Showing posts with label Sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sex. Show all posts

Friday, 13 November 2015

Tonight I'm getting over you

Bit inspired by Carly Rae Jepsen: ain't it time I got over "my muse"?

So here are the remaining issues after 15 years of musing this one.

(1) The belief it meant something for real. Here is the alignment of planets the night we met. Saturn, Moon, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, Venus, Mars and Mercury -- the solar system in a line. Obviously absurd to suggest it means anything, but we hold onto beliefs. I felt instantly that we had met before in past lives, that I had waited my whole life to meet her, I felt she would not live long: she didn't. My last words were that I would see her in another life. I felt I would wait until then. We have our beliefs that sustain us long into the dark after the lights are out and the party has ended and everyone has one by one left.

(2) So breaking up is painful. It is painful if we are rejected, it is painful if our love dies, it is painful if they actually die: it is painful when it goes wrong. On the other hand it is blissful when it goes right. So what do we do?

2.1) First approach: try and get over the "love" first by looking for someone else. But the old memories persist, no one is the same, and we can only try and deny how we feel. Started this one even while I knew her.

2.2) We may persist in trying to get over them by continuing to hold onto them. It isn't over I'm not going to face the pain. We can find reasons, we can find beliefs to support us. Most powerful is the argument of True Love. Long argued in this blog years ago. How can we love again? If we do love again then it wasn't True Love, if we wish to preserve and honour that experience as True Love then we can't love again. If we feel that it was True Love and we can't imagine ever feeling like that again, we can provide a very strong argument to just get stuck and not grow and move on with what we have. An argument to swap the Future for the Past. I started this one in 2000 and then again after her death in 2006. I won't argue for or against the True Love arguments, only just acknowledge that such beliefs exist and focusing on them will help get us very stuck. The way on is elsewhere. What would our love want anyway?

2.3 ) Then we may get really serious about this denial. Love is an illusion, no one needs it, we can live without it. What is love anyway? If we can only find a way to live without it we can be free from all this nonsense and pain. Jesus, Buddha, monks, many all find this way: surely it exists. We might get scientific (as I've heard a monk argue): it is only chemicals in the brain; or, as a biologist, it's just an evolution to encourage childbirth. In both cases it is an addiction to force us into reproduction. What real satisfaction lies in biological preprogrammed impulses that are imposed on us by our body? I began this one in 2008.

(3) Tried them all. Five year later in 2013 I had succeeded in turning down all temptations to relationship and love, and escaped all sexual desire and wish for partnership. Needing someone was an illusion and I was free from the time wasting. A friend did an ancestor ritual in Gaya in which he included "my muse" without telling me. A third of the way around the globe I felt a physical chord snip--as if by scissors--to my top right. I told him, he told me; seems there might have been a connection: so I was free. But a seed remained, something wasn't quite right. There was denial still.

So 2015 things turn around I decide to explore back up the path, to reengage with where I was 18 year ago. Thanks to CRJ guiding me toward those now distant, almost forgotten, feelings I see an obvious flaw in the argument. If I really didn't need "love" them why was I at first seeking it, and then running from it? Indeed I was awake all night and running from it the night I met her: I was afraid because I was out of my depth on day one. If it is just an addiction, or an evolution (which it may be) this doesn't help me *now* because I was seeking it. And this leads into the proper way to get over them.

The door out, involves going through the door in. There are feelings, there are experiences that are part of the case, that we cannot and must not deny if we are to be a good detective and progress with the case. They are painful, they may be joyful, but both cannot be denied. It is in those feelings that we find our Self. Run away and we avoid our Self. Live in fear of them and we hide from our Self. But if we think we are free it is a myth because our every action is governed by what we are running from. Our freedom is a trap, and the punishment we fear is actually our freedom. We must one day face it.

And yes it does feel like punishment. And we look at what was so beautiful that has turned around to hurt us and we can't believe the injustice. While other lives in joy we who almost tasted that joy now experience a brutal punishment. That punishment is for not yet understanding how to get over you. If we learn this we have the greatest prize of all. We can love without fear.

Call it karma, perhaps, but those experiences good or bad are ours and we must have the strength to be ourselves and experience what is ours, take feelings on the chin, weather the storm, stop and enter the door to see what they really are, and come through it. In Buddhist language we must cross to the other shore. On the other side is our true Self free from these difficulties. It won't kill us, its not even real, it is only a conversation of feelings with our self, but they are part of our self and we do ourselves an injustice if we don't face up and listen to them. We like to think we don't need to listen, or stop for these things. We are bigger than that, why should I stop, I AM myself already, self contained and invincible, who am I stopping for? We should stop because that is our greater self calling! This self is yet incomplete, like a child trying to run away from home, it will hurt. They call this immature self Ego.

So finally the mystery that still eludes me. Buddha speaks of non-attachment. This means no more than having the ability to say "tonight I'm getting over you". To have that ability is enlightenment. But if we have that ability what is being in love like? If we like love, we don't like losing love, and if we don't like losing love how do we "get over you"? Pretending we don't like love does not work! (See above). And trying to train ourselves not to like love does not solve the problem, it simply avoids it. Quite how we do it is a mystery still, but all avenues that try to avoid the problem, and avoid going through the door of pain are wrong. We do like love, we do seek it, and we do find it goes wrong sometimes. Who knows why, but if there are answers we need listen to our big self for them. This is the last remaining door that we must go through.

Sunday, 20 March 2011

Sexual Power and Self-Esteem

(From notes made last year)

Low Self esteem means we don't believe we deserve happiness. This is a poison that infects us. We then seek self justification, narcissism and kingship and so we in turn subject others to suffering and torture to enforce our weak grasp of our validity. Now this creates a particular species of sexual interest. The "whore" and pornography (specifically the images of whores which is what it means) is based around the low self-esteem male seeking to reinforce their weakly based ego in expressions of power. Power being the ability to obtain resources, territory and achieve matings is thus logically what a male seeks both to obtain sex but also through sex. So the "dirty whore" is logical expression of the power-sex of weak males.

Now with females it is equally complex. Just as the weak, low status, low esteem male seeks kingship and domination so the weak female seeks enslavement so that she may experience power through it use on her (Hegel master/slave dialectic). Through her success as a slave she becomes ironically empowered.

In both cases the seeking of ecstasy in the giving to another in love (Aphrodite) , the being selfless, is confused and is expressed as Eros and the abandonment of self to another in a power relation. This is futile since neither party gains. Aphrodite by contrast is mutual respect n esteem.

I realise that power is expressed in a battle of esteem. We are aware that each person is looking both to be king and slave and it is based upon esteem and status. Attractive well turned out girls of higher class we don't expect to seek kings in unattractive scruffy males. Yet the truth is that probably they have low esteem too and are actually seeking quite low kings. It is the source of the surprise when we hear that a desirable girl debased herself is some cheap sexual act. And our response is one of measuring it through power and esteem, that were such a girl to offer themselves to us we would perceive it as a king experience which would raise our status and self-esteem.

It is surprising to me how much of sexual relations is of this type and how low in esteem most people are. Such a realisation is useful though because it teaches us not to seek esteem in the endless and fruitless struggles of Eros but to pursue the path of mutual respect and love which does not demand master/slave relations and offers freedom and growth to all partners. This is the difference between Eros and Aphrodite and indeed suggests that sexual liberation is actually a dead end and the wrong path.

Interesting to hear Germaine Greer on the radio last week in a program on Wilhelm Reich saying that the sexual revolution that she promoted had expected people to embrace sexual freedom with "humility" and responsibility and admits they were wrong in their expectations. While I agree with Wilhelm Reich that sexual awkwardness and repression leads to neurosis and destructive use of energies it's a bit primitive to say that releasing it solves the problem. Like a steam engine if the pressure is getting too high you release it to stop that energy doing harm, but really you want to use all that energy for something useful and this points to understanding orgone energy and applying it ... which is exactly what Buddhism and Hinduism for certain and probably all the various energy/spiritual teachings aim to do. It is the forgetting how to master our energies that leads all those lost generations to get sexually frustrated, and then to blame the spiritual teachings for repressing sexuality and then to realise it all in a popular revolution embracing this ignorance.


Monday, 6 December 2010

Human Mating Strategies

  • A friend was commenting on the news item about a man who had is wife murdered with a machete for trying to leave him. It got me to thinking and posting and thinking some more...

    Husband is jailed for ordering machete murder | UK news | The Guardian
    Women are choosy - look who they choose. This hit the papers today, several hours after I posted my headline. Can you understand my bemusement/bewilderment/bi
    tterness even? I cannot understand why. It is shocking how pointlessly nasty some of them can be, yet look who they choose!
    Saturday at 12:00pm ·
  • Alva Gosson
    I imagine there is quite a lot of study on this ;-) We did this one in zoology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis. It is not what is good for the woman but what is good for the kids - if they are like her husband and she matedwith him then by circular argument they will also get matings and so the gene spreads. It is true isn't it that mothers fancy their sons. I reckon there are at least two mating strategies in human females: the one for cash/territory/power to ensure a good environment for the kids and the one for "sexy" to actually get the kids (50% of kids are extra-marital in human genetic history - just enough to make it worthwhile for the home-making male to stay around: evolved before the days of genetic test and CSA ;-). Overly simple but there is no question the dominant strategy for men is be rich or be a hunk. That said a deer in Autumn Watch a few years back used to sneak away from the dominant male to mate with her long time favourite: that stag, despite not having territory, obviously did something she liked! So yeah its complicated I agree but then it would be boring if instructions came on the back of condom packets :-) Course the other thing is that sex and breeding usually aren't the point - its more about self-esteem as successful sex/matings are deeply intertwined with social status - which tragically is linked to chance of success so its circular - the more you get the more you get - but if u fail you can always get the big car out :-) Well that's my analysis anyway.
    Saturday at 2:56pm ·
  • Alva Gosson ooo can't believe I 4got this Groucho quote. Much more succinct. If a man could ever see thru a woman he'd be missing a lot! So I guess lets hope we never can ;-)

    Rather than continue the thoughts on his page I'll log them here...

    The exposition missed making clear the great battle that exists between the males and females of the human species. For females it makes sense to mate around, while for males it makes sense to control a woman so that she has your children only. Basically this is the structure of marriage and the feminist (when they take the time to understand why things are the way they are before they try to change them) are essentially arguing that they want to right to bring children into the family with other fathers than their husband. The genetic evidence shows that most women have children out of wedlock, but only a few males play along and are responsible; it was Scherezade that made me realise tho before the data. Males thus play the strategy of control of females and this is where the behaviour that produced the news article has a historical precedent. Not to say that Human's should behave like this but that is the legacy.

    Another point, gleaned while at college and forget the source, is that the same primitive brain pathways are used by males for sex and violence behaviours. It has always intrigued, worried me, that this is true and I worked this out analysing my own mind as a child. The very essence of "sexy" and of "violence" are linked - they are strong passions motivating compulsive behaviour directed toward someone else that in one case demands grasping and in the other demands hurting. Interestingly both involve thrusting something toward the other with great intent and strength and often into the body of the Other! Violence often also shows up in female definitions of "sexy" in men - men fighting, struggling physically for power and dominance, being physically strong, often being criminal also all occur in the structure of sexiness. The very sex act itself is better performed by physically strong individuals also and I am sure that the physical domination of women during sex is a great fetish and turn on (from discussions on the subject). This is not to say this type of sex is itself dominant, but it figures in the female concept of sexiness. The sex from a loyal, supportive partner would be expected to be different. So there are clearly many strategies and sex is not to be understood as a one horse race, I think that is the thing which confuses people who take the simple hegemonic view.

    Finally the realisation that I am becoming more convinced is true. Buddha says that the love for his son was so strong that it threatened his desire for enlightenment and so he left home. This I believe is the greatest love: that for one's children. A friend who is very disinterested in life in general, admits that to protect his children he would kill. That is a powerful emotion that in a way thankfully I haven't experienced and hope not to (since I don't like being controlled). Imagine the pain at losing ones children. In the BBC drama "Any Human Heart" running at the moment, it is becoming plain that it is the desire to reproduce that has driven the life of the man in question more than anything. Tragic that he leaves no children in the story. But as I was arguing with my sister what goes up must come down, and what goes down must come up: nothing ever changes, so I disagree with the premise of the program that life is about luck. You just need to watch stock markets to see that. When we love a girl what we are experiencing is not love for her, but a foreshadowing of the love for the children that she can entail. I thought homosexuality would disprove this but my sister argued that actually homosexual couples want children also. I don't know if this is just the force of social conformity or whether homosexual love is foreshadowing also. If it is however it blows homosexuality part because by definition it can't provide children. A gay friend decided he was infertile as a means to reconcile this point - the concept of fertility it is a problem for homosexuality as expounded in this blog before.

    As a closing line on this post and also very much on sexuality itself: the thing to realise is just how primitive and basic sexual reproduction is. There is nothing to comprehend. Bacteria, pigeons and plants have sex (sharing of genes) where is the problem for humans then! All the "romantic" art and philosophy that I have expended time in is actually just a displacement from the sordid reality. It is hard for the higher mind to comprehend that the body is involved in such base and humiliating activities. But then eating, sleeping, toilet, dying all come under that bracket also. Together the gradual realisation is that indeed our physical existence is actually rather sordid and dress it up as we may eventually this realisation breaks through and we discover that it is better to just accept it and let it go rather than pursue some reconciliation and mastery of it.

    It is interesting that last night I dreamed of "my muse". It is only the third time in 13 years and by coincidence I notice, looking at the calendar, that yesterday was the 13th anniversary of first speaking to her (I see now that it must be the Fri 5th of Dec because she was working Saturdays and Friday was her try out day; Wednesday 3rd the day I first saw her enter the shop and noticed something different about her - not my type sexually but something ethereal interested me). What was different in this dream was that she was trying to patch things up with me and there was a maturity to the relationship. In the very first dream we had a clumsy kiss where I fell off the chair - symbolic of the awkwardness and ill suiting relationship - second time years later she was angry and frustrated with me. This seems to be some reconciliation as finally we have grown up. I always thought it was she who had to grow up; I guess it was me. Certainly I'm sure she is just a part of me that I needed to express, nothing to do with her. She is dead so how can there be a reconciliation! That said it got me to thinking about the psychic link that lots of people report - the Kenobi-Alderaan moment (Star wars IV) when we know something terrible has happened. How did I know she was going to die? There are clearly things in this world very close to our hearts and lives that we have little understanding of! Maybe not all has been told yet...

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

He's the One

A friend said yesterday with great excitement that her relationship was going the distance and that "he was the one". I realise this is a slightly different conception of The One to myself and gives me an opportunity to explore. For her the One is not the person you "should" marry but rather the one you are "going" to marry. Marriage is the given for her, it is just a matter of finding the person you will marry, while for me The One is the given and on finding them then marriage happens - otherwise not... and I don't think i will be married because I can't manifest (or even understand) The One.

What is more interesting what this means for understanding The Ego. Where a mirror image gives us a physical representation of ourself as another person, The One gives our egos a conceptual representation of ourself as another person. Marriage is a mirror. Now this is where I think homosexuality goes wrong because the mirror is too literal and we actual try and have a relationship with our selves - if a homosexual is honest they must perceive an unusual situation where they can be sexually excited by themselves in the mirror - finding their own sexual organs and look sexually stimulating. It is the false consciousness that possibly arises of having a relationship with yourself - which isn't a relationship (see SRH for the impossibility of self relations - incomplete musing however on that subject). This is not the say that heterosexuals aren't involved in equally false relationships, or that homosexuals are involved in true relationships I just find it suspicious that someone may seek a different person in the form that is their own form. Maybe homosexuals shouldn't call it homosexuality because it can't be sexual when there is only 1 sex involved! But this is also where relationships are fraught with danger because you have two people taking the other person as a mirror to themselves and the question is who are we: ourselves or our partner's mirror image? And we enter submissive/dominance relations and it all get complicated.

It is this feature of relationships that i am beginning to understand (I add from the outside it being 3 years since I bothered with a sexual relationship). Not only is the other person The One but we become The One also in the very same moment of consciousness. It is this self-realisation which is as far as I can see Life - this is the joy of love (often sexualised) where we feel alive in the reflection of ourselves in another. (It am wondering if it is a temporary stage of consciousness however.)

That experience of being The Hero where we take command of the narrative and find the future now rests squarely and without compromise upon our shoulders - that is the feeling of Love. I saw in a porn picture from asia with a chinese caption which Google translator translated as "beautiful girl: heroic feeling". Regardless how accurate the rendition, what a precise analysis of the experience. That is the purity which is seemingly increasingly lost from sexuality (tho porn it must be said means originally whore in ancient greek I think from pornography - pictures of whores) the purity which people seem to side step the heroic position and take the existence of themselves and the other on their shoulders. I imagine the media consciousness is linked to this as we are a hundred people a day these days (films, news, gossip, trivia etc) and can easily find escape from being ourselves.

A note to self here: recent dreams and thoughts are leading me to realise that maybe "I am fake". My decision 10 years ago to take command of myself has started to be fulfilled recently as I seem to have the choice to do whatever I want - while before I felt very unhappy if I didn't get what i wanted; this is I was driven by what I wanted rather than the other way around. But "what I want" has been calling faintly to me recently saying that I am now is a fake, and that I should pursue what i want to become true to myself. Is this the last attempts by the devil calling or is it true? My question here is should I even become "myself". It is all tied up in the SRH and other musing like this one "self". No decision yet, but see already it will be my choice to do what i want even if I do! That decision to make decisions seems to have been firmly made (tho SRH it wasn't a decision ;-)!

So my friend has a much more pragmatic view of The One and will find herself mirrored in the person that she forms the life bond with. For me that life bond was already made with someone by destiny and whether I actually fulfill it or not is immaterial. Mine is a Oneness that transcends death - maybe that is why i am not that fussed about marriage and families and things they are rather trivial against that romantic notion of Oneness. Marriage is only in this life and so doesn't mirror the eternal soul - which is non individual and Absolute. Maybe this is the switch that comes when we step beyond mortal mirrors and seek refuge and mirroring in ultimate beings?

Just some opening thoughts as I get to grips with understanding this.

=== Wed
There is a logical flaw in my thinking! My friend quite accurately, it seems, realises that marriage only occurs once the mutual vow has been made.

If we were destined to meet someone, this does not mean that we were destined to marry them because we would still need to actually make that vow.

What is the meaning of a vow to be faithful if it is destined? I am essentially removing responsibility from the marriage vow by saying that it is out of my hands.

But then in my thinking: upon what basis do I make a vow to be faithful? What quality do I observe, what purpose do I fulfill with this vow, and worse upon what security is there that a vow that seems worthwhile today will seem worthwhile tomorrow? This last has troubled me the most.

In a usual promise we bind ourself to a definite occasion: I promise to fulfill some engagement. Even if the wish to do this goes, we can still motivate ourselves to achieve the original purpose.

It may be that we promised to do something. If in teh future conditions have changed and the person we promised to no longer needs our service then they can anull the promise. Likewise it seems in modern thinking we can anull the promise of marriage... but what condition needs to change to make marriage either worthwhile or not worthwhile?

We often base it on ephemeral feelings, but these WILL change. I have failed to find conditions that warrant a lifetimes promise.

My only conclusion is that marriage is an a priori. We either want it, or we don't, and it does not depend upon conditions.

The only remaining this is that it is the institution for childbirth. But I have no desire to have children.

It seems that a priori I don't require marraige then, so my thinking will always be different from my friend. I may lose out on sexual pleasures, and companionship but these are ephemeral and trivial and certainly not something I base a whole lifetime on. This seems the logical conclusion then.

=== cont

But then there is a logical error here also because by arguing "essentially" that "I am not the type of person who gets married" I am once again avoiding the decision to make the vow!

So we end up with a Sartre like position where faced with the question of whether to marry (as one of S students was) Sartre answered don't decide the future: make the future. So the question is really do we wish to create a future in which we are married.

Now I always dismissed S here because this doesn't get us any further. We may indeed realise that what is holding us back is ourselves which is good thinking. But we are still faced with the problem of if I made this future would I regret it, or wish to make a contrary future after that. I mean make a vow to live with someone for the rest of my life today, but in 3 years decide to make another future where I am single again. This doesn't seem to solve this issue, or underpin it with any substance, this issue of the lifelong vows.

The best solution it seems to me is the arranged marriage where you simply accept, and make do with, the social expectations of marriage. But this doesn't work in the post-protestant world where we are "free" to chose. Normally we can just chose, and if we don't like it chose again and keep switching and turning as our fancy takes us... not so with this surviving mode of living from a by gone (pre-Protestant) age. It is ironic that the whole problem has arisen due to a break in teh church - the body that has uptil now taken charge of marriage - due famously to Henry VIII and his supposed wish for (of all things) divorce (altho I think more probably he just wanted to be rid of Rome telling him what he could and couldn't do in his own kingdom!). The age of freedom and self-determination (which the SRH seeks to show is a fundamental logical - not metaphysical - contradiction) - the post-Renaissance age of European Enlightenment - has created a problem and as mentioned often in this blog has little philosophical backing for the great move which has blighted the human race (in this view!).

So to marry or not to marry: I am still non-the wiser and see that the problem is indeed something I inherit from a badly thought out revolution in the 1500s by Martin Luther et al which has skipped and dodged its way into present times via Nietzsche, the death of God, and the post-modern age which characterises itself by avoiding any serious attention through a moronic use of irony. Even the moronic use of irony is supposed to be ironic these days (see Channel 4s T4 and Ricky Gervais). Well by irony itself the bothering to skillful manipulate the "corny and crap" actually reveals a preoccupation with the corny and crap itself, which says a lot about the mind sets of people who try to circumvent the accusation of being corny and crap by "deliberately" being corny and crap. Not that there is no room for the ironic use of corny and crap - bathos is extremely amusing - but to think that the vaulted aspirations of the European Renassance and Age of Enlightenment have brought us science, archetecture, justice and the happy meal is a statement of little worth itself except some light amusement.

But back to marriage: it is an example of the bigger question in Life: what actually to do. I have written this blog for 4 years now and still (despite understanding the world in much greater depth than I did at the start) I still have no idea of the main question "what to do or think about this thing Life.". I hope that the proven SRH will at least signal the end of the direction which is called "pursuing ones own ends".

What has mystified me about people in general has been their ability to just do thing without ever being able to be aware of what they are doing. Lots of people I know will say one thing and then do the opposite. Dirac the famous British physicist apparent was faced with the question of marriage and was looking for some justification for doing it... he got married but does this mean he found a justification or did he just do it ... in which case his desire to marriage must have been stronger than his ability to resist it... now how did he reconcile this? What if his desire had been for something bad or destructive like a drug addiction, would he have just done it also? He was an odd chap tho paying the flight to New York and back just to watch a new Tom and Jerry cartoon - one of his passions! With that level of impulsiveness and irrationality no wonder he got married ;-)

Thursday, 26 August 2010

Chilean Miners - Extension and Self + The Halo

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100825/twl-chilean-miners-trapped-in-hell-told-4bdc673.html

I have been following this story more avidly than any story I have ever heard I think. There is something about it which captures my own very personal issue of life. Partly of course because it is my greatest fear: being unable to escape from an area, and this because of my desire to escape the obsessive thoughts of OCD by physical movement if I wish. It also captures my limited but fascinating experiences of being underground for 3 days, deep in caves at depths slightly deeper than the miners. Of course I had a means of escape but there was always the thought in my mind that - especially after the earthquke one year and the large rock movements - that a boulder would shift and block off one of the tiny passages that linked me to the surface.

Yet the body and mind do adapt and after a day underground it becomes one's home of which one becomes very fond. Hotel Tolminka was the name of one deep campsite which I still regard as one of the best "homes" I have ever had. It was here I understood that it takes just warm food in one's stomach to create the sense of home - from which I deduced the reason why a welcome meal is so important in culture.

Yet the miners have an challenge ahead of them which I have never experienced which is the climbing out of a 700m bore hole 66cm wide. This is probably the worst part of the whole thing.

The actual being "trapped" is relative, and is simply a way of thinking. As long as they have access to essentials (and can physically stay alive) then they are only trapped relative to the "outside" world. If their whole world had been the mine since they were born then there is no such thing as "trapped". This is a good example of how the mind makes the world.

An interesting line of thought then began in my mind about 30mins ago:
Another aspect of this is that whether "in" the cave or "outside" the cave they are bound by the limitations of their body. I can never get beyond my own body to "over there", I must move my body to over there - I am always stuck with this body.

Except we have influence beyond our bodies. Criminals can keep their crime empires going from behind prison walls simply by smuggling out notes. The Chilean miners with video links will be able to interact with their families in every way but physical contact and sharing simultaneous experiences like going to the park together. But even this is not 100% true: there is the feature of Extension whereby we use a fork and feel what the fork tip is doing as though our mind was at the tip of the fork and not our finger tips. A miner could use a robot to do brain surgery from inside the mine or with a 3D display projecting a computer simulation of the surface feel like he was walking about outside. This extreme Matrix type reality really shows that "where we are" is actually an "Extension" of the mind rather than an actual "entity" being somewhere... worth contemplating in depth for access to Anatta (non-self). So I was going to argue that we are trapped together with our bodies - a monks wrote that "mind" is the limit of our sense of bodily feeling - I'm not so sure about this limit to "mind" but accept the distinction. But on reflection it seems that we are not really "with" our bodies but are an Extension projected onto the body but also anything that connects with the body - even quite tenuously like "property". If a Chilean miner was to be told that his house had burned down he would feel it like it was happening to "him". This is extension of himself far outside the mine!

So this Chilean miners situation really captures, very much, the essence of the personal issues that I face in life and are questioning.

=== 29/8/10

My sister has a much more practical and down to earth take on this - and this also high lights another aspect of my approach. She was thinking that the best way to deal with this was to get the miners actively involved in their own escape. This way they have a goal to aim for and can see the gradual progress, and the process will organise them and keep them teogether both physically and mentally. "Genius" was my answer to this, and doubly so because this is exactly what the rescuers have done: lowered a drill bit so the miners can begin to do dig themselves out also. Singing, games and dividing the living space into 3 sections, both for practicality but also for a sense of order, have also been implemented; also along the lines my sister imagined. Indeed I see her point. Our mother is also particularly strong on the issue of "order" in ones life for good mental health.

This morning having let all that sink in it gave me an excellent perspective on my own approach. "Games" I have stolen from Wittgenstein as the process by which "value" and "meaning" are created. Without value or meaning people lose structure and start to fail in playing the games that constitute society: they become what is termed "mad". In our family going "mad" is a great taboo and fear especially because thyroid deficiency (which is inherited) has symptoms which make you feel insane and for which my mother spent time in a psychiatric hospital as a teenager - a truly terrible experience in the 1950s!! But it is also a taboo of the wider community: one only needs look at the way Hollywood treats madness; essentially in place of monsters; poorly understood and abjectly feared.

But for me fear of "madness" is as bad as the prison of madness itself. How many people conform simply to stay away from the fear of madness. This is quite tautological however if one understands madness as simply not playing the Game. Not playing The Game (actually an indefinitely complex fluid interaction of games involving language through to custom, mores and culture) means we step outside the relationship with other people which is constructed by The Game.

There is no doubt that for those who are or who feel mad, the way back to "normality" is to enforce a strict structure and discipline in their lives which must begin at some level to involve the playing of interpersonal games in society: language (talking), friendship, work, family etc. The more embedded in society's games the more sane one feels. This is not to say that huge upheavals in ones constitution cannot find us playing the wrong game or playing the wrong part in the game, madness essentially driving us into a new relationship with society. It is a dynamic liquid broth always simmering away. That idea in 1994 of "harmonic structuralism" which argued that there is no "right" or "wrong" absolutely but only consistency and size of structure. The larger the structure a system of rules could produce consistently the better that system of rules keeps coming back as a good idea. Saw this idea in essence in a maths book this week, it seems quite fundamental.

But my approach has been different - to seek a more substantial basis than just the swirl of ever changing social attitudes and norms. One flawed aspect of the search is to find a solid foundation for my "self" that is independent of "other" people. As a child I was fascinated by the observation that I could not see myself as "other" in the way other people could. Other people can look on me and judge me in entirety as that is "Alva". I on the other hand never seem to be able to step outside myself to look in and gain objective impartial perspective on myself. Why can't I be scientific about myself? My whole mental machinery has been constructed with this goal of being able to step outside myself to see myself unbiased as other people see me. The SRH however is the search for the proof that actually this is impossible. Buddha says that it is impossible because actually "I" am not a substantial thing anyway anymore even that "other" people are. And social sciences would point out that actually the sense I have of "other" people treating me as "Alva" is the only basis for "I" there is. "Other" people create my "I". When I spend too much time by myself I start to step outside the social games so that even a trip to the shops becomes an awkward and anxious time: you find yourself saying odd things, embarrassing gaps occur in your social machinery as you fail to execute social protocols correctly (especially in upper class parts of town) and the connection with people starts to break down: the "Other" starts to reject you and the "ego" starts to go into crisis and it slips away - alienation is death on wheels, it is esectaly the feeling of dying while alive - it is not an easy thing to approach calmly and we seek to run and hide, or to fight for our survival both of which would only make things worse. This is the spiral into "madness". I was analysing this yesterday after several nights of little sleep, admittedly with friends, but the spending of time by myself in this house sit I am doing. This current phase is ironically a direct result of the social approach I began on holiday. Society (meaning, value) is a two edged weapon - one feels secure and alive when it is working and anxious and annihilated when it fails.

So returning to the miners. The practical approach is exactly what is happening to keep the miners in good positive mental spirits, with hope, an outlet for their energies, strong social reinforcements of their existence, their living, their being someone in their work together to escape and to live together. But in my mind when they escape they are really still trapped. The other approach is not practical. It seeks instead to examine the possibility of madness to understand what it is and so overcome it directly - that way seems the only way to true freedom but it is also likely to end in destruction because we can never actually become "mad" with out hurting ourselves and those around us. Our duty is to play the social games and provide meaning and value for people, even if we seek to gain a perspective on the processes by stepping outside society.

Religion is a very powerful approach in stepping beyond society. God, Buddha or whatever we believe in lies outside society. The isolated, abandoned, failed, ill, unfortunate, unloved are all pushed to the edges of society and feel the "madness" that lies in this no man's land. Society is a very destructive creature when we lie outside it: either directly through exile, or by accident when we fall to its edges or it turns up on our shores and wages war (literally) on us. Modern society is much smarter and seeks to befriend alien societies by bringing them into the fold economically - but societies with different value and meaning, i.e. that play different games, are essentially annihilated because meaning and value depend upon a particular set of rules, and admitting relativity puts a crack right through that meaning and value. A whole socity would feel alienation and death if it ever admitted the authority of another society's rules. God however provides the rock upon which people, wherever they are in society, can build their lives. We are only ever on the outside of God's Kingdom when we fail to play by His rules, but the moment we realise we have strayed we can repent and be accepted straight back in. The other view is that we simply cannot escape the Kingdom; it is everywhere and the fallen as well as the righteous are equally within that system. This is the law of Karma that says that whatever we do we simply create seeds of the future and our suffering, alienation, and unhappiness is a product of what we have done. Even our own death only creates a new birth. The fears and joys that occur within us as we cycle around and around, up and down the karmic system are just temporary products of whatever we have created in the past. In this view I am rather unsure whether we are to work to maintain a position in society or realise that falling outside society is of no real concern. While Vedantic indian thought would never has questioned the structure of the caste system, wandering monks who live far outside worldly structures in singular worship of a gods would never have given it any thought at all. To those disciplined in religious structures of thought and living it seems the need for worldly structures is removed. But the question remains what if we have no structure (meaning or value) what so ever: is anything left. I suspect that ironically the most disciplined states of mind that exist: the various meditation states answer that question. Deep within precise structure (of meaning and value) actually lies emptiness and nothing associated with profound peace (and joy in lower states). So what the other way of the yin yang, does precise structure (i.e. the cause of meaning and value) lie within emptiness and nothing? I mean to abandon all structure and let go into the Void would actually get to the same place? Not sure about what this is saying ... need to examine more. Obvious question here tho is why not just follow the Buddha Dharma to get there rather than seek a short cut!

Beyonce - Halo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcMmRL6_r24

We rejoice, we believe, we dream that we can be truly found, we turn the corner we are astounded by vistas of light, beauty and peace that have been always waiting for us where we truly belong; in the eyes of the Other we can dream, we can believe.

There is so much joy in this dream but is it true? Do we spend our lives seeking it or do some people find it? I don't know but I don't believe anymore, yet I do accept the dream as long as it is a dream: it is beautiful: song says it all.

I am beyond this dream now, but not happily yet. However the dream is true in a way because the truth does lies in the Other. My problem with Beyonce's dream is that we abandon everything at the altar of our Other and worse we do this because our Other offers us sexual satisfaction so it is a very selfish self-centred sacrifice in most cases. We are all seeking Unconditional Love but who can really give it without hoping they will get something back i.e. conditionally?

The dream also applies in this blog because would the Chilean miners care where they were if they were with their love? When we are in Love we are Found - where our Love is that is Home, the Universe has its centre in our Love, Here becomes Heaven, Everywhere I'm looking now I'm surrounded by your embrace/ Baby I can see your halo, Those walls come tumbling down because I found a way to let "You" in (and myself Out?). The prison that the miners live in is only a prison because in some way Love lies outside the walls. And, Love only means letting the Other in.

So we do by accident or design let the Other in when we form relationships for mating. But, that process of letting the walls down seems to stop as we become selfishly fixated on Our new Self and build a Family wall around that. It is like the Ego reaches this chimerical position reaching out to The Other while at the same time constructing a Self around the embrace - The Halo becomes not Heavenly but really just a version of The Self. Such a chimera will die as its two halves run in opposite directions. Each part of the beast fighting to control the Other and feeling pain at every attempt by the Other to be free. It is like a Chilean miner bringing his loved ones into the cave with him (which is where making a family is actually an unspiritual process).

Linking that with Plato of course the escape from the cave is the awakening to the True world freed from the imperfections of existence and particularity, but in this view that means escaping the Ego. This is what the adventure with My Muse was supposed to be, but in reality when sexual desire is involved I've noticed the desire to take is too great for most - we seek self-gratification as the motive for partnership with another! what a chimera!

All that said my desire to escape all this and the cave myself, or even more the elimination of the concept of cave and outer-world, has gotten me nowhere... yet. Maybe I am better off taking it step by step and seeking harmony with a single other first as a model for the general Other. Maybe Beyonce's Dream is the best door through which all of us trapped Miners can escape.

Is there madness in Love? When I met "my muse" I had no choice but madness, my friends thought I was going insane (more than usual). This is because we join an inner choir much more powerful than anything outside. Normally we are ok to sing to the song sheet of the world - but only OK it has never been satisfactory for me. The inner choir is where we feel we belong. In Love we have our own direction and destiny. Divine Madness is the same but for when God speaks to us and becomes our choir master. Kierkegaard speaks at length about this. It is odd that when in Love we never feel the madness even though we may spin far outside society. Most romantic stories plot the destruction rent by the overwhelming madness of love/desire. The film/story 'In The Realm of the Senses' is a particularly intense true story about this. So that inner desire gives us a structure and game to play that provides the divine meaning and value of love. The scene in the film Inception where everyone wakes on the plane after their shared dream adventures, reminded me exactly of that experience of looking into the eyes of a someone where love has secretly been confirmed and knowing that we adventure secretly in a world that no-one else knows about. That secret world is a large ego in which we may find meaning but which itself may detach from meaning all together. The Chilean miners likewise might not individually go mad, but rather form a society that buds off from the outside world as in Lord of the Flies or The Beach etc. A society in which there was Love that placed Home where they were and which eliminated the concept of "rescuing". This is something I realise I have been playing around with ever since "My Muse" - seeking a source of Love that evaporates the need for rescuing, salvation, freedom or escape that we look for in Beyonce's Dream. A source of Love, a Halo, that won't run away or die, that provides us protection from madness, society and ourselves.

Thursday, 12 August 2010

Harry Potter and the We

On the ferry on way back from Skye I spoke to a guy who had booked to take the Harry Potter train from Mallaig - properly known as The Jacobite Steam Train. We visited the train station and it was pulling in - the steam engulfing the station from the sturdy dark stallion of a machine. Maroon carriages snaked behind it exactly reminiscent of the Orient Express and evoking that age of opulence and romance. The door opened and a deluge of Potter fans flooded onto the platform - a group of girls with the potter lightening mark on their foreheads reminded me of the ACDC symbol, and I chuckled to myself. It was odd out here in the remote highlands to be thrown into the dense civilised hysteria of a hollywood consciousness. I began to feel slightly drawn into the community of it all.

In the tourist shop I suddenly spied a postcard of the Glenfinan viaduct with the Harry Potter train on it and realised that this was the same scene as from the film. (Always make beeline for postcards when entering an area to see what is to be seen). Suddenly I felt a link to the three heroes of that film; a way into their magical world. I was gripped by the challenge to out cycle the train and capture that picture for myself. It was a hopeless task. On the flat I might have been able to keep up the 20mph needed by with the hills and the wind against me I had to realise I wasn't going to get it. Stopping and racing up a nearby hill, and then another and another, against the clock, looking for the perfect shot I finally got to a vantage point just as the trains smoke appeared on the horizon and made its way toward me. I had one chance at the shot and took the photo as the train huffed and puffed in the valley below.

There was a great sense of achievement in being a part of this Harry Potter experience, being linked to the stories, the characters and the thousands of fans on that train and around the world. I haven't felt like this for a very long time. This I realised was an experinec of the "WE". I sat down looking at the view of Skye and the peninsula before me to muse at what was unveiling before me and wrote:

'I' became 'we' through someone who we all individually identify with. A generation of people are joined and sympathise with the plight and narrative of Harry. He of course could be a private person with a life of his own behind the scenes - but his public self unifies each of us because we can individually identify with it. But NO! He is not a private person, he IS Harry Potter. Harry assists us in the stories because he makes the decsions, but we go along with the rest.

That "self" narrated in a public medium creates the possibility of "we" as ourselves sympathise with His narrative instead of our own. This is the great feeling - the 'WE'. The membership (I was calling it before) gives us release from the existential issues that Harry must himself feel.
"I that is we through Him" is a common motif especially for the Christians and other religious mentalities.

"My Muse" I saw broke my feeling of "we" that is what changed and I just got it back today: that is the magic of Harry Potter!"

Slighly messy exposition as I try to handle the irony that comes from many individual people finding sympathy with a single individual who as a result unifies the multiple individualities as one individuality. That is the social consciousness.

We see it in many guises from film heroes, to music icons, to leaders and politicians, football clubs, interest groups, countries, nations, races etc. It is a great feeling being part of the "we", feeling that I am not really an isolated individual, but am like the page in a book (or the frame in a film) and through me a larger self runs that replaces that little self for a big self.

Still captured by the euphoria of the experience of being somehow magically linked with the quest of Harry Potter - reenjoying a feeling of youth - I camped with the plan to get the real photo on Glenfinnan viaduct the next day. I knew what time the train had left, how fast it travelled and estimated when it must reach the viaduct. Next morning not wishing to be hanging around and playing with the time rather I left with enough time. I stopped to check the train times and suddenly realised that the train waited in Glenfiddan for 30mins. I was going to arrive 10 minutes too late. All the same I raced another impossible race hoping that somehow I had made a mistake. Walking to the top of the viewing point it was obvouis I had missed the shot. In retrospect I ought to have joined the crowds on the road into the hills for shots of it there. I spoke at length to a couple and their kids who also misjudged it - real Potter fans as well so they should have been more gutted than me - but somehow I felt it meant more to me!

Lesson I learned here was that if something matters do not leave it to chance - over plan! My great pleasure in life is cutting timing tight so that I arrive in a great heroic last minute struggle (like the films!), or alternatively don't plan at all so that what happens is a magical suprise (like finding out about the Potter train from a guy by accident on the boat).

Once the euphoria had passed in the following days I entered my more usual sceptical and critical mentality. Is it really good that we give up our "self" to be part of a mass self that has no guidance, direction or even any real substance. The Potter fans enjoyed the collective experience of the Potter hysteria. I felt a closeness to the Potter narratives that I never felt before, felt I wanted to be a part of the heroes' adventures (like when you hear people narrating good times and you wish you had been there too) and found a softness for Hermione... or in the words of Hot House Flowers (that I used to listen to with my 1st girlfriend)

Do you go to the movies
Find a friend in a film
Holding hands with the heroes
Fall in love with the heroine?

But, there is nothing here. I have been on no adventure. I have taken no critical decisions, or had to endure difficulties, fears. I have certainly not had the weight of a narrative rest entirely on my shoulders. As a 'we' we become liberated from the existential issues: what do I do? is this correct? etc.

There is clearly a balance here but the dialectic is much more than being sept along by an imaginary hero. That hero becomes a role model upon which we are inspired to act ourselves. For those who are discovering new levels to themself the Hero is a guide to the way. This is exactly what the religious leaders of all types are!

Tuesday, 3 August 2010

Stuff from holiday on "my muse"

Once again my holiday found me ruminating on "my muse". This cow has far too many stomachs!! In note form and hopefully an end (again).

> Watching the sunrise from King Arthur's Seat, Edinburgh I reformulated the reason why I was trapped with "my muse". She gave away the only thing i ever wanted: herself. She made cheap what for me was the most valued. Maybe this was deliberate because it is a great responsibility being valued that much - she was young, I put a lot of pressure on her, this is my mistake. But basically she couldn't perceive herself as being that valuable - in her own eyes she was cheap. Now I went into this situation because I doubted marriage. Was there a force that makes one person more special than another? I chose her to prove this. That moment of decision was mathematical in its precision: when asked to rate her I had a literal vision of a meter in my mind's eye that rose above the critical 95% level - my soul simply said "yes". I never took an exact reading it was somewhere at 97%/98%. That was the form that certainty took for me. I have never said "yes" to anything before or since and I know I never will - I know there is only one "yes" inside - everything else is full of doubts and imperfections. There are others more perfect scoring - I saw two yesterday - but she was "the one". Now if i chose another to love then at the same moment i chose her, i also prove that there was nothing lasting in my choice of "my muse" and I prove that "yes" is only conditional and so lasting unbreakable marriage vows are impossible - things are proven to be conditional and temporary, to be based on nothing but choice. We can always chose and so marriage lasts only as long as we chose it, which means that the vows we make in the past have no bearing on the future. It destroys the whole of reality. So to continue to believe in the possibility of marriage, ironically I have no choice but to remain faithful to my unfortunate choice of "my muse" and so not get married. But this is the risk I knew I was taking that moment I said "yes" - the whole of existence drawn up in the palm of ones hand in an instant. Anything less than this is cynical. She will never know I did that, altho I felt at the time and feel now this wasn't the first or the last time we would be doing this. But for me it is better to dream in hope that live in despair: I am an idealist and always feel those practical individulals who settle for the contingencies of life rather desperate like rats. We will all die very soon so why the great struggle?

> On Helvellyn mountain as I slept one night I found a power within myself. I had lost her and lost control of the only thing I ever really wanted. This I saw had a catastrophic effect on me destroying access to control. The OCD I speak of became very disabling after I walked out because I realised losing control of her brought into question the issue of controlling anything. I constrantly felt like losing control of myself. Helvellyn made me realise that while I had lost her I still had myself, and more I could see that controlling myself was actually different from controlling her. Failure to be an effective part of her life didn't mean the same as failure to be an effective part of my life - even tho she had apparently meant everything to me. Afterall whatever she was it still required me for her to be it. This small seed is the way out I felt.

> Similarly the failure to achieve my hearts desire made me fearful of the world and I lost trust in what lay outside me. Has taken a long time to be able to look someone honestly in the eye again.

> Something I had a sense of before but came again was that everything that I thought unobtainable and beautiful in her was really a projection of those things I had to find in myself. Seeking her was really seeking myself. They say that a good relationship is one that encourages you to be the best you can be - indeed this is actually a main quality of what we find attractive in a partner the promise of what we can be. Often a girl makes me feel that it is worth trying to do my best - working for her makes sense of the daily grind. This is actually a misplacement it seems because 'the daily grind' isn't the point and ultimately I feel makes people bitter if the 'girl' ever falls in their estimation and they wonder why they wasted all those years working for her - my father for example. I became my best simply for its own sake when I was 14, maybe inspired by my father being town mayor and wishing to be the best, but ultimately seeking perfection itself - no girl was involved. Finally I believe I am gaining the qualities that I so admired in "My muse".

> The Capon Tree is the only remaining tree of the ancient Jed forest. Standing next to it and placing my hand on it I had a great sense of the age of this creature. 500 years old they said in the plaque. Standing there I was liberated of one thing to do with "my muse" - the zenith of the situation came when she spoke of someone she had just slept with saying how large he was and how small she had been next to him. The image captured the physicality and rawness of the sexuality of their liason and removed any sense of "love" from my relationship with her. Such strong feelings I had to escape from. Standing next to this ancient tree I felt small and this is what reminded me of her words regarding that sexual encounter. But I felt small in another way - the sheer age and wisdom of this oak dwarfed the age and wisdom of her sexual partner who was at most twice her age and not wise at all. Rather than inflame my desires this oak placed everything in context and showed the triviality of the tiny things we each get so troubled by - in 500 years I'm sure this oak has seen it all. There was "great peace, silence and respect and wisdom, coolness and watchfulness." [from notebook]. This encounter diluted, washed away and cleansed that painful encounter over 10 years ago now. We do share this planet with some extraordinary other organisms.

> A sleepless night on uneven surface and after intense day and evening of rain had me sitting awake in the early hours in a very clear state of mind. "my muse" was young and excited about sex, that is all she wanted. Deep down me too. But the sense that I must be loyal and caring which led me down this road (maybe because of the experiences in my youth where I had hurt girls). Also I am pursuing a much more complex agenda of spiritual attainment and also am shy of getting involved in worldly affairs that seem to tedious and unfruitful.

Saturday, 31 July 2010

3 Demons

On holiday I became very aware of my 3 main demons. Two actually are very similar.


Demon 1 called Stupid.

This demon likes to call people stupid and find faults in them. It does this when I feel superior to them. Interesting my karma that I should have had a boss who had this pathologically. This demon breaks out (like the others) when I am tired. The first time I noticed something was up I thought stupid about some one and then fell off my bike. Then I saw this man, slightly overweight walking up the mountain track where I was at 4.30am. I wondered why he eas there and labelled him stupid. Later I found out that rather than fighting that demon I could have been watching the otter at the base of the cliff. He turned out the anything but stupid being from the museum and being exactly the best person to meet. I came in inviting demon stupid to an imaginary tea party like a naughter child who refuses to play - much as Pauline would have done in Zola's 'Zest for Life'.


Demon 2 called Critical. Critical is almost the same as Stupid but has been around a lot longer. Critical was there in my head for a large section of the Land's End John oGroats walk being critical especially about "cars". When i am exghausted the arguments begin about why on earth people drive such short distances and carry 1ton of metal around with them when they travel etc. Critical is now invited to the tea party.


Then came Demon 3 called OCD. He is actually a mental illness and quite a lot bigger than the others. This is the one I have struggled with for over 20 years - actually all my life in one incarnation or the other. He decided to join the party (as expected) when I slept on mountains by large cliffs during my cycling holiday. This demon has two heads. The first head is actually OCD for real, the second head is the fear of OCD which is just as bad if not worse. His greatest show was on the Storr at 11.30pm. Faced with fading light, a weak torch, and no map or compass it was important I remembered the way off the summit because I didn't want to get caught in a white out if the clouds came in. A tricky path up through sheer cliffs I expected to lead to the summit but instead came to this Shangri-La like emerald plateau of lush grass with lazy sheep scattered across its quilt. They were here for the night and I was very suprised that the environment was so hospitable. The trig point was some distance and I forgot completely the way back. Faced with sheer cliffs around the demon popped up and I started to fear what it would be like if I got OCD (exactly like vertigo) and came to obsess about throwing myself off a cliff. With no escape route I was trapped with this demon. I got a bit panicy and started a frantic search for the way down. It seemed to be no where. I ascertained that far off I could get to a section that looked green, which calmed me enough to begin a systematic search along the cliff edges until I found the way down now in almost darkness. All the while I was watching and analysing the demon. On getting clear of the cliffs it faded away and I was simply left a bit shaken. The battle continued as I bedded down on the edge of the next level of cliffs - but this way down was well assigned to memory in case of a white out with even a few stones laid on the way up as memory aids.

I began to wonder what would happen if my mind collapsed up here and so far from "home". But what home do I have I thought, where am I seeking to return to? This calmed me down and brought me back into the present peacefully. How much harder it must be if we have created a secure warren somewhere not to feel insecure when we are away from it. I was reminded of the girl I used to share with at uni who had had a nervous breakdown on a mountain in Israel. She had to be helped down and back "home". What a terrible experience, at least she was with friends. So my thoughts got to examining this "void" that we fear enveloping our knowing consciousness - the oblivion that is both fascinating to drug users and sexual adventurers but also terrifying as we risk never returning. My conclusion was that there was no evidence for it. All things that happen including mental melt down will pass into something else - there is no final extinction; it is a myth. On that final conclusion I fell asleep and awoke complete refreshed. Demon OCD asleep. However I need to wake him up and have him to tea more often so I can get to know him, that was my main conclusion. This demon has in many ways dictated a large part of my life especially the last 20 years where I have been afraid of being trapped anywhere in case he pops up and I cannot escape. Indeed being trapped is the main fear now, he rarely actually pop up.

Friday, 30 July 2010

Social Self is entirely constructed

Waiting at a friends house yesterday I was wondering why they are my friend and not other people. I discovered the day before that someone I don't even know is not my friend now because I think I stood them up - but can't even remember we were supposed to meet: so fickle is friendship.

I realised instantly where the problem in those thoughts lay. It presumes that "I" am a single thing which if a friend of one person then presumably "I" who is the same "I" is a friend of everyone.

My relationship with people depends on both me AND them - the experience of being "with" someone is then not the result of "I" + "Them" in which "I" and "them" are distinct elements with known properties but rather than "I" is actually a product of being "with" them. I am a friend to one person and not a friend to another because I am different in each relationship. To one person I am good, to that person I stood up I am bad. Which am I?

We are involved in relationships to the bottom and below of our very self. There is no part of our social self (ego) which escapes the influence of relationships.

These thoughts showed me as best as I have been shown what Buddha meant by anatta. It was a destabalising thought because I came to wonder what am I? Am I good or bad? Am I really this person's friend? But this is me grasping for the "ego" that I have believed in.

We usually think of ourselves as good. It is interesting for me to consider all the many people who think I am bad tho. My dad thought i was bad. My mum thinks I am bad - tho she had some difficulty marrying that with the "good" work I did at the w/e. My ex-boss thinks I am bad. In fact i think to generalise: everyone who has ever been in a position of authority over me thinks I am bad - I actually relish this. I remember my ex land-lord a few years ago saying to his wife 'see I told you he was no good' after some dispute. In my mind they bring this upon themselves tho because of their expectations of people who they believe they have control over. A landlord because of the paper which proves ownership expects certain privilages that I don't automatically accept etc so there is always going to be conflict. But it is interesting for me to reflect on the fact that in each of these cases I am actually "bad" because the relationship has soured.

Shall consider more.

Should add that on holiday i tried a new approach. I was not so disciplined and spent a lot of time talking to people and being "sociable". This has had an effect on my mind which I am exporing for better or worse.

===

Karma has a funny quality of being coincidental, or maybe fruiting all at once. Heard yesterday that the mother of someone I knew years ago real quite hates me. I suspected I knew why immediately, gave it some thought and can't think of anything else. Problem was I fell in love with her daughter, call her X. She was the best friend of someone else who I was in love with, call her Y, but who couldn't make a decision over her then boyfriend. I didn't want to be the one to break it up - that is against the Buddha's direct rules. So I left it. 10 years later that relationship has ended anyway. It is the same as "my muse" and I realised this morning thinking about it that in actual fact it is the man's responsibility to break up the relationship! In olden times we had a fight and the victor won the girl. This makes it easy for the girl. That girl said to me a few years later "why didn't I try harder to get her", well it hurts the boy she's with and its immoral. Of course it can also be a technique to use someone to make your partner jealous. Strategies are complex and shady. Now I realise that to live the "worldly" life we have to break Buddha's rules and be immoral. This reinforces my decision to abstain and avoid all such entanglements! You can't be Truthful and play the Game of the World. This seems to be what is emerging in these recent posts.

Returning to the most recent situation. After failing with that girl I did my usual and displaced with another - a disaster and she got seriously hurt (happily married now). On the eve of getting things together with her however (tomorrow 8years ago as it happens) I was seated by chance next to the girl in question now, X. She was only 16 but being best friends with Y we already had a rapport and got on very well. It was looking at the pictures from that wedding that I suddenly realised that I had an inexplicable sexual attraction to her. Ouch. Then to cap it she sends an xmas card signed "love x". I'm in trouble. Clearly its all a mistake I'm 15 years older than her and do everything to escape the attraction. I happened to write a short melody (unbeknown to her inspired by her) which I gave to her and stupidly warned her off me on MSN saying that being single I was easily influenced, deliberately double edged cos i wanted to disclose my feelings but couldn't. I realised last night that my decision to leave the temple and also hook up with another girl (disasterously) actually came from this struggle to escape. Anyway 5 years after running she is still single according to Facebook and this has worried me for a while. She was saying a few years ago that she really likes the simple life of non-possessions and monasticism and more recently hardly goes to the temple anymore. I have reconsidered my decision to leave now that she is older, but still think the whole thing a mistake, more particularly because I am trying to escape in general now. Stupidly I pretend texted "i love you" to her to see how it felt - it actually sent and I was faced with the reality. It filled me with horror, the prison door closing, my whole life mapped out in concrete in a single move. I made out it was a text for someone else accidently sent to her... weak excuse and painful... she texted back who's the lucky girl. So I did the right thing avoiding starting a relationship I felt I could not complete. But i wonder whether that influence that I had on her has upset her mother. She is still not in a relationship but the clock is beginning to tick fast for her now - is this my fault? However had I done the honourable thing and married her then I think it would have been equally frowned upon because of the age difference. This is a no-win situation. Another shady side of the worldly world that is best avoided.
===
Considering further: "My muse" did get engaged but her sister had a sudden angry outburst one day where she said "oh that relationship! it wasn't going anywhere". "My muse" was a commitment phobe. X and Y are weak. It all works out great for me because I can still taste freedom while exploring into commitment. How often do people in this stream speak of non-attachment and yet secretly seek relationships?

Well unfortunately it seems I can't do non-freedom, it feels like death to me. Like a fish on the beach, or oil sinking in water this just isn't what makes me live. Whatever was with "my muse" or with X or Y has become rather old and stale now. I considered many times getting back in contact but it never works a second time around (even with male friends I have escaped from) - there is always that distrust. The song sheet from which all this was sung from has become too worn and crumpled, it really is not a song I can take interest in anymore. I truly am getting too old for all this. Yet the timing is odd because returning from my holiday last week with my less disciplined "social" self I actually found myself looking at couples playing with their kids and for the first time felt that I could do that. I would be a great dad. But enough to have felt that; that was last week; this week I am returning to the other path - I realised at the same time strict self-discipline and having carefree fun with the family truly cannot mix.

Returning to the blog title: I think that while the self is constructed socially we must transcend even the social to gain liberation. A brief foray into the social shows it up to be pleasant, envigorating and stimulating - but sadly fruitless. For the wedding I had to examine humour and found that actually it is quite easy. I already can talk for England - a gene from my mother's side ;-) - and armed with these being social is easy. I imagine if I entered the dating game again that too would be easy to the point of boredom. The thing is all this doesn't go anywhere - there is no great wisdom to be found at the end of the tunnel of love just the same old questions as the children flee the nest and my partner grows old and dies of why I was born and what it was all about.
I realised as I started Vipassana meditation for the first time yesterday that sensuality was a serious casualty of the relationship with "my muse". Because we never worked out physically I switched that all off. Yet that is essential to experiencing ones own body, regardless of someone elses. My great tantric experiment may have worked with her, but now it is plain old Vipassana and thank God the pains and blockages of that failed path have all but cleared now. The door here is wide open and I close the others.
===
Shall blog the next bit as 4 prayers for 4 directions

Saturday, 26 June 2010

My Mother...

...is the latest on my hit list of idiots. Well she has always been but it's as far as it can go now. She is on the verge of a mental breakdown which is obvious when you see how her brain works. Worst of all she won't listen but instead uses her many years to talk infinitely (not allowing anything in). I don't know much myself but I can see she has made some massive errors in her mind. Not wishing to detail much of the insanity but for future reference here is an example very like the bike situation. She spends many hours a day turning off electric lights and berrating people in the house for leaving them on or having more than 1 swtitched on at a time. She is not wrong here in terms of enviornment - I try to use as much solar as I can. The problem tho is her argument is to do with money and I have suggested better ways of saving money. A 100W bulb uses 1kW every 10 hours which cost 10p - that is 24p a day and £88 to leave on all year. We have energy saving so that is £18 to power all day, every day for a year. Now she simply isn't interested in doing the maths she just wants to wander around the house being busy and lecturing. Maybe this is one origin of my campaign against busi(y)ness? Altho really I know it lies in the environment and Nature.

However at the same time as she wants money for the upkeep of the house she refused last weekend to let me take a tree down preferring to hire a tree feller at £200+. For a morning's work I consider that a lot of money but in my mother's head that is worth less than a 100W equivalent light bulb on every day for 11 years! What can one do? And I remember now the real problem is that no matter how much I go along happily with her idiotic requests she considers me unhelpful because I don't do what she wants when she wants it. It seems that executing her orders, giving her the sense of control is the point here: nothing practical at all. Arguing this now I see the problem :-) My bosses had the same attitude: regardless how idiotic, they simply want the sense of control. Famous example was my lab boss being ordered by the MD to clean out the bins a few hours before they were due to be emptied anyway and right at the critical point of the week where orders had to be completed. My bosses failure to agree with this was mentioned at every appraisal for quite a few years! I feel that the problem at the temple might have been the same. The Abbess said I was egotistical. This I interpreted after a lot of thought was not what it seemed but rather meant I was not respectful of her ego. So my mother, bosses and temple at least seem to have one root: the desire for control of people. Unfortunatly I'm not the sort of person who can be controlled - it feels like death to me, a prison, a dark hole where the sun doesn't shine. Who wants to be emprisoned by someone for no reason? So its not a part of any contract I sign "being controlled". That is always for the other person to negotiate with themselves - I hold the mirror up instinctively.

Maybe this explains the bike situation too. She did say that I would never buy the bike myself - so she spent the money she owed me on what she wanted me to buy. Basically she was controlling me.

Wow hallelulah. All this makes a bit more sense now. The "idiots" are people who are trying to control me. I'm not that fussed if my mother has a nervous break-down. She had it coming from day 1 the way she has been brought up and the things she believes. It is quite natural. The problem arises when she suddenly feels that she needs me. Then as she grasps for control in her world it follows that she grasps for control of me... or the sense at least that I am controllable... "reliable" I remember she called it. So my mistake is to think that she needs things being done - of which, I pointed out to her, I have never failed her. What she sees however is not that I execute her "orders" and always get the job done well, but that I do not execute "her" orders. Which is true. I always make a job my own. As argued before here if I can't make a job my own I don't do it. It was failure to think about what they were doing and take responsibility for it that led to the Nazi atrocities - you can't take orders and make it your own at the same time. This is where friction then occurs with bosses - I do what I am paid to do, but i don't do what I am told: they are different. I've always considered the latter unprofessional - but maybe this is the subtext most of the time.

OK so I understand now, and unfortunately realise that this is just the way it is. I don't take orders. Anyone who wants their orders followed needs to find someone else, or do it themselves as I have always maintained. Which is kind of where the argument ended with my mother anyway. I simply can't be the son she wants or even needs. Where do you go after that! Sadly her way of thinking looks like its heading for a brick wall which is going to he hard on everyone my sister most. Ironic since she is the one who can't accept my way of thinking and always says it will end in my ruin. What I see now is that my way of thinking doesn't give her the security and control that her way of thinking needs, my way of thinking will end in her ruin! No wonder human relationships gets so self destructive. I will have to think about how we can both survive when she is demanding of me my opposite and my way of simply living my life is actual perceived as a treat to hers! For now I'm on holiday and I said to her I wasn't coming back and she was no mother of mine anymore. That should gain her infinite distance from the troubles that she sees in me. What might have been a mis-calculation in retrospect was that this was all kicked off because she was off to the funeral of a friend of hers (about the 10th who has died of cancer). I've pointed out to her that at her age death is something she has to face - yet she persists in her quaint worldly thinking and just seems to dig herself deeper and deeper into depression. Why she is so beligerent and determined to keep up a show for the Jones (whoever they are) and not face the realities of life is beyond me. It is a lesson never to follow the crowd, the Jones or the hegemony because when you need them they aren't there for you - because they never existed! People like me who are there for my mother are considered demons because we don't follow the Jones and so can't offer the "support". While this is unpacked the critical issue is jobs - my mother considers it an embarrassment and a liability that I don't work while all my friends have top careers. There is certainly no talking to her about this when she won't even listen to simple things. Really at this point the road splits she must run with what she has got and me with what I have got. True she nurtured me as a child, but trying to keep the umbilical attached so that she can suck it all back out is not the way it works. Parents ultimately do die and she must face this.

===

Update on the above. It is highly ironic that I should be turning my back on her when she needs me most! How I get caught in these mirrors and reflections is as much a mystery as the irony itself. After cooling off I realised that I have no choice but to support her. There will be a pantomime of me feigning obsequiousness even where I know it will achieve nothing but her security. Why I can't graciously accept my position is that it makes a mockery of the belief that there is a "true" way. Obey my mother and accept her way of doing things when not only does it violate my own way, but I think her way is counter productive. By accepting her way I become an instrument to the very problem I am being asked to give assistance in. It is just something to avoid; yet I am her son and this binds me to the world in a way that I can't escape.

One thing I am learning through all this is that, particularly in human relationships: you never get a clear shot at the target. Like eons of folding, weathering and deposition, and intrusions the geology of human relationships is never the right way up (if you forgive the analogy). Sometimes layers of rock are turning upside down, folded and twisted so they point in almost any direction, and then faults cut through the mass and it is folded and twisted again... and again. It creates a Rubic cube of rock where without other clued it is impossible to find out where we started. So too with the affairs of people and the world, unweaving the mess is virtually impossible. Just look at how in just two centuries of involvement in the Middle-East and Afghanistan, of twisting allegiances and reversing political alignment, the West is so embedded that they can no longer even remember how it all started let alone how it is going to end.

So it is Peace with my mum in her frailty. Peace may not it turns out be based on Truth or hope of Resolution at all, but maybe just Peace itself and acceptance that the absurdity and counter-production of the ever-twisting-topsy-turvy-through-a-looking-glass world is just the way it will always be until death do us all part.
===
That said it occurred to me that this is already what I do in every situation. Faced with the "idiot" you cannot reason with them, they will not listen so you have no choice but to just accept things the way they are for the sake of peace. But this does not rest easy in my mind. If we are to just accept inaccuracy, idiocy, falsity without concern then how do we at the same time treat these things within ourself with concern? Once we are trained to just accept idiocy then what i find happening is that our mind has no choice but to become idiotic itself. Thus I find that the tolerance phase is short lived and very soon I have to exit the situation - that being temple, my muse, work, relationships, my mum? It is the problem that the computer HAL9000 had in the story of "2001" (odd now I think about it that my dad would have seen that film for decades and never known that it was to be the year he would die - I wonder how many times I've considered the year that will tun out to be my last). The machine has two competing rules: 1) not to harm people, and (2) not to jeopardise the mission. The conflict between these leads the "rational" machine into quite irrational behavior... a non-logical emergent property arising out of logic - maybe a suggestion of how emotions might occur in machines... which after Sartre makes sense as emotions are "magical" events which shift our mind from one state to another without any justification. Anyway the real world I'm discovering does seem to be multifaceted and people seem to revel in playing the many sides; not to harmonise and "mend" the whole but rather to lever the world apart so they can set the bits against one another for their own purposes. Trying to operate in such a fractured environment creates either apathy or mental illness... or if you are me you just walk away. This does seem my only strategy which works. Thing is I can't really walk away from my mother tho I can probably distance myself from her.

Mum will be sent mad by exactly the analysis above. She is programmed with love for me, but also programmed by her upbringing to be unable to handle my indifference to the social norms - in particular having a job. She will blow herself apart trying to marry two opposing instructions. Just writing here is it possible that she finds me an idiot then for sending two of her directives into contradiction? Shall have to consider this more.
The problem then is not as simple as I have tried to make it over the past decade or so. Faced with a contradiction we do have a serious problem then which threatens to blow us apart unless we walk away... at least that is the only solution I have found yet. Run away, live to fight another day! It is certainly not good enough to naively ignore it and try to remain peaceful and undisturbed!

== Update in 2019

My mother got a dementia diagnosis a few years ago. Having learned about dementia I discovered that she was not deliberately being hostile to me, but that she was struggling with personality changes, anxieties and confusion. It was typical of myself then to (1) assume everything was directed to myself - that is my ego (2) to assume that everything was a matter of thinking correctly - this is also ego in fact. So both my mother and myself have been on a long journey since this post and now as she declines and slowly shuts down and goes to sleep we have a good relationship of support and mutual love, and it is a chance for me to return all her care and nurture that she gave to me over all those years when I was young. The cycle of life continues forever.

Monday, 21 June 2010

Bootstrapping

Plan to start holiday at Stonehenge last night ditched. Still fitting a bike rack, waiting for new bank cards after blitzing my identity last week, and some apathy. Still up at 4am this morning and watched the sun rise (just broke from clouds at 5am) from Knole Park. Nothing amazing, just peaceful. Am beginning to find peace and not strive so hard for what famously (as retold by Coello) is with us anyway. The greatest day is the day we can just sit with ourself. Maybe it is old age dawning slowly within me but I'm beginning to see this.
Just setting up dual booting on the replacement computer I discover that the term derives from the saying "pulling oneself up by the boot straps". That book "The Self-Writing Universe" by Phil Scanlan becomes relevant again - this is what he was talking about. A boot-strap it turns out works by running the smallest program possible which loads a second program and a cascade begins which eventually loads the OS, and the GUI these days, and then an application, managed by the OS, and you have the machine that we, the user, want to use (be that Word or Excel etc). Now the question arises for a universe what started that? And whatever that is what started that? This is the question Phil is persuing and something that has intrigued me also.
But this conundrum only works if you are outside the system looking in. One can only say "what started that?" from a stand-point apart from that. But how could anyone be outside the universe? We are thus necessarily "inside" and inseparable from to the very thing which we are enquiring about. This is the Anthropogenic Principle. It is also I see the Horatio Principle (see blog) and maybe the essence of the SRH. Thus inside the Universe there is no meaning to "start". Until we find a place to stand "outside" the universe then "starting" is not a meaningful term.
This is what arose in the meditation on Metamorphosis in Humans I was having when my computer was stolen... relevant? Death (loss) can strike at any time. It is thus parallel to the unfolding of immanent time which we notice in things like metamorphosis. Death comes like an interrupt on a chip process. I believe that interupts are a set of pre-wired instructions that force a chip to store its state and begin executing a different set of code. The process that is being executed will never know that it has been interrupted because like someone in a coma when it starts executing again it is just the next instruction with no reference to the time "in between". The relationship between steps in the code, like the relationship between points in the circle examples (previous blog), are not coded within the code - if they were then the relationship between those parts wouldn't be coded ad infinitum. So the argument went Death is not a part of the metamorphosis on a human. Now if stopping isn't then symettrically then starting isn't either. I don't remember my conception anymore than Physicists can find any evidence for the actual cause of the universe. "My Life", that things which unfolds from day to day, occurs in a different stream of meaning to my conception and my death. Death isn't at the end of the road, and my birth wasn't at the start. Science will try and extend life further and further, maybe we will be able to live forever. Death is thus being pushed away from this stream. Yet a car accident, cancer or heart attack will interrupt the stream and start executing a completely different stream. We all know that experience of being interrupted by something serious and what was so important yesterday suddenly is no longer relevant. The stream changes.
Now birth is the opposite of being interrupted. I can't think of a concept that conforms to this. Will make some tea now and have a think. Failing that I will make a word up... or did I already? What was that latin word for "in the beginning"... can't find it... it is related to the concept of ex nihilo however the sense as creation starts that it came from nothing. Like diving into the sea, the fish who know nothing about the land and the air must think that humans come ex nihilo, out of nothing. Where the analogy fails Buddhism picks up because in reality no pre-existing human (or soul) dives into birth, rather the diver only has the perspective of the fish. Just like birth then death is also in to nothing. This is the NULL I was speaking about in previous blogs. It seems that it is a "category" issue to borrow from Gilbert Ryle, but one that is written into the fabric of the universe... so maybe there is life in Russel and Whiteheads "theory of types" in that categories seem to exclude one another in reality. When one tries to access something that has jumped categories you get a NULL. I think about "my muse" who has died and it gives me a NULL. I trace my life back to before it started and I get a NULL. Now if I jump categories and speak of things materially then I have answers to both, but if we are honest knowing that I came from fusion of a cell in my mothers body with a cell from by fathers body really doesn't help me much beyond getting marks in exams. These facts are stratospheric compared with the ordinary things of my daily world. It is like thinking about the 60s and Englanding winning the world cup in 1966. I know it happened but when did it happen? The day before yesterday, and the day before that, and the year before that, and the decade before that... these all make sense, but continue back too far and it doesn't make sense any more - not to the stream of my life. It only makes sense talking to my mother or factually in a pub quiz. There are worlds outside myself that I access to make sense of time before I can remember, but what I can't do it link them all together in the single time line of the world I am brought up to believe in. Basically from my own perspective I did come ex nihilo.
So Buddha seems to have been right that there is no start and no end to the universe - that we exist in a boundless and timeless here and now. We may step outside ourself and look in to see boundaries and starts and stops but within the system there are no limits. Origins and Terminations then are relative and cannot be constructed absolutely within the entity that is created or destroyed... intuitively but why? That is the annoying SRH that still won't reveal itself. Anyway seem to have knocked down one of the major questions I had about the universe and transformed it into an SRH question... why are origins and terminations relative? Which is basically trying to look under the bonnet of the Anthropogenic Principle (which I always found unsatisfying like evolution). Come on SRH everything is waiting on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

US displaying its Imperialist credentials... yet again

Wanted to know the pattern of UN votes over Venezuela and then got into seeing if ChatGPT could see the obvious pattern of Imperialism here....