Wow. What a response. Who knew this would be my most-read post?
First, an explanation and apology. I wrote this post as a reaction to an article in the Age that got me steamed; in my mind it was another anti-male opinion piece, masquerading as science. You can find the article here. Whether you believe the article is fair or not, it is important to acknowledge that I wrote 'Masculinity' in anger. This is, I believe, one of the main reasons it has received such a negative reaction. Anger distorts your view, makes you say things you wouldn't normally say, colours your judgement and gets you riled up; when you take fire, you often miss your target due to this.
It was never my intention to de-legitimise the objectives of Feminism. Feminism (apart from its gendered name), represents to me a ideology worth pursuing; that we are all truly equal, and that perceptions of gender shouldn't hold us back. It is in the feminist spirit that I wrote this article; the target in my reticule was current-day societal constructions of masculinity, and their effect of limiting men everywhere. Specifically, men who spend all their time living up to what is deemed 'proper' male behaviour, while failing to ask what it is that they really want out of life.
Obviously, I did a terrible job of this. I have hurt and angered a lot of people, and for that I am truly sorry. My use of the 'girly-man' joke was tasteless and reinforced typical constructions of masculinity, as was my depiction of a man getting a facial. What I was attempting to show with these images was a shift in male roles that placed a new importance on physical appearance; one that I believe is dysfunctional for a number of reasons. By all means, if you look good to look good for yourself (as I and most of my friends do), by all means, more power to you. This is what it is about; being able to live your life on your own terms. Unfortunately, my anger blinded me to the way that most normal people would react to these images.
I also realise that my tactlessness could be regarded as homophobic. I realise this is a possibility, as a part of me is attracted to masculinity, and defensive homophobia is rife in our society. However, I am very aware of this, and some of my best friends are gay and queer. The truth is, it is my gay friends that have taught me the most about masculinity. The resolve to reclaim and appropriate a gender identity in a society that is hostile to your existence is awe-inspiring. These people still provide me with inspiration today (lookin at you, Addy, Liam, Rick and Alex), and for that I thank them. I can only ask forgiveness for my insensitivity.
Now, on to the content of the post. While I have removed the post, it is my intention to repost after a heavy edit. I believe that there are fundamental differences between masculine and feminine, and that these differences are more universal than mere social construction. This does NOT mean that I believe that women should conform to feminine and men should conform to masculine. Not at all. I believe that individuals should be whomsoever they want to be. I believe it is normally about balance; I myself strive to achieve a balance of my masculine and feminine traits. These are my beliefs, however, not fact. As was the majority of the blog post.
My blog serves to chart my thoughts and ideas; it is an online personal journal. I invite others to read and give their opinions, which I find develop and refine my own. I love it. I am lucky enough to be surrounded with enough intelligent people that debate is usually fruitful and enjoyable. Constructive criticism is the way that we develop and grow; something I love doing. What happened last night blindsided me a little. I am used to considered and impersonal (but impassioned) debate. What I got instead was a lot of very personal attacks, mixed in with the criticism. I don't really want to dwell on this as just thinking about it makes me very anxious. Last night marked a big regression in my mental health: I had 2 panic attacks, and the anxiety that I thought I was done with returned. I am now seeking help for this. I do not want to point fingers, just communicate with the readers here my emotional state, and to please be mindful of this when responding.
So here's the deal: I'm happy for you to air criticisms here. Keep them respectful and on topic. I will do my best to address them (keep in mind I'm meant to be studying for my law exams now), and hopefully we can gain some mutual understanding. I DO want your contributions for this, as it is important to me not to offend or insult. Hopefully, we can move forward together...cos we are all in this together, right?
xx
Rhys
UPDATE: have just realised the link to the Age article is wrong. Will try to find actual article.
Monday, 28 November 2011
Sunday, 27 November 2011
The Divine Masculine, or How to Be a Real Man
DISCLAIMER: What I am writing about in this post is a way viewing the world, a framework, a myth. Worldviews can be tricky because they can't be proved right or wrong on their own terms; a conspiracy theorist will discount information disproving their conspiracy theories as propaganda; a militant atheist will discount evidence that their views promote intolerance as irrelevant; your everyday Aussie proletariat will chalk up the environmental havoc that we are wreaking on the world as a 'problem for the scientists.' Whether these people are 'wrong' depends on your own mythology.
Mythology still seriously informs how we interact with the world, but unfortunately we in the west have largely pushed our mythology into our subconscious: outsourcing our norm-creation power to 'sciencism' (arguably a form of materialism) politicians and advertising executives. In this post I use the word 'divine' for its mystical nature; its ability to remain undefined. It's a way of saying 'good' that leaves the point open for debate, as who really knows what divinity is?
An ironic side effect of our large-scale adoption of the scientific method as the standard for truth is that we have largely lost the ability to acknowledge and be comfortable in uncertainty. We have a neurotic need to know things 'for sure', and have forgotten the basic tenet of Science: you cannot prove anything with 100% certainty, you can only form a hypothesis until it is disproved by the next set of data. Most of the great scientists and thinkers of the world were comfortable in this uncertainty and often rested in it: from this void of non-knowing sprung many of their greatest ideas and theories. 'Divine', then, serves to ground us in the comfort of non-knowing, from which real understanding and insight can spring. What I am seeking to do in this post is construct a notion of masculinity and femininity that is decoupled from gender while remaining meaningful.
This post can equally apply to both men and women, but applies a little more to men given the current crisis of masculinity. Trigger warning: this article articulates the belief that there is such a thing as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ and makes reference to a girlfriend who may or may not be crazy.
Mythology still seriously informs how we interact with the world, but unfortunately we in the west have largely pushed our mythology into our subconscious: outsourcing our norm-creation power to 'sciencism' (arguably a form of materialism) politicians and advertising executives. In this post I use the word 'divine' for its mystical nature; its ability to remain undefined. It's a way of saying 'good' that leaves the point open for debate, as who really knows what divinity is?
An ironic side effect of our large-scale adoption of the scientific method as the standard for truth is that we have largely lost the ability to acknowledge and be comfortable in uncertainty. We have a neurotic need to know things 'for sure', and have forgotten the basic tenet of Science: you cannot prove anything with 100% certainty, you can only form a hypothesis until it is disproved by the next set of data. Most of the great scientists and thinkers of the world were comfortable in this uncertainty and often rested in it: from this void of non-knowing sprung many of their greatest ideas and theories. 'Divine', then, serves to ground us in the comfort of non-knowing, from which real understanding and insight can spring. What I am seeking to do in this post is construct a notion of masculinity and femininity that is decoupled from gender while remaining meaningful.
This post can equally apply to both men and women, but applies a little more to men given the current crisis of masculinity. Trigger warning: this article articulates the belief that there is such a thing as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ and makes reference to a girlfriend who may or may not be crazy.
Men have gone wrong somewhere. It’s pretty much consensus,
guys. Whether it’s the statistics on domestic violence, or the cheerfully goofy
and hopeless portrait of masculinity presented to us by pop culture (bumbling
dad, ASD teenage boy and irrelevant grandfather) we as males don’t seem to know
how to be males well. We’re told it has something to do with earning capacity,
sexual prowess, comedic ability – you name it, there’s a mould for us to fit in
and measure our own inadequacy by. Common themes include domination, power and
strength, certainty and decisiveness. But late-stage capitalism has difficulty
making sense of our impulses towards violence, our urge to destroy, to fuck, to
assert control over our own situations. You seen Fight Club? Watch Fight Club.
 |
| Apparently, we are a problem |
But it makes sense that a system designed to dominate us is
having trouble making sense of us. Women, having woken up to the fact that they
have been dominated for millennia, have put their foot down, raised their
voices and said ‘no longer’. And confronted with the empowered woman and our
own roles as the oppressors, we don’t know where to turn. Sports, career and
porn offer little solace. There is a void that used to be filled with a sense
of mastery over our own lives, a sense kept alive erroneously through the power
over women that we wielded throughout the ages. We may have been alone in a
chaotic and unfriendly world, but at least we had power over the feminine in
one sense – socially (and by extension, financially).
And for a while, that was all that mattered. Proprietary
interests continued to be a measure of our value and as long as you had a wife
to call your “own”, you rested easy in the sense that your role as a man was
fulfilled; you had control and all was well.
 |
| We conquered everything; women, community, and the natural world. |
The feminist revolution was inevitable. It was inevitable because the concept of woman as property is plainly wrong – in a universe that tends towards cosmic harmony, the oppression of the feminine simply could not endure; her nature is to flourish. Se let me expound on the metaphysics of the Divine Feminine for a moment.
The Divine Feminine is, fundamentally, the womb into which
the universe was born – the void. However, it is also the form and movement
that takes shape afterwards – the expression in material and energetic form of
the dance of consciousness. All that you can see, hear and touch. All that
moves – form and dance. An easy way to recognise the divine feminine is in
beauty: it is her shining her light through the material world. Another way to
measure your relationship with the divine feminine is your attitude towards
women (if you are a man – if you are a woman, go read some earth goddess blog).
In fact, the divine feminine is fundamentally relational. The quality of
your relationships is a good indication of the quality of the divine feminine
in yourself that is being allowed to be expressed. Also, as a cosmic disclaimer,
please note that everything I have said so far doesn’t quite encapsulate the
divine feminine – she is still kinda undefinable, which is IMO a source of
power. So be on the lookout for her!
Now, to the Masculine. Is what I’m about to say that
predictable? The Divine Masculine is fundamentally different to the feminine –
they operate on different planes of existence. They are so different they can
appear to be oppositional – but that’s a misconception. Their union is
essential for the birth and continuing evolution of the universe, and it is
through their union that we approach divinity.
The Masculine is essentially the light of consciousness –
the field of awareness that permeates all of existence. While emotions
(internal moving energies) are feminine, the canvas of consciousness that they
are registered on is the masculine. The masculine is also heightened
complexity; advancement – the impulse of evolution towards greater efficacy is
a great example of the Divine Masculine doing his thing in the world. The Masculine is primarily concerned
with ‘getting it right’. Where the Feminine is concerned with the free flow of
energy and movement in the world, the Masculine wants ‘right energy’ and ‘right
movement’ – authority – and he
uses rationality to make his point. But without the backdrop of beauty that the
Feminine provides, he wouldn’t know what to fight for. What is your
relationship with your father like, both as a child and now? It’s a pretty good
measure for your relationship to the Masculine (for men AND women! Yay!).
 |
So what are the practical implications of all of this? The
current state of affairs has men chasing the old modes of domination – power
over women through force of personality, dress sense, earning capacity –
whatever. Capitalism has cashed in our desire for validation by creating a
whole suite of products and careers designed to help us achieve this.
Unfortunately, for both us and Capitalism, women have wised up to our game and
are increasingly recognising us for the weak, emotionally stunted shitbags we so often are. We parade our insensitivity to what women want, then resort to
entitled vindictiveness when they reject us. We are by-and-large juvenile,
wailing half-men that have been abandoned by our fathers and any sense of
purpose and don’t we know which way to go. Yet our privilege – our earning
capacity, our sense of personal safety, our entitlement – makes a mockery of
any claim to hardship, so we wallow in the stagnant pools of self pity, venting
our rage at women and the world in general for making mockery of our pain. Or
less pessimistically, we distract ourselves with the diversions of material
wealth, sexual play and a sense of simulated achievement (whether through
sports, videogames or a particularly thrilling TVseries).
So what is the answer? First, to reclaim ourselves as men we
have to reconcile ourselves to the Feminine. For too long we have sought to
objectify and dominate it to enlarge our sense of control, making meaning of our
own sense of validation. Our first mistake was to divide our mother up into
plots of land that we could ‘own’. Soon after we began selling our daughters
and buying our wives. We have dedicated ourselves to our own masculinity, our
own authority, and in our quest to satiate our material desires we have
spiralled out of control, without the natural spiritual anchor that the Feminine
provides. If Masculinity is Authority, it only makes sense when it is in service to the Feminine, to Life and
Beauty.
We must dedicate
ourselves to the Feminine.
We must dedicate ourselves to every neglected child.
We must dedicate ourselves to every felled forest.
We must dedicate ourselves to every instance of beauty that the world provides.
We must dedicate ourselves to our own bodies, the beautiful and terrible sensations contained within, to reconnect ourselves to ourselves so that we may be present in the world.
To do anything less would be to hold back in our loving, to cheat the Feminine of our full presence, to cop out, to be less than A Man.
We must dedicate ourselves to every neglected child.
We must dedicate ourselves to every felled forest.
We must dedicate ourselves to every instance of beauty that the world provides.
We must dedicate ourselves to our own bodies, the beautiful and terrible sensations contained within, to reconnect ourselves to ourselves so that we may be present in the world.
To do anything less would be to hold back in our loving, to cheat the Feminine of our full presence, to cop out, to be less than A Man.
Your own sense of inferiority doesn’t come from women. It
doesn’t come from your Father (though he can certainly help). It doesn’t come
from Capitalism or Society. It comes from your own knowledge that you are a Coward,
that – faced with the terrible wroth of the feminine in her dark aspect; be it
a raging and ‘irrational’ girlfriend or the horrors of war, pestilence and
disease – you retreat into your shell and reject Her. You throw up your hands
and say it is too much for you – that ‘another man’ should deal with it. And
that basic rejection of your self (because, duh, you’re not separate from the
world) creates a rift in you into which doubt flows and you falter. And yes, in
that moment you’re not the man you want to be – you’re less than a man by your
own definition.
 |
| Your role is to love, fiercely and deeply |
If all men dedicated themselves to the realisation of the Feminine, oh, what a world it would be.
PLEASE NOTE: Masculine and Feminine energy are NOT necessarily tied to gender. There can be men that have a Feminine core, and women that have a Masculine core – typically these individuals are very attractive to the opposite sex (go figure!). But generally, women have a Feminine core and Men have a Masculine core. But we all have both. Women’s masculinity (authority/consciousness) tends to naturally serve life – perhaps given their dominant Feminine aspect, perhaps given their biology to create life – who knows. But women in career generally opt for roles of carers, healers – nurturers of some description. We need to value this more. And we men could learn a thing or two, and likely excel in these roles should we allow ourselves to.
PLEASE NOTE: Masculine and Feminine energy are NOT necessarily tied to gender. There can be men that have a Feminine core, and women that have a Masculine core – typically these individuals are very attractive to the opposite sex (go figure!). But generally, women have a Feminine core and Men have a Masculine core. But we all have both. Women’s masculinity (authority/consciousness) tends to naturally serve life – perhaps given their dominant Feminine aspect, perhaps given their biology to create life – who knows. But women in career generally opt for roles of carers, healers – nurturers of some description. We need to value this more. And we men could learn a thing or two, and likely excel in these roles should we allow ourselves to.
Some exercises for becoming more of a man
Confronting Death
1.
Imagine, in the current moment, that a rip
occurs in space-time. A black hole opens right up in front of you and devours
everything you ever knew or loved.
2.
Really go there. See the rift. Feel the sense of
panic, helplessness and sorrow. Feel it all – the void devours everything you
have ever known, leaving nothing. Feel into the present moment, feel the real
possibility that this could happen, right here, right now.
3.
Now, bring your attention back to the present
moment.
4.
Feel that sense of gratitude? Really feel it.
That sense of love for everything that is, right now? Feel that feeling.
5.
Cultivate that feeling. You are cultivating a
love of existence and of the Feminine. You are also confronting your fear of
death and impermanence, which is the thing that holds us back in our loving as
men.
6.
Die like this every day. Be reborn every day,
and go into the world loving fiercely and wholly.
Repeat this mantra:
You are fundamentally inadequate. The Sacred Feminine, Mara,
will never be satiated. She will always demand the more of you – in your
relationships, in your work, through your children. She will go on demanding
from you until you have nothing left to give, and that is the day that you will
die. And the world will still be rife with pain and sadness, injustice will
continue to be done – what you gave was not enough.
But before you pass into that sweet abyss of rest, what will
your final feelings be towards yourself? Will you feel satisfied in how you
lived, comfortable in the knowledge that you loved without holding back, to
your utmost potential?
·
Did you give everything you had to satiate her?
Were you a warrior of love, fighting the good fight?
·
Or did you ignore Her, pass time, and waste your
potential to instill your loving consciousness into the world?
The only way that you will die peacefully on that deathbed
is if you go on satiating her, each and every day, to your utmost – loving
fiercely and wholly until you die. No regrets, no wasted opportunities. Then
and only then will you die in peace.
Masculine in Service to the Embodied Feminine
1.
Sit comfortably, and allow your attention to
remain in your body.
2.
Rest your attention gently on the sensation of
your breathing.
3.
Allow your attention to go to any other
sensation in your body.
4.
Without trying to ‘fix’ any sensations that come
up, allow those feelings to be there – gently. Just notice them, breathe into
them and allow them the space in your body to be there.
You are cultivating connecting your consciousness (masculine) to your own body – your own feminine.
Meditation is also a powerful way of promoting mental and physical health through heightened
consciousness of your self and your surroundings. Through this heightened awareness of your emotions
and body (your feminine) you will be more effective in your loving and in your actions.
You are cultivating connecting your consciousness (masculine) to your own body – your own feminine.
Meditation is also a powerful way of promoting mental and physical health through heightened
consciousness of your self and your surroundings. Through this heightened awareness of your emotions
and body (your feminine) you will be more effective in your loving and in your actions.
Friday, 18 November 2011
Institutions
DISCLAIMER: I started this conversation with a friend and we ended up debating the meaning of life; this one has the potential to go deep.
Institutions.
They serve us. We serve them. They are everywhere.
Most people, when they hear 'institutions' think along the lines of the IMF or a the Hillsong Church or Melbourne University. Maybe some will think of marriage. Fewer still with think of tradition.
Institutions are created by people. Take the institution of 'cheers'. When we 'cheers' our friends before smashing a few coldies, we feel connected and happy. The act is one of communality and celebration; making eye contact helps us see that we are among friends, which is comforting. However, the origins of 'cheers' had a much more macabre origin; in the intrigue-ridden courts of feudal Europe, nobles would 'cheers' one another by smashing their cups together so that the liquid would slop from cup to cup. What makes it more sinister than a messy drinking game is that the intention would be to transfer any poison that might have been spiked in at some point into the cup of your enemy. Mutually assured destruction. And this is where the tradition of eye-contact figures in; the look of panic at a newly contaminated cup would be a dead giveaway of a would-be assassin.
The institution of 'cheers' was created for a specific purpose to serve the goals of its creators. That institution has lasted as it has changed to adapt to what people desire of it today, a easy way of connecting with your crew. It is because we continue to see the value in this social institution that we have not done away with it.
So what are institutions? Institutions are self-sustaining practices that have been constructed by humans. Institutions have come to fill modern society. Institutions are everywhere! School, work, clubbing, getting a coffee with a friend, table manners, the 8 hour day, AFL, illegality, money, the distinction between good/evil, religion, the scientific method of inquiry, credit/debt, property, the nuclear family, free trade, the welfare state, fish and chips, the list goes on...
There are more institutions around now that ever before. They govern human behaviour, down to every last detail. Fashion tells us how to dress. The food industry tells us what we can and cannot eat. Churches and TV want to tell us how to have sex. Capitalism allows us to realise our material desires, while Corporatism divests government from the electorate and restricts free enterprise.
Regardless of whether you think these are good things or not, it is fundamental to be able to agree that institutions are created to serve people. The only reason that people create institutions is to satisfy a need. Whether the need to control a population (religion, law), the need to maximise production (free trade) or the need to keep democracy alive (Occupy), we create institutions to fulfil our needs.
Here's the problem.
Once an institution is created, it has the tendency to concern itself with self-preservation. This is the cause of many problems around the world. We start with something that seems like a good idea, say, reusable plastic bags. We perceive an environmental problem (plastica bags) and someone furnishes a solution (the Green Bag). Now everyone uses Green Bags. However, Green Bags are much more environmentally damaging than ordinary plastic bags. However, due to its hip design and supposedly green credentials, the Green Bag is now an Australian institution. What started out as a helpful solution has now become part of the problem.
"But Mr. Jaconley", I hear your incredulous response, "Surely institutions cannot think for themselves!"
Well, my learned friend, yes and no. When institutions are created, they are created for a purpose. They are the remedy to a perceived problem. Feudalism was a remedy for warring tribes; the bill of rights a remedy for tyranny. Breakfast, lunch and dinner an accommodation of the strains of the 8 hour work day. They all serve a purpose. The problem arises when the facts surrounding its purpose become 'truth'. Once an institution declares that it owns 'truth' over its purpose (fulfilling a need), it then becomes primarily concerned with self-preservation.
Examples of this are not hard to find. Capitalism, in fulfilling its purpose of realising human liberty, at some stage laid claim to the 'truth' that it is the best possible system. Instead of staying true to the purpose of liberty and maximised utility as identified by the grandaddy Adam Smith, Capitalism (opposing Communism) decided that the free unregulated market was the one true path, paving the way for a decline into Corporatism (a system that serves the needs of those that benefit from this 'truth').
A less controversial example is that of Religion.
As soon as an institution asserts a monopoly over truth, it ceases to be an institution (created to serve humanity) and then becomes a structure of domination. The main concern is to indoctrinate all in its 'truth' so that it may grow and embed itself in society. The 'truth' is spread by the 'true believers'; fanatics who will not admit the possibility that their truth may not be absolute.
Unfortunately, these servant-turned-slavedriver institutions are everywhere today–and they can be difficult to spot. Take our scientific method. While this institution has furnished us with unfathomable benefits and improved our lives in ways that we see and feel everyday, it has lost its central purpose of a pursuit of the 'truth'. Western science now asserts that the only 'true' science is that which may be observed with the 5 senses. This has thrown an objectivist bias on all sciences; from natural to social to psychological. Every discipline has an (artificial) drive for objectivity and measurability– wilfully blind to the possibility that some things worth knowing (i.e. Truth) may be both subjective and immeasurable. By claiming a materialist truth, the western scientific method has limited itself in its pursuit of truth and muddied the waters for other traditions. Further, it is largely concerned with maintaining this status-quo: Darwinism is a theory rigidly clung to by 'objectivists' despite mounting evidence that there is much more going on than random mutation. Yet Darwinism has had a huge impact on social sciences. There is now an entire body of thought and policy based on this likely erroneous theory; a massive detour in human development. And for what? Because scientist have become better at protecting their egos than pursuing the truth.
All of the biggest problems in the world today can be explained in terms of institutions that have forgotten the service that they were created for. And where an institution is created to serve some and exploit others, it has become a system of domination (almost always with a claim on 'truth').
So, dedicated readers, anytime someone tells you what to think, be instantly suspicious. Claims on truth always have an agenda; as always, do your own research and decide for yourself. It will be up to us in the next decade to reform institutions to serve human needs once again. It will be a long and arduous task but the payoff will be things like world peace, a stable population and environment and material prosperity. I'd say happiness, but no institution can deliver that.
Good luck.
Ps. An amazing critique of institutional failure in TV form is The Wire. It is, quite possibly, the best piece of television ever created. Check out the subtext.
Institutions.
They serve us. We serve them. They are everywhere.
Most people, when they hear 'institutions' think along the lines of the IMF or a the Hillsong Church or Melbourne University. Maybe some will think of marriage. Fewer still with think of tradition.
Institutions are created by people. Take the institution of 'cheers'. When we 'cheers' our friends before smashing a few coldies, we feel connected and happy. The act is one of communality and celebration; making eye contact helps us see that we are among friends, which is comforting. However, the origins of 'cheers' had a much more macabre origin; in the intrigue-ridden courts of feudal Europe, nobles would 'cheers' one another by smashing their cups together so that the liquid would slop from cup to cup. What makes it more sinister than a messy drinking game is that the intention would be to transfer any poison that might have been spiked in at some point into the cup of your enemy. Mutually assured destruction. And this is where the tradition of eye-contact figures in; the look of panic at a newly contaminated cup would be a dead giveaway of a would-be assassin.
The institution of 'cheers' was created for a specific purpose to serve the goals of its creators. That institution has lasted as it has changed to adapt to what people desire of it today, a easy way of connecting with your crew. It is because we continue to see the value in this social institution that we have not done away with it.
So what are institutions? Institutions are self-sustaining practices that have been constructed by humans. Institutions have come to fill modern society. Institutions are everywhere! School, work, clubbing, getting a coffee with a friend, table manners, the 8 hour day, AFL, illegality, money, the distinction between good/evil, religion, the scientific method of inquiry, credit/debt, property, the nuclear family, free trade, the welfare state, fish and chips, the list goes on...
There are more institutions around now that ever before. They govern human behaviour, down to every last detail. Fashion tells us how to dress. The food industry tells us what we can and cannot eat. Churches and TV want to tell us how to have sex. Capitalism allows us to realise our material desires, while Corporatism divests government from the electorate and restricts free enterprise.
Regardless of whether you think these are good things or not, it is fundamental to be able to agree that institutions are created to serve people. The only reason that people create institutions is to satisfy a need. Whether the need to control a population (religion, law), the need to maximise production (free trade) or the need to keep democracy alive (Occupy), we create institutions to fulfil our needs.
Here's the problem.
Once an institution is created, it has the tendency to concern itself with self-preservation. This is the cause of many problems around the world. We start with something that seems like a good idea, say, reusable plastic bags. We perceive an environmental problem (plastica bags) and someone furnishes a solution (the Green Bag). Now everyone uses Green Bags. However, Green Bags are much more environmentally damaging than ordinary plastic bags. However, due to its hip design and supposedly green credentials, the Green Bag is now an Australian institution. What started out as a helpful solution has now become part of the problem.
"But Mr. Jaconley", I hear your incredulous response, "Surely institutions cannot think for themselves!"
Well, my learned friend, yes and no. When institutions are created, they are created for a purpose. They are the remedy to a perceived problem. Feudalism was a remedy for warring tribes; the bill of rights a remedy for tyranny. Breakfast, lunch and dinner an accommodation of the strains of the 8 hour work day. They all serve a purpose. The problem arises when the facts surrounding its purpose become 'truth'. Once an institution declares that it owns 'truth' over its purpose (fulfilling a need), it then becomes primarily concerned with self-preservation.
Examples of this are not hard to find. Capitalism, in fulfilling its purpose of realising human liberty, at some stage laid claim to the 'truth' that it is the best possible system. Instead of staying true to the purpose of liberty and maximised utility as identified by the grandaddy Adam Smith, Capitalism (opposing Communism) decided that the free unregulated market was the one true path, paving the way for a decline into Corporatism (a system that serves the needs of those that benefit from this 'truth').
A less controversial example is that of Religion.
As soon as an institution asserts a monopoly over truth, it ceases to be an institution (created to serve humanity) and then becomes a structure of domination. The main concern is to indoctrinate all in its 'truth' so that it may grow and embed itself in society. The 'truth' is spread by the 'true believers'; fanatics who will not admit the possibility that their truth may not be absolute.
Unfortunately, these servant-turned-slavedriver institutions are everywhere today–and they can be difficult to spot. Take our scientific method. While this institution has furnished us with unfathomable benefits and improved our lives in ways that we see and feel everyday, it has lost its central purpose of a pursuit of the 'truth'. Western science now asserts that the only 'true' science is that which may be observed with the 5 senses. This has thrown an objectivist bias on all sciences; from natural to social to psychological. Every discipline has an (artificial) drive for objectivity and measurability– wilfully blind to the possibility that some things worth knowing (i.e. Truth) may be both subjective and immeasurable. By claiming a materialist truth, the western scientific method has limited itself in its pursuit of truth and muddied the waters for other traditions. Further, it is largely concerned with maintaining this status-quo: Darwinism is a theory rigidly clung to by 'objectivists' despite mounting evidence that there is much more going on than random mutation. Yet Darwinism has had a huge impact on social sciences. There is now an entire body of thought and policy based on this likely erroneous theory; a massive detour in human development. And for what? Because scientist have become better at protecting their egos than pursuing the truth.
All of the biggest problems in the world today can be explained in terms of institutions that have forgotten the service that they were created for. And where an institution is created to serve some and exploit others, it has become a system of domination (almost always with a claim on 'truth').
Good luck.
Ps. An amazing critique of institutional failure in TV form is The Wire. It is, quite possibly, the best piece of television ever created. Check out the subtext.
Monday, 7 November 2011
Occupational Fatigue
There is still a lot of confusion about the Occupy movement. And at the moment, it looks like the Anti-Occupy movement (in Australia) is winning; the seeds of confusion sown both inside and outside Occupy now sprouting in vines of ignorance bearing fruits of apathy.
A few days ago Occupy Brisbane disbanded due to disunity in the group; the pressures of maintaining a protest beyond a couple of weeks proved too much. People in the group felt that wider society just weren't 'getting it', and gave up trying to help people to see the original message. The original message of the movement has been completely lost as we are all debating the right to protest itself.
This is a false debate. Many commentaries (of a Herald Sun nature) assert that the protesters should stop whinging and go get a job to better their position in society. What these commentaries overlook are both the fundamental nature of the protests as well as the reasons for Occupy starting in the first place. This has tested the stamina of many Occupiers; we find ourselves having to try to justify the movement, without reference to the purpose of the movement.
So here it is: I will tell all who want to know, so that we can see what the movement is actually about and hopefully get a feel for whether or not it is justified.
The Occupy movement asserts that:
The debate about whether or not the protests are justified is made even more ludicrous (given that we have this right entrenched in our constitution) by the mainstream media's refusal to engage how WE justify the protest. They have asked a question with no answer. If we want to figure out if the protests are justified or not, we must look at the messages and see if we agree or disagree. But where are these messages? The only one so far seems to be "99% vs. 1%" and "Anti-capitalist". These are FALSE messages; they capture a small part of a large and multifaceted story, and are unrepresentative of what Occupy is about. Other (more important) messages are not hard to find.
Many are negative, here are just a few:
But there are a few positive ones out there as well
Unfortunately, the current power structure has a massive vested interest in preventing 'we, the people' at taking a hard look at the current state of affairs. It is there for all to see; whispers of discontent have been building for the last thirty years. Anyone who truly believes that the current politico-economic system is the best it could be is more than welcome to step up, right here and right now, and defend the system that I (and many others) believe has lost its way. Go on. I double dare you.
The problem is that no-one is doing this. Instead we Occupiers are forced to the fringes; the city of Melbourne served a notice last Saturday declaring that no "structures" (including tarps, tents, tables, milk crates or any other 'things'...I shit you not) were allowed as part of the new camp. This means that what was meant to be an open, educational, well-run and fun space is instead confined to a few rag-tag die hards. What exactly is the City scared of? That an under-used city park will be used for what the City of Melbourne website says is a defining feature of the park: "community events and rallies"?
The reality is that this movement represents change to a lot of very powerful people, that include unaccountable/corrupt local government, corporations with concentrated press ownership and political hamsters to name but a few. It has a vast yet invisible opposition. You read it in the bending of the facts and the choice of words in Herald Sun articles. You see it on youtube when police brutalise peaceful protesters. You feel the frustration when the city refuses to respond for your requests of public documents. You hear the ignorance of the average joe, repeating the same tired old phrase about anti-capitalist hipsters that should Quit Whinging And Get A Job. It is disheartening and crushing. It saps at your hope that the world can be a better place.
The thing to keep in mind, fellow Occupiers, is that this is a marathon and not a sprint. While we are currently losing the media war (and public sentiment), this is a movement that will not go away. Our cause is just: it is Democracy. Our principles are inclusion, respect and build towards consensus. Our tool is moral reason. You cannot kill this; it is the bedrock of our civil society.
A few days ago Occupy Brisbane disbanded due to disunity in the group; the pressures of maintaining a protest beyond a couple of weeks proved too much. People in the group felt that wider society just weren't 'getting it', and gave up trying to help people to see the original message. The original message of the movement has been completely lost as we are all debating the right to protest itself.
 |
| Some of the no-hopers |
So here it is: I will tell all who want to know, so that we can see what the movement is actually about and hopefully get a feel for whether or not it is justified.
The Occupy movement asserts that:
- Democracy today is not responding as well as it should to what the Citizenry actually sees or feels is important.
- "Capitalism" has become "Corporatist Consumerism"; where free enterprise is muscled out in favour of large actors with immense amounts of market power, while individuals are told that the means of bettering themselves is through consumption rather than production.
- That our democratic process has become so enmeshed with our economic process that a mass re-engagement is needed by the Citizenry so that we can articulate what exactly is wrong (or right) with the current state of affairs, envision a better method of achieving our potential and exercise our democratic right to change our institutions for the better.
The debate about whether or not the protests are justified is made even more ludicrous (given that we have this right entrenched in our constitution) by the mainstream media's refusal to engage how WE justify the protest. They have asked a question with no answer. If we want to figure out if the protests are justified or not, we must look at the messages and see if we agree or disagree. But where are these messages? The only one so far seems to be "99% vs. 1%" and "Anti-capitalist". These are FALSE messages; they capture a small part of a large and multifaceted story, and are unrepresentative of what Occupy is about. Other (more important) messages are not hard to find.
Many are negative, here are just a few:
- accountability and responsibility in our society have gone out the window
- inequality is being perpetuated and reinforced
- the environment and most of the world's societies are under pressure of an economic system that requires ceaseless and exponential consumption to stay functional
But there are a few positive ones out there as well
- Human potential is unlimited
- Including potential for happiness and meaningful lives
- It is not necessary to live life in service to institutions
- It is possible to achieve material abundance without destroying our social or environmental ecology.
Unfortunately, the current power structure has a massive vested interest in preventing 'we, the people' at taking a hard look at the current state of affairs. It is there for all to see; whispers of discontent have been building for the last thirty years. Anyone who truly believes that the current politico-economic system is the best it could be is more than welcome to step up, right here and right now, and defend the system that I (and many others) believe has lost its way. Go on. I double dare you.
The problem is that no-one is doing this. Instead we Occupiers are forced to the fringes; the city of Melbourne served a notice last Saturday declaring that no "structures" (including tarps, tents, tables, milk crates or any other 'things'...I shit you not) were allowed as part of the new camp. This means that what was meant to be an open, educational, well-run and fun space is instead confined to a few rag-tag die hards. What exactly is the City scared of? That an under-used city park will be used for what the City of Melbourne website says is a defining feature of the park: "community events and rallies"?
 |
| Unfortunately, our police have come to defend interests that are not public |
The thing to keep in mind, fellow Occupiers, is that this is a marathon and not a sprint. While we are currently losing the media war (and public sentiment), this is a movement that will not go away. Our cause is just: it is Democracy. Our principles are inclusion, respect and build towards consensus. Our tool is moral reason. You cannot kill this; it is the bedrock of our civil society.
All are welcome. Effect the change you wish to see in the world.
Join us.
Friday, 4 November 2011
Religion. The dogshit with a gold nugget inside.
OK...Religion.I honestly don't know if now is the best time to tackle this mother. There is a LOT of doctrine, superstition and downright irrationality concerning god-talk, and that's just with the atheists in the room.
But here goes.
Religion has, traditionally, been a lot of bullshit. I'm talking western history here; from Judaism to Christianity and its offshoots of Catholicism and (to a lesser extent) Protestantism. Here's the thing about religion. Many people are quick to label it as an inherently bad thing. But that is because it cannot shake its shady past (forced abortions, forced births, the crusades, killing witches, protecting pedophilia, repressing our desires, creating hatred between religious communities...need I go on?).
The problem is that Religion in our history has become tied up with the power structures that have dominated humans in the past. Usually this came in the form of some guy wearing a robe telling us what we a) were not allowed to do or b) what we had to do to not piss god off. This worked very well for those doing the dominating; I personally don't wish to piss off an all-powerful and egotistical entity, and would probably comply (if I believed in this kind of god), even if it meant tilling the king's earth all day, going home and not fucking my wife for the rest of my life.
This kind of 'religion' (read: domination) goes against what it means to be human. It denies us of our essential needs, and then chastises us when we inevitably slip up. This creates guilt (as it is a social fact in these kinds of structures that Everyone believes in the same 'god') and a desire for future compliance, so as to be a 'good' person.
A key area where all of these 'dominating' religions have gone wrong is their claims on Ultimate Truth. Each of these unhealthy religions claims to be the one true religion; one religion to rule them all. Its bullshit. Each of these religions also claim that God is unknowable; how can anyone possibly have a claim on truth, bar God?
These institutions have pulled the shroud over past societies' eyes, making them believe that humans are evil and that the church is the only form of redemption. It is one of the most destructive and pervasive lies out there. It's still out there and kicking; although instead of the church we now have 'regulation' (read: domination).
Here is the thing about religion (or better–spirituality). Its fundamental message–the message that spans every religion out there–is a good one. It goes a little something like this: humans are perfectible yet imperfect, humans strive towards go(o)d but can never completely comprehend or attain universality. That humans, in the scheme of things, are both significant and insignificant.
These are good messages: not only for our mental health but for the interactions between us and larger society. At the end of the day, a belief in god is the belief that humans can never authoritatively say that we have a 100%, no-doubt claim to Truth. We can strive towards truth, but ultimately the cosmos goes deeper than our faculties of understanding will allow. We will never 'know' what it is like to be a single atom. We will never 'know' what happens to our beings when we die (until we experience it). We can only commit ourselves to acknowledging our own imperfect worldviews, and trust in god that the whole thing doesn't come crashing down in the meantime.
Peace be with you, motherfuckers.
But here goes.
Religion has, traditionally, been a lot of bullshit. I'm talking western history here; from Judaism to Christianity and its offshoots of Catholicism and (to a lesser extent) Protestantism. Here's the thing about religion. Many people are quick to label it as an inherently bad thing. But that is because it cannot shake its shady past (forced abortions, forced births, the crusades, killing witches, protecting pedophilia, repressing our desires, creating hatred between religious communities...need I go on?).
The problem is that Religion in our history has become tied up with the power structures that have dominated humans in the past. Usually this came in the form of some guy wearing a robe telling us what we a) were not allowed to do or b) what we had to do to not piss god off. This worked very well for those doing the dominating; I personally don't wish to piss off an all-powerful and egotistical entity, and would probably comply (if I believed in this kind of god), even if it meant tilling the king's earth all day, going home and not fucking my wife for the rest of my life.
This kind of 'religion' (read: domination) goes against what it means to be human. It denies us of our essential needs, and then chastises us when we inevitably slip up. This creates guilt (as it is a social fact in these kinds of structures that Everyone believes in the same 'god') and a desire for future compliance, so as to be a 'good' person.
A key area where all of these 'dominating' religions have gone wrong is their claims on Ultimate Truth. Each of these unhealthy religions claims to be the one true religion; one religion to rule them all. Its bullshit. Each of these religions also claim that God is unknowable; how can anyone possibly have a claim on truth, bar God?
These institutions have pulled the shroud over past societies' eyes, making them believe that humans are evil and that the church is the only form of redemption. It is one of the most destructive and pervasive lies out there. It's still out there and kicking; although instead of the church we now have 'regulation' (read: domination).
Here is the thing about religion (or better–spirituality). Its fundamental message–the message that spans every religion out there–is a good one. It goes a little something like this: humans are perfectible yet imperfect, humans strive towards go(o)d but can never completely comprehend or attain universality. That humans, in the scheme of things, are both significant and insignificant.
These are good messages: not only for our mental health but for the interactions between us and larger society. At the end of the day, a belief in god is the belief that humans can never authoritatively say that we have a 100%, no-doubt claim to Truth. We can strive towards truth, but ultimately the cosmos goes deeper than our faculties of understanding will allow. We will never 'know' what it is like to be a single atom. We will never 'know' what happens to our beings when we die (until we experience it). We can only commit ourselves to acknowledging our own imperfect worldviews, and trust in god that the whole thing doesn't come crashing down in the meantime.
Peace be with you, motherfuckers.
Thursday, 3 November 2011
'Social Fact'
This is another political one. If this doesn't interest you, then sit down, shut up, watch tv, go to work, get a house, get married, have kids and and retire. Do not claim that your views are valid and justified; your lack of interest denies you your right to participation. Whew. That was kinda vindictive, no? Better watch that :^/
So, social fact. I hear the phrase 'social fact' being used to justify a lot. But no-one seems entirely sure what exactly it means. People throw it around like it is indisputable, but turns out it 'aint. And its been part of why we have lost our morality.
'Social fact' is a concept used in sociology. It is meant do describe a factual situation that describes an aspect of society. The suicide rate is a social fact; as is the social fact that dentists top themselves more than any other profession. Sad stuff.
This is a useful concept. Sadly, it has come to represent 'rules' rather than 'facts'. This is a very bad thing. Hume noted that it is impossible to get a 'should' statement from an 'is' statement without a conception of what is 'good' (i.e. morals). See my post on moral reasoning for advice on not falling into this intellectual trap.
Ways which social fact have come to be misapplied as justification for faulty reasoning typically take the form of someone asserting a supposedly indisputable course of action or inference from a situation, masking it in reason. The argument they are making is reasonable. But its not necessarily a good one. Here is an example prized from my FB wall:
I don't think you can abstract pure morality from more complicated, everyday situations-- this is actually the problem with the entire western philosophical tradition, that is approaches the real from the perspective of 'armchair' and therefore ossifies a much more fluid and complex social totality
Here, the person making the argument relies on 2 social facts:
Another debate with another speaker:
an argument based on social fact would recognise that people do drugs (whether this is environmental or inherent is only relevant much later), and that we should accept this in the pursuit of any policy.
This is not a bad use of 'social fact'. The only problem I have with it is that while it is (currently) true in Australian societies, it isn't necessarily a universal or constant truth. The aborigines of this land got fucked up on love of country; societies that have strong community and spirituality consume far less quantities and types of drugs than in ones that do not. But if we accept this 'social fact' as gospel, we will be framing policy (and the very debate) on a premise that may change, or be indicative of some underlying issue. The 'social fact' becomes a 'social inevitability', as we get stuck in the mitigating or promoting the 'fact' whilst ignoring the underlying causes.
The point the speaker was trying to make was that some social fact is 'environemental' (i.e. constructed and changing) while some is 'inherent' (i.e. a fundamental part of human nature). I can agree that social fact can describe fundamental features of humanity, but with a large caveat. Most social fact is constructed; and social fact that claims to be 'inherent' is really a theory of human nature (which we can never fully 'know') masquerading as fact. Any time that social fact attempts to explain rather than describe, we should be instantly suspicious of it.
The point I am trying to make here is that 'social fact' cannot and will never be able to tell us exactly what to do or how to do it. It can give us an indicator of a problem or a solution, but it is only through our own judgement of the best course of action that we can achieve real results.
Social fact has come with a lot of hidden baggage; often when people use it they are asserting that a certain social situation (such as suicide) is inevitable; the stats say so. Its a fact. What these arguments fail to recognise is that society (and the social facts within it) are constructed by the actors within it. Therefore, dentists aren't necessarily doomed to suicide; if we combat the social fact by reaching out to them, giving them free use of laughing gas for personal pleasure and send them Christmas cards, I daresay lawyers will overtake them in the suicide stakes.
Social facts CAN be relevant to morality, as well. The agreed upon moral order within a society is also a social fact. The Spartans practiced infanticide, the Romans fucked their mothers and we in Australia believe that the right to uninterrupted public transport is more important than the right to protest.
The social fact of a society's morality is a very important piece in the puzzle as to why there are so many international conflicts throughout the world. The many Arab and South American 'problem states' cling to the moral of Autonomy, whereas Western states assert that Democracy (Human Dignity) is more important. We have recently seen a big reassessment of societal morality with the Arab Spring. The social fact in these states is now radically different from before; but only they can decide where to go next.
What is REALLY exciting is that the world is now approaching a level of interconnectedness (social fact) where it may be possible to decide on a shared global morality. This implications for this are essentially world peace, an eradication of scarcity and a commitment to realising human potential. Stay switched on and alert for signs of increasingly productive dialogue between world leaders. Peace.
So, social fact. I hear the phrase 'social fact' being used to justify a lot. But no-one seems entirely sure what exactly it means. People throw it around like it is indisputable, but turns out it 'aint. And its been part of why we have lost our morality.
'Social fact' is a concept used in sociology. It is meant do describe a factual situation that describes an aspect of society. The suicide rate is a social fact; as is the social fact that dentists top themselves more than any other profession. Sad stuff.
This is a useful concept. Sadly, it has come to represent 'rules' rather than 'facts'. This is a very bad thing. Hume noted that it is impossible to get a 'should' statement from an 'is' statement without a conception of what is 'good' (i.e. morals). See my post on moral reasoning for advice on not falling into this intellectual trap.
Ways which social fact have come to be misapplied as justification for faulty reasoning typically take the form of someone asserting a supposedly indisputable course of action or inference from a situation, masking it in reason. The argument they are making is reasonable. But its not necessarily a good one. Here is an example prized from my FB wall:
I don't think you can abstract pure morality from more complicated, everyday situations-- this is actually the problem with the entire western philosophical tradition, that is approaches the real from the perspective of 'armchair' and therefore ossifies a much more fluid and complex social totality
Here, the person making the argument relies on 2 social facts:
- Morality is abstract
- Society is complex
Another debate with another speaker:
an argument based on social fact would recognise that people do drugs (whether this is environmental or inherent is only relevant much later), and that we should accept this in the pursuit of any policy.
This is not a bad use of 'social fact'. The only problem I have with it is that while it is (currently) true in Australian societies, it isn't necessarily a universal or constant truth. The aborigines of this land got fucked up on love of country; societies that have strong community and spirituality consume far less quantities and types of drugs than in ones that do not. But if we accept this 'social fact' as gospel, we will be framing policy (and the very debate) on a premise that may change, or be indicative of some underlying issue. The 'social fact' becomes a 'social inevitability', as we get stuck in the mitigating or promoting the 'fact' whilst ignoring the underlying causes.
The point the speaker was trying to make was that some social fact is 'environemental' (i.e. constructed and changing) while some is 'inherent' (i.e. a fundamental part of human nature). I can agree that social fact can describe fundamental features of humanity, but with a large caveat. Most social fact is constructed; and social fact that claims to be 'inherent' is really a theory of human nature (which we can never fully 'know') masquerading as fact. Any time that social fact attempts to explain rather than describe, we should be instantly suspicious of it.
The point I am trying to make here is that 'social fact' cannot and will never be able to tell us exactly what to do or how to do it. It can give us an indicator of a problem or a solution, but it is only through our own judgement of the best course of action that we can achieve real results.
Social fact has come with a lot of hidden baggage; often when people use it they are asserting that a certain social situation (such as suicide) is inevitable; the stats say so. Its a fact. What these arguments fail to recognise is that society (and the social facts within it) are constructed by the actors within it. Therefore, dentists aren't necessarily doomed to suicide; if we combat the social fact by reaching out to them, giving them free use of laughing gas for personal pleasure and send them Christmas cards, I daresay lawyers will overtake them in the suicide stakes.
Social facts CAN be relevant to morality, as well. The agreed upon moral order within a society is also a social fact. The Spartans practiced infanticide, the Romans fucked their mothers and we in Australia believe that the right to uninterrupted public transport is more important than the right to protest.
The social fact of a society's morality is a very important piece in the puzzle as to why there are so many international conflicts throughout the world. The many Arab and South American 'problem states' cling to the moral of Autonomy, whereas Western states assert that Democracy (Human Dignity) is more important. We have recently seen a big reassessment of societal morality with the Arab Spring. The social fact in these states is now radically different from before; but only they can decide where to go next.
What is REALLY exciting is that the world is now approaching a level of interconnectedness (social fact) where it may be possible to decide on a shared global morality. This implications for this are essentially world peace, an eradication of scarcity and a commitment to realising human potential. Stay switched on and alert for signs of increasingly productive dialogue between world leaders. Peace.
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
The Fire that is My Life
*This is a personal post. Friends, family and interested outsiders may get something out of this, the rest will just have to wait for something more interesting*
Last Sunday my house burnt down. Caught fire. Fire grew. House burnt.
We escaped. Just. I don't wanna think about what could have happened should anything have gone differently. We probably would have survived: our friend & neighbour called the fire brigade (on her way home from work after her shift was unexpectedly cancelled) and they arrived just as we all cleared the building. I am now ready to go into detail, and give you my limited account of the whole thing.
I awoke to the sound of my girlfriends voice and a sense of violent disquiet. "Babe, I think there's a fire" she said in a calm, sleepy voice. My eyes snapped open to my room hazy with smoke. There was a feeling of activity in the rooms below us and the room was very warm. I lept out of bed and opened my door. Hot thick yellow smoke billowed through the portal, clouding my vision and filling my lungs. "FIRE!" I heard myself yell. "There's a fire, get out of the house!" I bellowed into the smoke corridor that used to be our hallway, pounding on my best friend's door at the same time.
Pulling on a set of jeans that later turned out to be my girlfriends, I opened the window and jumped out, helping my lady follow me out. We hopped across the roof and I jumped down to G. "Jump down!" I yelled. "How?" came the reply. "Just jump!" and with the gleam of fear and madness in both of our eyes, the owl flew to the wolf. I ran across the yard and pulled the neighbour's fence down (its amazing what adrenaline does to the body), hardly stopping to look up and see K-Dawg (another housemate) clambering out of his window in his jocks before pounding on their back door. Eddy answered; he looked alert and ready. We cleared the house (the houses are connected in a 4 building block) and fled on to the street to watch our house burn, as the firefighters arrived in a blaze of sirens and punctuality.
I awoke to the sound of my girlfriends voice and a sense of violent disquiet. "Babe, I think there's a fire" she said in a calm, sleepy voice. My eyes snapped open to my room hazy with smoke. There was a feeling of activity in the rooms below us and the room was very warm. I lept out of bed and opened my door. Hot thick yellow smoke billowed through the portal, clouding my vision and filling my lungs. "FIRE!" I heard myself yell. "There's a fire, get out of the house!" I bellowed into the smoke corridor that used to be our hallway, pounding on my best friend's door at the same time.
Pulling on a set of jeans that later turned out to be my girlfriends, I opened the window and jumped out, helping my lady follow me out. We hopped across the roof and I jumped down to G. "Jump down!" I yelled. "How?" came the reply. "Just jump!" and with the gleam of fear and madness in both of our eyes, the owl flew to the wolf. I ran across the yard and pulled the neighbour's fence down (its amazing what adrenaline does to the body), hardly stopping to look up and see K-Dawg (another housemate) clambering out of his window in his jocks before pounding on their back door. Eddy answered; he looked alert and ready. We cleared the house (the houses are connected in a 4 building block) and fled on to the street to watch our house burn, as the firefighters arrived in a blaze of sirens and punctuality.
Those watching seven news (bleargh) on sunday night would've seen me and my best friend, dazed and shaken, recounting how the fire had ripped through the building that had, only hours before, been filled with a hundred people. How everything played out the way it did still boggles my mind, and it is simply impossible to explain all the details, coincidences and hidden meaning here. But there I go again sounding like a whacko.
The reason the fire started was, unfortunately, due to the collective irresponsibility that arises in a party environment. For those that attended our (quite frankly awesome) Halloween bash, the people rolling beer bottles off our carefully constructed decorations into the public footpath/road was symptomatic of the same irresponsibility. It is saddening that when you put a bunch of people together (especially when they're trying to have a good time), there is always Some Dickhead leading the way for humanity's decline by engaging in Dickhead behaviour. This is one of my big beefs with music festivals. But I'm ranting about something else now.
The fire occurred as a result of people not paying attention to their surroundings. I was just as guilty in this as everyone else. Perhaps more so, as a host; I went to bed at 6 and didn't even think to put the tea-lights out that were burning on the mantel (one of many possible causes of the fire). However it happened, this fire is yet another destructive event in my increasingly (and perplexingly) zen life.
Destruction follows me. I follow it. I am attracted to tearing things down, breaking things up, starting anew. I try to channel these energies in productive ways; such as capoeira, building fires, challenging ideas and engaging in extreme sports. If you are a bit hippy dippy, I'm an Aries (whatever that means). If you believe more in theory and research, I am 'the Executive' from Jung's personality archetypes.* Whatever the case, I seem to ruffle feathers.
This is a bit of a shame, really. For people who don't like getting their feathers ruffled, I come off as aggressive, dominating, rigid, uncaring...a bit of a dick. While it sounds cruel, I tend to write these people off pretty quickly. Not because they are bad people, but because they have nothing to offer me. If someone spends a significant amount of their energy avoiding the conflict that I thrive on, I move on and try to cut them out of my life. They're like a sinkhole, best avoided. I wish I could get on with everyone, but I just can't. My love of change and challenge is like a thirst that is never quenched. If someone is being a wet blanket, I'll suffocate.
Halloween is my favourite holiday, bar Christmas (family). Halloween is death, life, change, sex. If your costume ain't sexy, you're doing it wrong :P It is about doing away with the old, bringing in the new, celebrating out inner humanity/animality. I love it. Those of you who attended our bash know this.
Which is why it is disturbingly appropriate that the house burnt down the next day. We had manifested a huge amount of energy that night; everyone was feeling the Halloween vibes. It was intense, exciting; the possibilities were thrilling and people were feeding off each other like the many costumed zombies that attended.
Don't get me wrong. This fire was one of the most disturbing things that have happened in my life. But the timing of it all, at this moment in my life where everything seems up for grabs, is downright weird. Hopefully the HorseHouse will be resurrected from its ashes; for now though, that looks unlikely.
To all the readers, take time to appreciate how glorious this life is, and the people who fill it. We are so lucky to be alive, especially in this time of abundance and change. Take care of yourselves and those around you.
For now, I'm laying low in the burbs, eating a lot and studying. It is a welcome change of pace from the last few days. Catch ups soon. xx
*These Archetypes are really useful for self-knowledge and growth. They are also based on SCIENCE (not biological tho...), which is a win I think. Check it: http://similarminds.com/jung.html
Legitimate Debate #1
The last few days have been a bit mental. Things are happening faster and faster, and major changes are afoot from every direction. It can be hard to maintain a blog when things are like this, but I really want to keep this space alive and well, with a healthy outpouring of ideas and musing. This post comes more from that desire than a place of creativity (and I also wanna hit 1000 page views...close!).
The following exchange, like my first post on this, occurred over FB. I'm too tired to offer an account of the meta debate, but this one is refreshingly straightforward. Really productive, I loved it. Thank you Bryden for having the balls to articulate your beliefs, and the conviction to stand by them.
Bryden
When I first met Bryden I was almost sure we wouldn't get on. I wanted to, as a wide-eyed. fresh-faced law student eager for new law friends. But we seemed to be on very different wavelengths. I believe that I was confusing my judgement of character with my opinion of someone's sociopolitical beliefs, the fact remained that we seemed doomed to be nemeses (oooh errrr).
Here is what happened.
Unfortunately, the event in question was a Young Liberal prank, a total hoax. I was sucked in though (the only one, it seems); it was an alienating and disturbing experience. I tried to laugh it off, but the feelings of victimisation and alienation sparked a brush with mania (see previous post). I guess the moral of the story is that you can never take yourself too seriously. And that Young Libs just might be the new Hitler Youth. But you didn't hear that from me :P
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)