Hierarchies of Free
“Sometimes I feel as if there’s
a vast guerilla war going on
for the mind of man. . .”
-James Douglas Morrison-It takes all strokes ( Read more... )
a vast guerilla war going on
for the mind of man. . .”
-James Douglas Morrison-It takes all strokes ( Read more... )
There is a tendency and perhaps call it nihilistic, to fixate completely on the bad and ignore the good. Out of it can also seem to grow, a tendency to simply invert our values (rather than, as Nietzsche would have suggested, ‘transvalue’ them), by perhaps thinking that modernity is solely the problem and thus, the solution would be to regress into some kind of naïve primitivism.
On the issue of nukes, though, I do think it represent a kind of apotheosis of “death culture.” I also think the roots of this death culture run much deeper than modernity. On some level I think you could possibly even trace their origins as far back as about 6000 years ago. In a very generalized way, it was the triumph of a dominating paternalism, which saw the death of our goddesses, and their usurpation by the neurotic primacy of male aspects run completely amok.
In that sense, I do feel responsible for where we are as a species, even if I have played no role in the apotheosis of this so called “death cult.” If I cannot become a non-citizen of this world; if I cannot withdraw my citizenship under penalty of persecution, or even death; I must consider myself in some ways complicit with this untethered mayhem of our ravished world-that is, unless I come out completely against it. Try to alter it, in someway-
I guess that would be my two cents.
Reply
You are welcome to take responsibility for nuclear arms if you feel you must, obviously. You're saying you feel responsible because you are a male? What are some ways that you can work toward disarming devastating power? How do we factor "natural" extinction events into human-created events?
Reply
I will try my best to address what you’ve said.
So I feel like if you take any point in time, let’s say now or more specifically 1945 with the entrance of the bomb-when you look back, there’s not going to be just one moment that has lead to its culmination at that point. In terms of the 4000BC thesis, I do feel like there is anthropological and geographical evidence to suggest that a major change in human behavior, towards violence and repression, away from nonviolence and permissiveness, occurred then. Whether or not this moment occurred in tandem with a disappearance of Goddess worship, I don’t know. But what does seem intuitively clear to me is that there is some kind of link, whether psychological or spiritual, between our attitudes towards life and death, violence and nonviolence, authoritarianism and egalitarianism, male and female, and ultimately, Gods and Goddesses; and that over time, with the coming of the religious tendencies that dominate the world now, Monotheisms, there is a striking alteration between how we treat each other, how we treat the earth, and how we structure power dynamics. We seem to feel as if might makes right; that the earth is ours to exploit however we see fit; and that men are superior to women (and that, certain races are superior to other races. Overall, there is a terrible lack of egalitarianism, and the imposition of a rigid Hierarchy of Dominance).
I see a direct connection between that, and the way that Monotheism holds One god supreme above all others-especially a white, male god. This I feel is the manifestation of a kind of neurosis. . .
I would like to stress that I see in this neurosis the inability to recognize the connection between life and death. There is, perhaps, a fear of death that leads human beings to want to try to control death. The way this ultimately manifests, is in becoming a death-dealing society, I guess. Trying to create a monopoly on death. As if by dealing death to others, you could somehow prevent Death from dealing its final blow your way. Logically this leads to dealing-death as the primary way of solving problems. At last, it leads to the death cult we are living out now.
And the only foreseeable end, becomes that of its our own destruction. . .
I don't see this as an inevitable development, however. I feel like it could be, if you let a death cult destroy itself. But in this particular case it won’t just be taking itself down, but everyone else with it. . .
Hence, being willing to take it on-not all of the responsibility of course, but certainly some; in trying to push back against those forces of neurosis that have lead to things becoming so out of balance.
All that being male has to do with it, is that I should recognize this death-cult subjects the female to the male; and I do not believe that one aspect should be subjected to another. I feel like they should work together in a complimentary fashion. That may not always be harmonious; it may result in a kind of conflict. However not all conflict has to be bad. In fact, I think there is definitely a neurosis in not wanting to let one side do it’s thing; hence the fear of death, which becomes an obsession with The End, and one side is always trying to usurp the powers of the other, in order to control what that looks like. . .
Now, if humans destroy themselves I don’t see how that is any less of a “natural” act, then if it had been from something more cataclysmic in a traditional sense; because humans are a part of nature. But, to finish up because this has become quite long and I’m sorry--I see this is the classic Existentialist dilemma. Why not just commit suicide?
I suppose the reason is because, we had a choice; and I would rather choose to rebel.
I would rather try extremely hard and fail, then never have tried at all. To have just given up. I would go willingly into a sandstorm, or earthquake or tsunami. Die at sea. Atop a mountain. By the will of a predator that had gotten the best of me. But absolutely not into the neurotic, death-dealing blow of a sick society.
No, no.
Reply
We are living in a blessed time. The Four Horseman are always out riding about, but disease and famine have proven worthy adversaries and one can make a difference in that realm by devoting one's life to those particular battles.
Reply
There is at least one last point however where I can’t yet hang up my pen which is ironic, because that topic is War.
While I am not denying the existence of the malevolent female or of non-Anglo wickedness, when we even speak of these past ages as existing Before Christ, as well as, when we consent to living in the time 2019 After Death, one fact seems clear to me. That would be that the white male deity which we speak of, who is of course Jesus Christ, enjoys a certain Absolute Reign on top of the belief system hierarchy. Because the way that Time is structured and perceived plays a huge role, I would argue, in the way that human beings construct meaning.
I know that correlation is not exactly causation but we certainly can’t turn a blind eye to the fact that, not only is America “One Nation Under God” but also, that American Imperialism is the preeminent force driving the Horseman of War in these current times. I know that within America itself a diversity of opinion exists on the topics of religion and politics; however at the end of the day there is a belief that seems to transcend those which the majority of Americans, be they Democrat or Conservative, seem to agree on-and that is a belief in America’s exceptionalism, and it’s seemingly divine right to Rule the World. As such, I don’t think it is an exaggeration to consider the United States a Fundamentalist country.
This Fundamentalism, which also includes the enshrinement of Capitalism, is the critical force engendering inequality, exploitation and untold miseries that result from war-mongering around the globe at this particular time in history. For this reason I cannot help but take issue with the idea that these times are blessed. I do not deny that they are blessed for a great number of people. But they are clearly beyond hellish for a tremendously greater amount of others.
This leads fairly intuitively to a discussion on whether or not all of this mayhem is necessary. Whether or not War is necessary.
I feel like this is a moment of coming full circle because that idea was, in a nutshell, the impetus for writing this poem. By way of the hammer and nail analogy, or the law of the instrument, it is this: If one believes that human beings are by nature brutal creatures, then, of course one will never question the ubiquity of war.
That is why I brought up the 4000 BC thesis.
It is not because I believe in a land of milk and honey, as I share in your skepticism that human beings ever enjoyed a kind of Garden of Eden type existence.
However the 4000 BC thesis does provide hard evidence to the contrary of the commonly held, erroneous notion which holds that human beings are inherently war-like.
Reply
Also, again, perspective and history. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and an archetype that brought individuation to millions of human beings during a time in history where the village, or hive mind shaped the human experience. I posit that today, with the World Wide Web, we are returning to the village, albeit a global village, if you will. I accept your theory that Christianity has wrought war, but that seems the way of organized religions.
Discussing politics in such broad terms is something better suited to other mediums, imho. As a Jungian, I read your poem through a different lens.
Reply
Also I plead that my opinions and rhetoric don’t come across as profane. If pressed I would defend the orientation of my soul in this way; as being atheist only insofar as Buddhism, in pure philosophical form, can be said to view Emptiness as that Absolute Point which prefigures the Godhead.
I think it is cool that you are a Jungian and I respect your understanding of Jesus Christ as one of the most crucial archetypes. The individuation you speak of, I also consider immensely sacred, and is something that in my estimation dwells within all human beings. This is contrary to the way it seems that Christian Fundamentalism posits God, as a force to bow before, and submit to unquestionably.
How can one bow before what is within you?
To me that is sacred; taking on cosmic responsibility on one’s own.
(Also you could not be any more correct. The internet is a control system. Plain & simple.)
To close, I would like to focus on Jung for a moment, because I have heard that he famously diagnosed Christianity as being neurotic for its failure to integrate The Shadow. This would, of course, be the Devil or Satan, who I think it goes without saying is reviled, and for the most part sincerely feared and hated by all Christians. On some level I think this speaks to the “neurosis” I often referred to in previous posts, when I spoke of the Fear that motivates the Death Cult’s obsession with dealing-death; as a form of perhaps, death-delaying, or death-denying of the Self.
It is an inability to recognize the connection between Life and Death. Hence, I take a more Taoist approach, which would recognize the non-dualistic nature of these oppositions. It is the animus behind the idea that, War would disappear if we did away with a mandate for Peace.
Sorry and lastly, come to think of it, I suppose I might be a Reichian. Wilhelm Reich was after all one of the only psychoanalysts of his time-so not Freud and not Jung-who actually stood up against the Fascism of his day.
And make no mistake, he paid dearly for it. . .
Reply
Actually, I believe that when all the horror and negativity, the porn and the violence porn, is stripped out of the WWW, archetypally speaking this is the closest the species has been to global village consciousness. Ever. But as I am an optimist and you, sir, seem to be less so, I see this shrunken universality to be the evolutionary breakthrough we need for the next phase.
Reply
"[Jesus Christ as] a white male god who sits at the right hand of War" is also a very real concept for me, as I grew up in the Bible belt. So I have seen firsthand how Jesus Christ in theory can become perverted to serve repressive, violent, hateful, and selfish agendas.
I also would like to plead my case that, in despite of my opinions and rhetoric, I'm a hopeful and decidedly non-cynical or pessimistic person.
When it comes to the internet though, the facts bear out that surveillance was its modus operandi from inception. Even back in the '60s when the 'net was still in its infancy, being developed by ARPA, the precursor to DARPA, hippies decried the device for what they perceived could become an Orwellian nightmare.
The narrative that the internet began as a kind of revolutionary, liberating force. . . is a deceptive narrative. I am not denying that it can do that. I do believe in the revolutionary power of the internet. However, I am just trying to emphasize that its capabilities as a control system, are far more advanced at this point than any possibility to bring about a further evolution of human consciousness.
This has come full circle as well.
That was the impetus behind the line: "Could we, in knowing a panacea / may do / One of two things, namely / liberate / Or enslave; might we still / Find ourselves so / supremely rational / As to expect that / technology can do both?"
Reply
Leave a comment