
(re-edited for clarity, January 2008)
The following were posted in a forum promoting the artists' workbook entitled "The Artist's Way" by Julie Cameron. i've edited it in a way to make it more readable for those who weren't on the forum.
For those of you unfamiliar with this book, it became *very popular* quite suddenly a few years ago amongst many creatives in the business art "community" (or lack thereof), and was touted as especially allegedly "helpful" for those whom have, for some supposedly "unknown" reason, found themselves experiencing the phenomenon called "artists' block" and related challenges to making more money and living the materialist life we've all been socialized to think is just dandy and even "responsible".
One might assume that this isn't *such a big deal* until you begin to understand that the naive artists whose attention is hooked by this book are *also* being hyped-up to separate themselves from fellow artists whom are labled in destructive ways like "crazymaker".
Typical of "self help" books that get plugged in mainline society as being "exceptional" these days we see a certain pattern where:
A) Contexts for situations can never be more thoroughly explored much less found to lie within the institutions and their constructs that we're to uncritically subordinate to, but only in those who are having a hard time adequately assimilating (for reasons which escape most well-indoctrinated folks in our thought-control-oriented suiciety).
B) Rational explanations for why others, say "Crazymakers", do as they do are not to be adequately understood; they are to be labeled, reduced, and excluded!
My original reply to one of the happy promoters of the book:
My response to D, a happy promoter of the book on the forum mentioned above who posted various links to help sell it... She asked what my specific problem with the book was, and whether i had actually read it. Here's what i said:
D, i had a big problem with the way [Julie Cameron, the author] reduces and labels a group of artists who are exhibiting the *very real* (and crucial) symptoms of living a colonized (i.e. systematically alienated) life. (Yes, I'm saying that *all of 'society'* is a colonization attack on all whom are put through it in compulsory or otherwise duped ways, i.e. "the manufacture of consent").
Further, the author labels as "bad" (i.e. "crazymaker") the most potentially threatening group (to the social order) and seeks to further separate these very sensitive *social antennae* from those creative people who are even less in touch with their intuitive rebellion (from the "normalized" situations of artists working to enhance the social order).
Instead of promoting deeper thought about how some people can become "crazy" in the face of art cult-ure and all of its superficialities (which act as tho this is completely "normal") Cameron works to isolate these folks she has labeled and the reader with various cheap shots. Of course, by that time in the book, everyone reading "The Artist's Way" has already been bedazzled by the formula that *fills a void* (which virtually no one adequately demystifies) so they quite easily go along!
Thus a Bandwagon effect is put into action, and rebellion --especially that which is not yet even close to being articulate--is blocked from even coming to the veritable surface!
No wonder her book was allowed to shoot quickly up to the "Best Seller" list! No wonder all the commissars of the art industry LOVE this book! This is what propaganda is all about! This is classic thought control hoodwinking a majority (of often mediocre artists, hence their ability to fit into the business at all) while scapegoating a minority!
Consider Noam Chomsky's remarks in the preface of his book _Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies_ (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-preface.html ):
"A large part of this task is assumed by ideological institutions that channel thought and attitudes within acceptable bounds, deflecting any potential challenge to established privilege and authority before it can take form and gather strength. The enterprise has many facets and agents."
And only adding to divisions and alienation! Same old story!
Of course, such labeling and discrediting wouldn't have happened in communities, say, where intense folks are interpreted as *Gift givers* (i.e. shamans). Communities not fully "developed" like in Africa or other Native/indignous communities world-wide. Hadn't the Western Civilization art ghetto been already so deeply corralled (i.e. sensitives not being given any frame of reference to articulate their dissent from a profit-oriented, consumer art society, thus drinking away their pain), this wouldn't have so easily slipped past! (There may be challenges in the margins, but no "Art Magazine" "worth their salt" would publish serious dialogue amongst artists! No!)
And so thought control continues hardly challenged. And dissidents told to "get therapy" or be labled with these increasingly hostile reductions (let's not forget "Oppositional Defiant Disorder", now reportedly being used on adults as well as kids).
Every institution --including "the art world"-- which wants to continue having "a seat at the table" of *privileges* has to play this meta game. And it's no biggie scapegoating those minorities whom can't fight back. That's "normal" in thought control societies like ours.
i'm a working artist as well, yet my face has been repeatedly slapped with reality to a point where i was "lucky" to begin stumbling upon various subjects around institutional analyses which have similar patterns between them. Not a far stretch, then, to apply such to the art "community", especially when one sees the very real politics happening!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "As domains of experience become more alien to us, we need greater and greater openmindedness even to conceive of their existence."--R.D. Laing in _The Politics of Experience_ from: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
dialogue with an allegedly "resurgent" administrator & a warrior-like dude, re: Wasase depth charginG
This exchange took place recently on a list i'm on. The admin contacted me for being a little too radical for his (and allegedly others') tastes. Significant questions arose and want to be shared with folks who want to see resurgence (and truly authentic transformation) towards shared evolutionary ways of seeing. Your input is thus much invited, no matter how challenging!
The letter which was being responded to follows this exchange, along with the original letter by Jerome (who was okay with keeping things out in the open, and thus, i assume okay with me publishing his letter here).
The volunteer administrator, who i'll call "A" said:
C,
I'm saying the same thing to everyone involved: the tone of this
discussion has dropped below the point where it could be considered to
achieve the standard of respect that is a requirement of all members of
this list. If you wish to continue this conversation in a different
format or a different place, that's fine. But please consider letting
this conversation go in this place and medium. This isn't judgment or
blame; it's a result of complaints received from other members of the
list and my own feeling of unease.
It's probably best to let it end here.
A
------------
My latest reply:
i hear you, A, yet i have to start asking questions, you know. Because if we are to follow Tai's way of seeing and speaking (i.e. in his book _Wasase_) things like resurgence aren't always going to be peachy-creamy. So i'm wondering if you (and the perennial complainers) are getting tripped up too much in what passes for "normal" relations, i.e. "polite" et al.
That's the feeling i'm getting...As if this list is *already* compromised by such mind-set that sees not what it does.
What if you at least published this, along with my letter to Jerome (who asks to keep it public, notably), with this question in mind, inviting others to speak up? --Rather than go with what i think is your uncritical tendency to manage how people wanting resurgence speak to/with each other.
It's your call, and i'll go along. And it is true that i *may well* have a blindspot on this, but then again, i'm coming from more than 10 years of discourse online with all sortz of folks in heated discourse, and i tend to trust *authentic* communications rather than "nice" ones (as does Tai in his book; shall i quote him?).
What is it that is intended by keeping language so reduced to the norms of settler banter and reporting??
Note that i have ways, and method, which are *differently abled* and fly in creative ways of nonviolent confrontation. i am very aware that my freespirit'd style pushes buttons, but this is amongst a broad way in which i see resurgence coming into play. Are you going to join "normal" settler mentalities in suppressing such spirit?
Like i said, i'll go along, tho; since so many do seem to be soooo trapped in such beliefs in this world. How disenchanting the imaginatioN!
QUESTION FOR ALL:
How do you expect to bring spirit'd HEART into this resurgence if you fall back only on what you know and are comfortable with --in whichever way that speaking and singing our hearts is done??
And do you REALLY agree that creative approaches such as my free-wheeling angle of approach on thangz must be kept reduced to the kind of "nice" and "normal" that academic and intellectual communications are kept in (rather, corralled) as a "rule"??
Sure, i "disrupt"; and what is this idea we are socialized with?? i "disrupt" the "normalized" idea of how speaking "must be done", trusting my radicalized intuition...
If this email list were a traditional village scenario, imagine a chieftan (Adam) telling a fellow villager whose way of speaking is different than his this kind of thing!!!!
Whatever you all agree on (not to take you too far away from your normal focus!), i'll go along with. After all, i'm "only" another relatively new "white guy" who *appears* to be "way too" disrespectful and so on and so forth.
(Really, i see my honesty of form and spirit (even if it is poetically challenged, heh hee) to be of a possibly inspirational nature for others whom have subordinated their SPIRIT much too long to the same old again! Perhaps that's REALLY why we are "supposed to" follow along with so-called "tried and true" "rules" --which sound to me to be awfully SUSPECT in themselves--in terms of colonialist attitudes not allowing themselves to be resurgently scrutinized!!!!)
((four exclamations to sing truth to the four directions!!!!))
==================================
==================================
The exchange that brought this up:
> */Jerome @gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> At one point in this conversation I thought one of you
> guys were going to say that you met an indigenous person
> at a gas station once and you were lucky he was a shaman
> who helped you to understand indigenous peoples. Too
> bad...it looks like no one won the pissing contest.
>
> The only thing that kept jumping into my head while I was
> reading this was misplaced concreteness.
>
> C, I'm guessing you have not read Andrea Smith's
> writing on white supremacy [published in online pdf format at "The New Socialist" website]. Or, you have read her
> work but failed to comprehend it because you embody what
> she discusses.
my reply:
> On 11/28/07, *c* @yahoo.com
wrote (privately to Jerome):
>
> Har har, whatever you say must be true since you're
> indigenous. And if you were Dickie Wilson, also indigenous
> (Lakota, the b.i.a.'s 1970s pick for divide and conquer
> technique on the Pine Ridge Rez), the reasoning would be i'd
> also better subordinate myself? i don't think so!
>
> How about some actual backing up of your quick resort to
> labeling me into that category, eh?
>
> Hoo hoo, you must be having fun, eh? What Ever!
> {;
>
*/Jerome @gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
> >Lets keep this conversation out in the open...which was the
> original intent, right? [referring to my original interest to share a letter with an apparent Leftist with all on the list]
> --
> great! :}
>
> >c...I'm sensing discontent on your part. It surprised me a
> bit considering your email address is "spiritd_dude." But I was
> probably misleading myself because a "spiritd" person in my
> community is someone who is wise. A wise person is an individual
> that has the experience and knowledge of power and place.
> --
> Ah..and you think because i don't subscribe to your angle on
> morality that i'm suddenly unwise? OooO! For me, spirited (or
> spirit'd) includes a much wider variety of truth than this
> reduction you seem to want to hold onto (for what intent?).
>
> Why get bogged down into this off-topic thingy? My approach is
> simply different from yours. Egad! (i'm such a BAD citizen!)
>
> >Also, I'm missing the connection between what I wrote and what
> that has to do with truth and being indigenous. Where I'm from,
> being indigenous has a lot to do with the process of
> self-awareness and how one creates balance upon understanding of
> self and the relationship to one's environment. Being the one who
> holds the "truth" is something that is embedded within Western
> thought. Categorizing and characterizing one's self and the
> environment based on "truths" can easily be found in Western
> science and religion.
> --
> Self-awareness is in the eye of the beholder, you know.
>
> As for balance, i can certainly hear what you're saying. And like
> the feminine way of balance, my form is different from yours. As
> for being indigenous, i'm no "wannabe"; i openly state i'm a
> settler. And yet, i have praxis to share in community. Albeit
from
> a differently-abled situation than you, i guess.
>
> i don't need to defend my process to you; i mean, based on your
> way of relating to me (awfully authoritarian just under the
> surface, man!) and all. Assuming automatically becuz i don't fit
> your prescription that somehow means i'm "unwise". You just can't
> figure me out; and i'm okay with that!
> :}
>
> You misread my language on "truth". Notably, i don't capitalize
> the word, so that means a definition similar to Confucious'
> Elephant. Familiar with that one?
>
> As for "categorizing" i think you're putting words into my mouth.
> Care to back up your assertion with actual samples to chew on?
Oh,
> i make my feelings heard alright! But that don't mean i'm seeking
> to do what so many of my uncritical fellow settlers do without
> thinking through such! Gee-whizzies!
>
> Again, you're gonna need to back up your assertions with actual
> examples, and stop tryin' to brow-beat your way into my heart!
>
> >So don't sit there and tell me that my calling you out to be
> aware of yourself is me acting as if I hold the truth. You asked
> for it when you wrote, "Perhaps i could use an attitude
adjustment
> (?) even?!" So don't ask for it if you can't take it.
> ---
> Hey, i can take it, baby; i just ain't gonna take it from them
> folks who come up and brow-beat my punk ass without any actual
> examples to back up their allegations!
>
> i'm actually looking forward to a good ol' ass-whippin' by any o'
> y'all that wanta step up to the plate with some REAL challenge!
>
> And tho i may appear to your hidden colonized mentalities
> (obviously as above) to be here just to "disrupt" and all that
> b.s., you'll see, if you actually respond in the way a
traditional
> community would respond to one labeled "crazy" by colonials, with
> your hearts open, that i got some HEART dudes! And i ain't coming
> from lies and manipulations!
>
> So, Jerome...is this the best you can do?? Maybe you should turn
> the tables around and have me interpret myself, eh?
>
> winkte-ly,
> c
> www.angelfire.com/psy/intheheart
>
> p.s. i'd like to send a copy of this to Tai [Taiaiake Alfred, author of _Wasase: Indigenous Pathways Towards Action And Freedom_, 2005], but he's on vacation
> 'til June! [so he said to me, anyway]
The letter which was being responded to follows this exchange, along with the original letter by Jerome (who was okay with keeping things out in the open, and thus, i assume okay with me publishing his letter here).
The volunteer administrator, who i'll call "A" said:
C,
I'm saying the same thing to everyone involved: the tone of this
discussion has dropped below the point where it could be considered to
achieve the standard of respect that is a requirement of all members of
this list. If you wish to continue this conversation in a different
format or a different place, that's fine. But please consider letting
this conversation go in this place and medium. This isn't judgment or
blame; it's a result of complaints received from other members of the
list and my own feeling of unease.
It's probably best to let it end here.
A
------------
My latest reply:
i hear you, A, yet i have to start asking questions, you know. Because if we are to follow Tai's way of seeing and speaking (i.e. in his book _Wasase_) things like resurgence aren't always going to be peachy-creamy. So i'm wondering if you (and the perennial complainers) are getting tripped up too much in what passes for "normal" relations, i.e. "polite" et al.
That's the feeling i'm getting...As if this list is *already* compromised by such mind-set that sees not what it does.
What if you at least published this, along with my letter to Jerome (who asks to keep it public, notably), with this question in mind, inviting others to speak up? --Rather than go with what i think is your uncritical tendency to manage how people wanting resurgence speak to/with each other.
It's your call, and i'll go along. And it is true that i *may well* have a blindspot on this, but then again, i'm coming from more than 10 years of discourse online with all sortz of folks in heated discourse, and i tend to trust *authentic* communications rather than "nice" ones (as does Tai in his book; shall i quote him?).
What is it that is intended by keeping language so reduced to the norms of settler banter and reporting??
Note that i have ways, and method, which are *differently abled* and fly in creative ways of nonviolent confrontation. i am very aware that my freespirit'd style pushes buttons, but this is amongst a broad way in which i see resurgence coming into play. Are you going to join "normal" settler mentalities in suppressing such spirit?
Like i said, i'll go along, tho; since so many do seem to be soooo trapped in such beliefs in this world. How disenchanting the imaginatioN!
QUESTION FOR ALL:
How do you expect to bring spirit'd HEART into this resurgence if you fall back only on what you know and are comfortable with --in whichever way that speaking and singing our hearts is done??
And do you REALLY agree that creative approaches such as my free-wheeling angle of approach on thangz must be kept reduced to the kind of "nice" and "normal" that academic and intellectual communications are kept in (rather, corralled) as a "rule"??
Sure, i "disrupt"; and what is this idea we are socialized with?? i "disrupt" the "normalized" idea of how speaking "must be done", trusting my radicalized intuition...
If this email list were a traditional village scenario, imagine a chieftan (Adam) telling a fellow villager whose way of speaking is different than his this kind of thing!!!!
Whatever you all agree on (not to take you too far away from your normal focus!), i'll go along with. After all, i'm "only" another relatively new "white guy" who *appears* to be "way too" disrespectful and so on and so forth.
(Really, i see my honesty of form and spirit (even if it is poetically challenged, heh hee) to be of a possibly inspirational nature for others whom have subordinated their SPIRIT much too long to the same old again! Perhaps that's REALLY why we are "supposed to" follow along with so-called "tried and true" "rules" --which sound to me to be awfully SUSPECT in themselves--in terms of colonialist attitudes not allowing themselves to be resurgently scrutinized!!!!)
((four exclamations to sing truth to the four directions!!!!))
==================================
==================================
The exchange that brought this up:
> */Jerome @gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> At one point in this conversation I thought one of you
> guys were going to say that you met an indigenous person
> at a gas station once and you were lucky he was a shaman
> who helped you to understand indigenous peoples. Too
> bad...it looks like no one won the pissing contest.
>
> The only thing that kept jumping into my head while I was
> reading this was misplaced concreteness.
>
> C, I'm guessing you have not read Andrea Smith's
> writing on white supremacy [published in online pdf format at "The New Socialist" website]. Or, you have read her
> work but failed to comprehend it because you embody what
> she discusses.
my reply:
> On 11/28/07, *c* @yahoo.com
wrote (privately to Jerome):
>
> Har har, whatever you say must be true since you're
> indigenous. And if you were Dickie Wilson, also indigenous
> (Lakota, the b.i.a.'s 1970s pick for divide and conquer
> technique on the Pine Ridge Rez), the reasoning would be i'd
> also better subordinate myself? i don't think so!
>
> How about some actual backing up of your quick resort to
> labeling me into that category, eh?
>
> Hoo hoo, you must be having fun, eh? What Ever!
> {;
>
*/Jerome @gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
> >Lets keep this conversation out in the open...which was the
> original intent, right? [referring to my original interest to share a letter with an apparent Leftist with all on the list]
> --
> great! :}
>
> >c...I'm sensing discontent on your part. It surprised me a
> bit considering your email address is "spiritd_dude." But I was
> probably misleading myself because a "spiritd" person in my
> community is someone who is wise. A wise person is an individual
> that has the experience and knowledge of power and place.
> --
> Ah..and you think because i don't subscribe to your angle on
> morality that i'm suddenly unwise? OooO! For me, spirited (or
> spirit'd) includes a much wider variety of truth than this
> reduction you seem to want to hold onto (for what intent?).
>
> Why get bogged down into this off-topic thingy? My approach is
> simply different from yours. Egad! (i'm such a BAD citizen!)
>
> >Also, I'm missing the connection between what I wrote and what
> that has to do with truth and being indigenous. Where I'm from,
> being indigenous has a lot to do with the process of
> self-awareness and how one creates balance upon understanding of
> self and the relationship to one's environment. Being the one who
> holds the "truth" is something that is embedded within Western
> thought. Categorizing and characterizing one's self and the
> environment based on "truths" can easily be found in Western
> science and religion.
> --
> Self-awareness is in the eye of the beholder, you know.
>
> As for balance, i can certainly hear what you're saying. And like
> the feminine way of balance, my form is different from yours. As
> for being indigenous, i'm no "wannabe"; i openly state i'm a
> settler. And yet, i have praxis to share in community. Albeit
from
> a differently-abled situation than you, i guess.
>
> i don't need to defend my process to you; i mean, based on your
> way of relating to me (awfully authoritarian just under the
> surface, man!) and all. Assuming automatically becuz i don't fit
> your prescription that somehow means i'm "unwise". You just can't
> figure me out; and i'm okay with that!
> :}
>
> You misread my language on "truth". Notably, i don't capitalize
> the word, so that means a definition similar to Confucious'
> Elephant. Familiar with that one?
>
> As for "categorizing" i think you're putting words into my mouth.
> Care to back up your assertion with actual samples to chew on?
Oh,
> i make my feelings heard alright! But that don't mean i'm seeking
> to do what so many of my uncritical fellow settlers do without
> thinking through such! Gee-whizzies!
>
> Again, you're gonna need to back up your assertions with actual
> examples, and stop tryin' to brow-beat your way into my heart!
>
> >So don't sit there and tell me that my calling you out to be
> aware of yourself is me acting as if I hold the truth. You asked
> for it when you wrote, "Perhaps i could use an attitude
adjustment
> (?) even?!" So don't ask for it if you can't take it.
> ---
> Hey, i can take it, baby; i just ain't gonna take it from them
> folks who come up and brow-beat my punk ass without any actual
> examples to back up their allegations!
>
> i'm actually looking forward to a good ol' ass-whippin' by any o'
> y'all that wanta step up to the plate with some REAL challenge!
>
> And tho i may appear to your hidden colonized mentalities
> (obviously as above) to be here just to "disrupt" and all that
> b.s., you'll see, if you actually respond in the way a
traditional
> community would respond to one labeled "crazy" by colonials, with
> your hearts open, that i got some HEART dudes! And i ain't coming
> from lies and manipulations!
>
> So, Jerome...is this the best you can do?? Maybe you should turn
> the tables around and have me interpret myself, eh?
>
> winkte-ly,
> c
> www.angelfire.com/psy/intheheart
>
> p.s. i'd like to send a copy of this to Tai [Taiaiake Alfred, author of _Wasase: Indigenous Pathways Towards Action And Freedom_, 2005], but he's on vacation
> 'til June! [so he said to me, anyway]
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Unlearning the Language of Conquest (and liberate yourself along the way)
DANGER! Angry, alienated, perpetually hyped-up folks who frequent this tribe ARE PROHIBITED from reading info which may inspire them to liberate themselves (or even imagine such) from their misery and hysteria --much less think through the manipulative ways in which their "masters" keep us/you in our/your Nice (tm) "freedom" corralls. GO BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED KNEE-JERK HYSTERIA NOW! BE THE STUPID MASSES YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE!!!
Heh heh.
Anyway, thought i'd share the following excerpts excerpted from this webpage:
http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exjacunl.html
Found this while looking for a critical appraisal of a book Erik suggested in the thread about european arrogance ( _Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony_ ). Some very deep articulating going on here!!
from the book: _Unlearning the Language of Conquest
Scholars Expose Anti-Indianism in America_
Edited by Four Arrows (Don Trent Jacobs)
Excerpts:
(...)
Such publications have done and are doing to American Indians what a number of "academic" authors have done in Australia to dismiss the value of the Australian aboriginal worldview. Interestingly, the vice president of the Australian Council of Professional Historians, Kathy Clement, recently edited a collection of articles from academic professors entitled Whitewash: On Keith Windschuttle's Fabrication of Aboriginal History; her book sets out to counter the influence of books like Keith Windschuttle's, which is "part of a range of writing that seeks to counter left-wing influence on people's thinking about the history of Indigenous Australians."
These are examples of one side of the dual-edged sword academics have used against Indigenous People. The other side relates to how they typically ignore them. Several decades ago Francis R. McKenna categorized this policy of dismissal as follows:
Academics generally have little interest in Indians. Scholars generally can be divided into three categories: (a) Those who are overtly racist. An example is John Greenway, a folklorist at the University of Colorado. Greenway posed the question, "Did the United States destroy the American Indian?" and answered, "No but it should have." (b) Those who exclude Indians from academic life. To illustrate, witness the rejection of the application of the American Indian Historical Society for participation in the International Congress of Historical Sciences; and (c) those who neglect to include the Indian in scholarly presentations. For example, the revisionist historian, Colin Greer, in an otherwise excellent collection of works of ethnicity in America, makes no mention of American Indians.
These examples are, of course, more or less obvious and intentional, but such work filters down into the system to support the a more subtle hegemony, one that the authors expose in this book. This "filtered" material is woven into the fabric of everyday communication from those who themselves have become "brainwashed" (in a sense) from years of learning that began in elementary school and pervades most media in the United States.
(...)
Thus, the "fourth wave of killing the Indigenous" builds on the first three waves, pulling in decades of anti-"Indian" literature, films, and social commentary. Sometimes appearing as a smothering maelstrom, other times as an invisible poison, it ultimately emerges as a "commonsense" view of the world that automatically disregards truth. It represents the kind of hegemony that prevents people from realizing that social and environmental injustice are not a natural by-product of human nature; that the current form of global capitalism is not the only economic system available to humanity; or that living Indigenous cultures possess a measure of wisdom that may be vital for all of our futures.
This fourth wave is in reality an insidious form of cultural genocide against Indigenous People that tends to support
>ongoing ignoring of Indigenous People's legal rights and the legitimate relationship between the various First Nations and the federal government.
>legislation that attempts to abrogate Indian treaties or to deny federal support.
efforts of white citizens to launch anti-Indian campaigns in connection with acquiring coal, timber, gas, fishing, and other land-use rights.
>suppression of Indigenous People's religious freedoms, as when museums display ancestral bones or religious objects, or when sacred medicine bundles are confiscated or destroyed by U.S. Customs officials or peyote ceremonies are disallowed. (I myself recently had my Sun Dance rope taken away from me at the Phoenix airport for fear I might "tie someone up with it.")
>the ignoring of cultural relevance in education as exemplified in implementation of laws like the No Child Left Behind Act.
>expropriation and exploitation of reservation lands, which ultimately pollutes, poisons, or extracts vital resources while robbing Indigenous People of fair compensation or opportunities to litigate for environmental restoration.
These items represent just the tip of the iceberg. Volumes would be required to itemize attacks on American Indians and the deceptive language of conquest that supports these attacks.
(...)
In noting and remembering such injustices against Indigenous People, the reader should also realize that the loss of Indigenous perspective is a loss to all people. As noted earlier, Indigenous worldviews, as varied as they are, have common associations that are significantly different from those operating in the dominant cultures of the so-called Western world. For example, assumptions about children, authority, community, language, deception, art, music, justice, competition, animals, religion, land, and money are often polar opposites from those that guide the typical American citizen's life and typical U.S. government policies. Although these assumptions are not exclusive to American Indian cultural paradigms and can be found in alternative philosophies in all societies, this book asserts that the wisdom of traditional American "Indians" is an essential ingredient for those wishing to mitigate the dominant American influence on domestic and world systems. Moreover, many First Nations citizens still maintain these values today and can help the process of transforming American culture.
Our goal is thus a lofty one. We hope to replace anti-Indigenous hegemony with understanding that is both truthful and constructive. We do not mean to say that Indigenous worldviews are always better ways for knowing reality than those that pervade Western culture. No worldview is epistemologically privileged in the sense that it is the only absolutely truth and all others are false.
Heh heh.
Anyway, thought i'd share the following excerpts excerpted from this webpage:
http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exjacunl.html
Found this while looking for a critical appraisal of a book Erik suggested in the thread about european arrogance ( _Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony_ ). Some very deep articulating going on here!!
from the book: _Unlearning the Language of Conquest
Scholars Expose Anti-Indianism in America_
Edited by Four Arrows (Don Trent Jacobs)
Excerpts:
(...)
Such publications have done and are doing to American Indians what a number of "academic" authors have done in Australia to dismiss the value of the Australian aboriginal worldview. Interestingly, the vice president of the Australian Council of Professional Historians, Kathy Clement, recently edited a collection of articles from academic professors entitled Whitewash: On Keith Windschuttle's Fabrication of Aboriginal History; her book sets out to counter the influence of books like Keith Windschuttle's, which is "part of a range of writing that seeks to counter left-wing influence on people's thinking about the history of Indigenous Australians."
These are examples of one side of the dual-edged sword academics have used against Indigenous People. The other side relates to how they typically ignore them. Several decades ago Francis R. McKenna categorized this policy of dismissal as follows:
Academics generally have little interest in Indians. Scholars generally can be divided into three categories: (a) Those who are overtly racist. An example is John Greenway, a folklorist at the University of Colorado. Greenway posed the question, "Did the United States destroy the American Indian?" and answered, "No but it should have." (b) Those who exclude Indians from academic life. To illustrate, witness the rejection of the application of the American Indian Historical Society for participation in the International Congress of Historical Sciences; and (c) those who neglect to include the Indian in scholarly presentations. For example, the revisionist historian, Colin Greer, in an otherwise excellent collection of works of ethnicity in America, makes no mention of American Indians.
These examples are, of course, more or less obvious and intentional, but such work filters down into the system to support the a more subtle hegemony, one that the authors expose in this book. This "filtered" material is woven into the fabric of everyday communication from those who themselves have become "brainwashed" (in a sense) from years of learning that began in elementary school and pervades most media in the United States.
(...)
Thus, the "fourth wave of killing the Indigenous" builds on the first three waves, pulling in decades of anti-"Indian" literature, films, and social commentary. Sometimes appearing as a smothering maelstrom, other times as an invisible poison, it ultimately emerges as a "commonsense" view of the world that automatically disregards truth. It represents the kind of hegemony that prevents people from realizing that social and environmental injustice are not a natural by-product of human nature; that the current form of global capitalism is not the only economic system available to humanity; or that living Indigenous cultures possess a measure of wisdom that may be vital for all of our futures.
This fourth wave is in reality an insidious form of cultural genocide against Indigenous People that tends to support
>ongoing ignoring of Indigenous People's legal rights and the legitimate relationship between the various First Nations and the federal government.
>legislation that attempts to abrogate Indian treaties or to deny federal support.
efforts of white citizens to launch anti-Indian campaigns in connection with acquiring coal, timber, gas, fishing, and other land-use rights.
>suppression of Indigenous People's religious freedoms, as when museums display ancestral bones or religious objects, or when sacred medicine bundles are confiscated or destroyed by U.S. Customs officials or peyote ceremonies are disallowed. (I myself recently had my Sun Dance rope taken away from me at the Phoenix airport for fear I might "tie someone up with it.")
>the ignoring of cultural relevance in education as exemplified in implementation of laws like the No Child Left Behind Act.
>expropriation and exploitation of reservation lands, which ultimately pollutes, poisons, or extracts vital resources while robbing Indigenous People of fair compensation or opportunities to litigate for environmental restoration.
These items represent just the tip of the iceberg. Volumes would be required to itemize attacks on American Indians and the deceptive language of conquest that supports these attacks.
(...)
In noting and remembering such injustices against Indigenous People, the reader should also realize that the loss of Indigenous perspective is a loss to all people. As noted earlier, Indigenous worldviews, as varied as they are, have common associations that are significantly different from those operating in the dominant cultures of the so-called Western world. For example, assumptions about children, authority, community, language, deception, art, music, justice, competition, animals, religion, land, and money are often polar opposites from those that guide the typical American citizen's life and typical U.S. government policies. Although these assumptions are not exclusive to American Indian cultural paradigms and can be found in alternative philosophies in all societies, this book asserts that the wisdom of traditional American "Indians" is an essential ingredient for those wishing to mitigate the dominant American influence on domestic and world systems. Moreover, many First Nations citizens still maintain these values today and can help the process of transforming American culture.
Our goal is thus a lofty one. We hope to replace anti-Indigenous hegemony with understanding that is both truthful and constructive. We do not mean to say that Indigenous worldviews are always better ways for knowing reality than those that pervade Western culture. No worldview is epistemologically privileged in the sense that it is the only absolutely truth and all others are false.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
depth dialogue, re: heavily arming our desires!
This dialogue comes from a discussion forum i frequent. Note especially the stuff in "bold" type. "O" is me.
"O":
Right on! And we're in need of a lot of practice, tho i'm not willing to try to get anyone to "follow" me on this; just say, hey, if we wanna arm our desires, we iz gonna hafta not only see that the arting of ourselves is happening *rite* now (but is it our best?), but also see that it's an on-going process of desire arming; for me, this means, keeping my heart open to *all possibilities* --not as a "rule" but as an input i happen to like.
"O":
Me, i wouldn't look at the situation like that. i'm learning to look at the institutional mind-set that runs many of these people. They are really a kind of a soldier ("god's soldier, perhaps) when they're out there in their formal uniforms (really, it's like that, you know) with the intent to basically recruit!
So i want to look at that dynamic. Stand back a ways and look at what's going on, not only the immediate (or microcosm). And compare them with other formally organized folks. Say a social worker. So you've got a human being basically being tooled by an ideological/rigid way of seeing themselves and others. Why? Partly they want community in a community-less society. Partly they want to share their beliefs, so far; what has made a difference in their lives.
Okay, so you see that bigger picture.
And maybe you say this stuff outright. Maybe you don't "beat around the bush"; maybe you validate yourself to be the master of your own poetic language and you "wing it" according to how heavily armed your desires are!
So you don't bridge well, perhaps, right off. Maybe you don't bridge at all. The trick is, you play with these ideahz, you "wear" your desires and you have fun, and at the same time you see the value of seeing the other human being as yourself, only likely a little more strategically challenged.
The depth of it is that since they are human beings, they likely *also* have something to gift you/us. But we're not going to see it as poisoned as so many of us are already by state-subordinated religion (or, in the case of Jehova's Witnesses, hierarchically-challenged religion). So we see the value of pivoting beyond the confines of their language and norms, and experiment with our own!
Making sense? (i better watch myself, eh? if i start making "too much" sense so openly, the war-habituated are gonna label me as a "charismatic" type and find a way to silence my ass, rite? But it is, after all, a path of what i call "spirit-uality"; we all gotta go some way...and why not "go" if we gotta, with our desires as fully armed and as deeply accurate as we dare?!)
"O":
i dissent. We *could* learn from, say, the likes of Ken Carey where he suggests that the excellence of human intelligence could be used towards ENHANCEMENT of the natural world. So what creative angle might we come up with?
Me, i'm envisioning a situation where friendship is made with the coyotes (while empathizing with the context of their situation--we being the invaders of their territory, after all), by feeding them a portion of the pot, so to speak; yet not letting them have control, like we already do with dogs.
We colonized folks have been led to believe that there are no grey areas "possible" and so we give our power away, systematically!
Is there a POSSIBLE way to live in harmony with those we assume we cannot (and must fall back on the human stupidity of killing and maiming)?[b] Pre-colonized folks the world over thought so, and that's how we got dogs in the first place! (yeee-haaa, this is so fun!)[/b]
...btw, i sense your 'dark' humor; but alas, you're seeing that there's more to this shit than you may've expected,,,,heh heh!
(or perhaps we're "simply" having a little PRACTICE between ourselves! A little fencing/word swordplay to see each other more clearly?! Now, how to take such creativity into realms we assumed were "impossible"?!!)
"O" originally said:
I see that this noncompassion is a direct reflection from these fellow human beings whom have been largely de-individualized (as Aldous Huxley discussed in his _Brave New World--Revisited), at least *when it counts*; and instead of attacking them for their alienation, i would rather explore and find ways to intervene, in order to inspire and evolve their mind-set.
"F" replied:
Yes, I think you're right. We're back to en-framing as subtle programming. I don't think we're in a position to tell anyone what's what, but all communication should be mind-bending.
"O":
Right on! And we're in need of a lot of practice, tho i'm not willing to try to get anyone to "follow" me on this; just say, hey, if we wanna arm our desires, we iz gonna hafta not only see that the arting of ourselves is happening *rite* now (but is it our best?), but also see that it's an on-going process of desire arming; for me, this means, keeping my heart open to *all possibilities* --not as a "rule" but as an input i happen to like.
"F" challenged:
The other day, a jehovah witness elder came by to capture my soul to serve in the kingdom after armageden. I didn't tell him I was an atheist, (that would have ended the communication right then and there) but put my thumb into his chest and said "the man said the kingdom's here". Then I said it was my impression it was all about love, and in a loving relationship, where is there room for subservience and rulership? I politely suggested the kingdom of heaven was created in the image and likeness of man's kingdoms on earth. He said my points were interesting, but he had to go, grabbed his watchtower and sped away. Did I go too far? Probably his thinking hasn't changed one iota. One can only hope.
"O":
Me, i wouldn't look at the situation like that. i'm learning to look at the institutional mind-set that runs many of these people. They are really a kind of a soldier ("god's soldier, perhaps) when they're out there in their formal uniforms (really, it's like that, you know) with the intent to basically recruit!
So i want to look at that dynamic. Stand back a ways and look at what's going on, not only the immediate (or microcosm). And compare them with other formally organized folks. Say a social worker. So you've got a human being basically being tooled by an ideological/rigid way of seeing themselves and others. Why? Partly they want community in a community-less society. Partly they want to share their beliefs, so far; what has made a difference in their lives.
Okay, so you see that bigger picture.
And maybe you say this stuff outright. Maybe you don't "beat around the bush"; maybe you validate yourself to be the master of your own poetic language and you "wing it" according to how heavily armed your desires are!
So you don't bridge well, perhaps, right off. Maybe you don't bridge at all. The trick is, you play with these ideahz, you "wear" your desires and you have fun, and at the same time you see the value of seeing the other human being as yourself, only likely a little more strategically challenged.
The depth of it is that since they are human beings, they likely *also* have something to gift you/us. But we're not going to see it as poisoned as so many of us are already by state-subordinated religion (or, in the case of Jehova's Witnesses, hierarchically-challenged religion). So we see the value of pivoting beyond the confines of their language and norms, and experiment with our own!
Making sense? (i better watch myself, eh? if i start making "too much" sense so openly, the war-habituated are gonna label me as a "charismatic" type and find a way to silence my ass, rite? But it is, after all, a path of what i call "spirit-uality"; we all gotta go some way...and why not "go" if we gotta, with our desires as fully armed and as deeply accurate as we dare?!)
"F" said:
There are, however, some situations when one must shoot the coyote who's molesting your sheep: "Off the pig!" even while feeling bad about it.
"O":
i dissent. We *could* learn from, say, the likes of Ken Carey where he suggests that the excellence of human intelligence could be used towards ENHANCEMENT of the natural world. So what creative angle might we come up with?
Me, i'm envisioning a situation where friendship is made with the coyotes (while empathizing with the context of their situation--we being the invaders of their territory, after all), by feeding them a portion of the pot, so to speak; yet not letting them have control, like we already do with dogs.
We colonized folks have been led to believe that there are no grey areas "possible" and so we give our power away, systematically!
Is there a POSSIBLE way to live in harmony with those we assume we cannot (and must fall back on the human stupidity of killing and maiming)?[b] Pre-colonized folks the world over thought so, and that's how we got dogs in the first place! (yeee-haaa, this is so fun!)[/b]
...btw, i sense your 'dark' humor; but alas, you're seeing that there's more to this shit than you may've expected,,,,heh heh!
(or perhaps we're "simply" having a little PRACTICE between ourselves! A little fencing/word swordplay to see each other more clearly?! Now, how to take such creativity into realms we assumed were "impossible"?!!)
Thursday, November 8, 2007
a vision experienced (in ongoing process and seeking your input)
Hey y'all, this is a vision i've been experiencing for awhile now. It is in process, and portions of it come to me suddenly at various times. Just now, for instance.
What if we stopped letting our imaginations be reduced into all these reductions running rampant? i mean, it's one thing to dress all alike during situations in which we may want to confuse implementers of state mandates (i.e. at stand-offs where folks wear masks and the uniform clothing), yet what of times when we don't have to?
Here i'm thinking of activating as much of who we are as individual human beings as we can. i'm thinking of, say, a painter, who wears their paintings. Maybe becomes a walking "tower" of their paintings. And also someone who loves stuffed animals --wearing them and even having them "riding" helium balloons (up to our imaginations!). And so on.
Imagine such diversities of humanity being panned by TV (which systematically tries to reduce us all into character-assasination-type reductions). Or mobilized settlers meeting up with *colorful characters*; i can even imagine some dressing as famed cartoon characters --would such persons be attacked?? If hundreds of natives wore Santa Clause outfits, wouldn't they *mess with* the same old game of polytricks/politics?! (my experience is that they would!)
Imagine implementers of the state being seen attacking people who are holding and carrying various Loved symbols of humanity. Up to your imagination what that means. Maybe you want to dress as a refrigerator full of food. Maybe you want to be a couch. How could it be done? How could our HUMOR be utilized in ways which *go outside the experience* of those whom are to be kept hyped-up and held on "the proper track" of fear and hysteria?
All i'm saying is, how to reduce and even breach the stranglehold that today's media keep on their unsuspecting audiences; and what imagery we can bring to these places to "bring home" our fellow humanity in SPADES! Even via our own media!
This is where i think the Raging Grannies have an angle worth playing with more. Even tho their politics are so damned superficial.
So far, i've seen people systematically tooled into not thinking, apparently, about what we wear and how we express ourselves when we go to the very serious situations affecting us. i see us human beings (across the spectrum) reduced by normalized ideas of politics and all the "values" that go along with such confined ways of thinking. i see us giving away our powers of creativity continually to these ideas we have in our heads about What One Is Supposed To look like and be like. i see this in every image i've ever noted, indigenous included. Oh, your indigenous regalia is another thing --BUT we settlers have been separated from that language-ing; so i say, if you want to reach the HEARTS and LIBERATORY DESIRES of potential allies in a larger way, you're going to "have to" seriously play with image forms of language-ing within *our* experience.
Do you understand at all what i'm saying?
And, yes, i have been and continue to play seriously along these lines! For instance, see:
www.angelfire.com/folk/magixnartz/flouggindex.html
What if we stopped letting our imaginations be reduced into all these reductions running rampant? i mean, it's one thing to dress all alike during situations in which we may want to confuse implementers of state mandates (i.e. at stand-offs where folks wear masks and the uniform clothing), yet what of times when we don't have to?
Here i'm thinking of activating as much of who we are as individual human beings as we can. i'm thinking of, say, a painter, who wears their paintings. Maybe becomes a walking "tower" of their paintings. And also someone who loves stuffed animals --wearing them and even having them "riding" helium balloons (up to our imaginations!). And so on.
Imagine such diversities of humanity being panned by TV (which systematically tries to reduce us all into character-assasination-type reductions). Or mobilized settlers meeting up with *colorful characters*; i can even imagine some dressing as famed cartoon characters --would such persons be attacked?? If hundreds of natives wore Santa Clause outfits, wouldn't they *mess with* the same old game of polytricks/politics?! (my experience is that they would!)
Imagine implementers of the state being seen attacking people who are holding and carrying various Loved symbols of humanity. Up to your imagination what that means. Maybe you want to dress as a refrigerator full of food. Maybe you want to be a couch. How could it be done? How could our HUMOR be utilized in ways which *go outside the experience* of those whom are to be kept hyped-up and held on "the proper track" of fear and hysteria?
All i'm saying is, how to reduce and even breach the stranglehold that today's media keep on their unsuspecting audiences; and what imagery we can bring to these places to "bring home" our fellow humanity in SPADES! Even via our own media!
This is where i think the Raging Grannies have an angle worth playing with more. Even tho their politics are so damned superficial.
So far, i've seen people systematically tooled into not thinking, apparently, about what we wear and how we express ourselves when we go to the very serious situations affecting us. i see us human beings (across the spectrum) reduced by normalized ideas of politics and all the "values" that go along with such confined ways of thinking. i see us giving away our powers of creativity continually to these ideas we have in our heads about What One Is Supposed To look like and be like. i see this in every image i've ever noted, indigenous included. Oh, your indigenous regalia is another thing --BUT we settlers have been separated from that language-ing; so i say, if you want to reach the HEARTS and LIBERATORY DESIRES of potential allies in a larger way, you're going to "have to" seriously play with image forms of language-ing within *our* experience.
Do you understand at all what i'm saying?
And, yes, i have been and continue to play seriously along these lines! For instance, see:
www.angelfire.com/folk/magixnartz/flouggindex.html
Friday, October 26, 2007
an initiation ceremony for the crazed and channelling
I would like to envision, with your input, possible "initiation ceremonies" for those who are labeled crazy amongst us, and usually encouraged or coerced to seek so-called "professional help". The more creative your vision, the better. The more outlandish, the more excelling! Any other visionaries out there?
i got into this particular idea after reading the following:
"Instead of the degradation ceremonial of psychiatric examination, diagnosis and prognostication, we need, for those who are ready for it (in psychiatric terminology, often those who are about to go into a schizophrenic breakdown), an initiation ceremonial, through which the person will be guided with full social encouragement and sanction into inner space and time, by people who have been there and back again. Psychiatrically, this would appear as ex-patients helping future patients to go mad."
from:
http://www.laingsociety.org/colloquia/peaceconflict/divisions.levine.htm
There is some really good reading here. Here are some excerpts for the expected skeptics to think about:
"In the opinion of Dr. Thomas Szasz, psychiatry may be the new secular religion in an age of pseudo-science:
"The discerning reader may detect a faint note of familiarity here. Modern psychiatric ideology is an adaptation-to a scientific age-of the traditional ideology of Christian theology. Instead of being born into sin, man is born into sickness. Instead of life being a vale of tears, it is a vale of diseases. And, as in his journey from the cradle to the grave man was formerly guided by the priest, so now he is guided by the physician. In short, whereas in the Age of Faith the ideology was Christian, the technology clerical, and the expert priestly; in the Age of Madness the ideology is medical, the technology clinical, and the expert psychiatric.
"Thus psychiatry, like the nuclear family, becomes an instrumental motive force in the creation of the total social institution; through a process of mystification, both define normality and mould the individual into the one-dimensional shape of social utility. Laing calls this mystification a political act of "violence masquerading as love". "
and:
"'From the moment of birth, when the Stone Age baby confronts the twentiety-century mother, the baby is subjected to these forces of violence, called love, as its mother and father, and their parents and their parents before them, have been. These forces are mainly concerned with destroying most of its potentialities, and on the whole this enterprise is successful. By the time the new human being is fifteen or so, we are left with a being like ourselves, a half-crazed creature more or less adjusted to a mad world. This is normality in our present age.'
"Some people can adapt to this system. We call them normal. "Society highly values its normal man. It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal," Laing tells us. "Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years." But some cannot adapt to this imposed normality. They break down. Instead, they devise a strategy to deal with their inability to hold their invalidated experience ant their sense of themselves together. As Laing puts it, "it seem to us that without exception the experience and behaviour that gets labeled schizophrenic is a special strategy that a person invents in order to live in an unlivable situation".
"Though, in [David] Cooper's phrase, the schizophrenic may look like someone whose "logic" is "ill", he is, in reality, someone, who has been made an invalid because his experience has been invalidated. For Laing and Cooper, schizophrenia is no 'something happening in a person but rather something between persons". Thus when one psychiatrist calls schizophrenia "a failure of human adaptation", Laing responds that it may as well be "a successful attempt not to adapt to pseudo-social realities". It all seems to be a matte of perspective: "Schizophrenia is a label affixed by some people to others in situations where an interpersonal disjunction of a particular kind is occurring. This is the nearest one can get at the moment to something like an 'objective' statement, so called."
"The validity of a definition is ultimately determined by the identity of the one who is defining. It is in this context that Laing argues: "There is no such 'condition' a 'schizophrenia,' but the label is a social fact and the social fact a political event." Seen from this radical perspective, all our definitions may have to be turned upside down ant inside out. "What we call 'normal' is", according to Laing "a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms. of destructive action on experience.... It is radically estranged from the structure of being." No wonder, then, that "the condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man." On the other hand schizophrenia may be seen as an alienation from this alienation, where, "even through his profound wretchedness and disintegration", the patient may be "the hierophant of the sacred". Finally, "madness need not be all breakdown. It may also be break-through. It is potential liberation and renewal as well as enslavement and existential death."
"In _The Politics of Experience_, Laing describes how, in some instances, breakdown does become break-through; transforming the "schizophrenic experience" into a "transcendental experience". As depicted by Gregory Bateson, the schizophrenic embarks upon a voyage from the "outer" world of the "ego" to the "inner" world of the "self" -and back out again. He regards it as an archetypal journey that bears a close resemblance to descriptions of religious experience:
"It would appear that once precipitated into psychosis the patient has a course to run. He is, as it were, embarked upon a voyage of discovery which is only completed by his return to the normal world, to which he comes back with insights different from those of the inhabitants who never embarked on such a voyage."
i got into this particular idea after reading the following:
"Instead of the degradation ceremonial of psychiatric examination, diagnosis and prognostication, we need, for those who are ready for it (in psychiatric terminology, often those who are about to go into a schizophrenic breakdown), an initiation ceremonial, through which the person will be guided with full social encouragement and sanction into inner space and time, by people who have been there and back again. Psychiatrically, this would appear as ex-patients helping future patients to go mad."
from:
http://www.laingsociety.org/colloquia/peaceconflict/divisions.levine.htm
There is some really good reading here. Here are some excerpts for the expected skeptics to think about:
"In the opinion of Dr. Thomas Szasz, psychiatry may be the new secular religion in an age of pseudo-science:
"The discerning reader may detect a faint note of familiarity here. Modern psychiatric ideology is an adaptation-to a scientific age-of the traditional ideology of Christian theology. Instead of being born into sin, man is born into sickness. Instead of life being a vale of tears, it is a vale of diseases. And, as in his journey from the cradle to the grave man was formerly guided by the priest, so now he is guided by the physician. In short, whereas in the Age of Faith the ideology was Christian, the technology clerical, and the expert priestly; in the Age of Madness the ideology is medical, the technology clinical, and the expert psychiatric.
"Thus psychiatry, like the nuclear family, becomes an instrumental motive force in the creation of the total social institution; through a process of mystification, both define normality and mould the individual into the one-dimensional shape of social utility. Laing calls this mystification a political act of "violence masquerading as love". "
and:
"'From the moment of birth, when the Stone Age baby confronts the twentiety-century mother, the baby is subjected to these forces of violence, called love, as its mother and father, and their parents and their parents before them, have been. These forces are mainly concerned with destroying most of its potentialities, and on the whole this enterprise is successful. By the time the new human being is fifteen or so, we are left with a being like ourselves, a half-crazed creature more or less adjusted to a mad world. This is normality in our present age.'
"Some people can adapt to this system. We call them normal. "Society highly values its normal man. It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal," Laing tells us. "Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years." But some cannot adapt to this imposed normality. They break down. Instead, they devise a strategy to deal with their inability to hold their invalidated experience ant their sense of themselves together. As Laing puts it, "it seem to us that without exception the experience and behaviour that gets labeled schizophrenic is a special strategy that a person invents in order to live in an unlivable situation".
"Though, in [David] Cooper's phrase, the schizophrenic may look like someone whose "logic" is "ill", he is, in reality, someone, who has been made an invalid because his experience has been invalidated. For Laing and Cooper, schizophrenia is no 'something happening in a person but rather something between persons". Thus when one psychiatrist calls schizophrenia "a failure of human adaptation", Laing responds that it may as well be "a successful attempt not to adapt to pseudo-social realities". It all seems to be a matte of perspective: "Schizophrenia is a label affixed by some people to others in situations where an interpersonal disjunction of a particular kind is occurring. This is the nearest one can get at the moment to something like an 'objective' statement, so called."
"The validity of a definition is ultimately determined by the identity of the one who is defining. It is in this context that Laing argues: "There is no such 'condition' a 'schizophrenia,' but the label is a social fact and the social fact a political event." Seen from this radical perspective, all our definitions may have to be turned upside down ant inside out. "What we call 'normal' is", according to Laing "a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms. of destructive action on experience.... It is radically estranged from the structure of being." No wonder, then, that "the condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man." On the other hand schizophrenia may be seen as an alienation from this alienation, where, "even through his profound wretchedness and disintegration", the patient may be "the hierophant of the sacred". Finally, "madness need not be all breakdown. It may also be break-through. It is potential liberation and renewal as well as enslavement and existential death."
"In _The Politics of Experience_, Laing describes how, in some instances, breakdown does become break-through; transforming the "schizophrenic experience" into a "transcendental experience". As depicted by Gregory Bateson, the schizophrenic embarks upon a voyage from the "outer" world of the "ego" to the "inner" world of the "self" -and back out again. He regards it as an archetypal journey that bears a close resemblance to descriptions of religious experience:
"It would appear that once precipitated into psychosis the patient has a course to run. He is, as it were, embarked upon a voyage of discovery which is only completed by his return to the normal world, to which he comes back with insights different from those of the inhabitants who never embarked on such a voyage."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
