The Violence of Experience

 

Sigmund Fraud (see what I did there?!) wrote that birth is the ‘first experience of anxiety and thus the source and prototype of … anxiety’, or in other words, being born is the first source of trauma from which we suffer which goes on to dictate our lives. As you may be able to tell from my brilliant, yet subtle, word play with Mr Freud’s name, I am sceptical as to the validity of this claim. For one thing no one recalls being born and if we are born into trauma then why are some people happily adjusted  and why are some people, such as Mr Freud and his patients, beset by anxiety? The answer to this must be that if one is born into a loving environment then birth is the transition away from uncertainty and no knowledge into the realms of knowledge (possible link to the story of Eden? (note: I don’t call it a myth as I have no idea if it was real or not)) yet the form which this knowledge takes is not determined.

 

Regular readers may recall my concept of necessary and unnecessary suffering-  a broken heart is how we learn to love, falling over is how we learn to stand etc., and unnecessary suffering- e.g. bullying, poverty, starvation etc.- and this concept still applies in what I am going to write now. However, if you would indulge me, we will remove the notion of necessity and look at suffering as a whole.

 

It is true that from birth we are developing, being born, born of suffering (losing teeth etc.) and then after the first few years the body starts to break down (note: according to neurogenesis brain cells are constantly being produced up until our (approx) 80s) yet not everyone suffers on the same level. There is a correlation between the greatest minds and suffering. As the Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca wryly (I have no idea if he did) stated, one does not become wise by accident. Or in other words, there is some catalyst which produces greatness.

 

Philosophers such as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche wrote that to live is to suffer and that wisdom is born of suffering, perhaps answering our earlier question as to what is the catalyst, yet where does this suffering come from? To live is a violent thing- to grow requires what the psychoanalyst and physician, Sabina Spielrein, wrote about in her brilliant paper on destruction as the cause of creation. In order to make something new, the old must first be destroyed. And it is the same with us, as a brilliant quote, wrongly attributed to Chekov says, ‘Any idiot can face a crisis; it’s this day-to-day living that wears you out.’ (Seaton). Everything that we do wears us away a little. Every encounter that we have either reinforces or breaks us a little. Even the most placid things have an element of violence to them, even if it is placid.  Interpersonal politics are such that one never really knows what is going on and either lingers in uncertainty or, possibly worse, lingers in certainty (note: certainty in the ignorance of ignorance) and thus these wear us down and fracture us a little more.

If we can conclude, from this, that my premise that experience is a form of violence then how can, if we remove natural attributes such as intelligence and circumstantial attributes such as education, some people become the ‘great’ minds who explain to us the mysteries of being, and, most, others just exist without any great revelations? The first answer would be that those who become ‘great’ do so as they are ‘different’ from a preconceived notion of the ‘norm’, and thus are caused to suffer more by those around (think bullying and other forms of unnecessary suffering) but if we are suspending the notion of necessity for the purposes of this study then how can some transcend what others do not? Partially it may be down to Nietzsche’s notion that:

‘The most spiritual men, as the strongest, find their happiness where others would find their destruction: in the labyrinth, in hardness against themselves and others, in experiments. Their joy is self-conquest: asceticism becomes in them nature, need, and instinct. Difficult tasks are a privilege to them; to play with burdens that crush others, a recreation. Knowledge–a form of asceticism. They are the most venerable kind of man: that does not preclude their being the most cheerful and the kindliest’

Or Dostoyevsky’s (Dusty) :

‘Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth.’

Which are all well and good in explaining why, yet do not answer the question, how.

For this we must turn to Socrates. Socrates said that wisdom begins in wonder and for many years I took this to mean that, as with Socrates, smelling flowers and having nice conversations yet when I started to think about the violence of experience, something I couldn’t find previous reference to, I thought maybe the two notions- suffering and wonder- aren’t as far apart, antonyms, as they may originally seem. What do I mean by that? Well, simply, if to live (experience) is to suffer, and all do so, then maybe what sets the ‘great’ apart from the ‘others’ is the notion of wonder. Whilst many will say ‘I suffer, thusly I suffer’, maybe the ‘greats’ go, ‘I suffer…why?’ and in this ‘why’ we have the ‘how’ that we were searching for. They become ‘great’ as in their suffering they ask why are they suffering? What is the nature of their suffering? And what is the universality of their individual suffering?

 

If we can see our ‘great’ people who suffer greatly (no pun intended) and ask ‘why’ and look throughout history then many of them seem to have fitted on the autistic spectrum and one of the attributes, as Dusty and both Nietzsche allude to, is great empathy born of emotional intelligence. Then, with this, maybe we can reframe our notion of the violence of experience. Yes, we are born, fractured, shattered but maybe as Picasso alludes to in his Cubist work (I have no idea if he actually alludes to this as I, nor no one, knows what Picasso really thought about anything) it is those who are deformed from their original ‘self’ and become gross facsimiles of who they once seemed to be (although we never change who we are on a fundamental level) who are truly the beautiful ones (the ‘great’ ones), the ones who make the world a better, and more understandable, place.

 

‘till next time

Judge not…

 

When was the last time you heard someone say, ‘I am not an excellent judge of character’? Most people, it seems, feel that they can gaze into the souls of others, past the masks and lies with which we cloak ourselves and see the truth which others cannot.

We have spoken of before, on here, how herd behaviour begets skewed judgments (I like killing people, and he kills people, so he is a good) and this suggest that people will make judgements (unconsciously/consciously) based upon their own subjectivity. But the question which has not been asked is, why? Yes, there are obvious answers but what if it stems from something more fundamental and that is the concept of equality.

 

I personally believe that everyone who is born is equal but, as we have said previously, it is our actions which define who we are. Let us assume (wrongly) that every child born is given equal opportunities for growth. Some children have a natural aptitude for it, others not. Some are great social purveyors, others not. From this we can assume that each will find their own niche and will thrive in it meaning that, if we take away the arbitrary notion of a hierarchy of occupations, all are equal.

 

Fine? Ok. But what we have not spoken of is the individual on a metaphysical level. Yes, X may say that Y is a good person and X (self-professes) is an excellent judge of character. However, A may come along and say ‘ah, Y is not a good person for reasons 1,2&3’. If Y is truly a good person, then how can A and X disagree? The answer may be that the personal analytical skills of A is greater than X and A can see things which X cannot, in terms of the behaviour, being etc., of Y. But let us remove such concepts and ask, even though all are created equal and remain equal on a fundamental level, does that mean that all are on the same level? The answer to this is shocking in its obviousness. No, not all are on the same level. If they were then the likes of Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha, Plato, Einstein et al would not be of note, they would be just like everyone else. In his notion of the Philosopher King , Plato created the model of what he believed would be the perfect ruler. Indeed, in the shape of Dion, (see many weeks ago) he thought that he had found his Philosopher King, however, even Plato had doubts that he had found his ‘perfect’ being. He endured much to try to bring the notion into being, however, he, ultimately, to be blunt, failed. Yet few, if any, others could see the virtue of a Philosopher King, or see Dion as his model and thus is it possible to conclude that Plato had an ability to see further, higher and deeper than others? As Plato became known as the father of modern philosophy one can assume that that is the case.

 

So, let’s go back to X and A’s differing opinions of Y. To X it is possible that Y is a good person as they not only match qualities that X has, herself, but also X is on the same level of Y and thusly cannot see higher and deeper. A, on the other hand may be on a higher level and can see things that X cannot. Thusly we can conclude that Y is both genuinely good and bad to the best of the abilities of X and A. From this we can conclude that there are people who are superior to others, albeit not on a fundamental level.

 

An arbitrary notion of superiority exists within our culture- built around nonsensical aspects such as economic wealth and job title and we accept being ruled by those who fit into this model. Yet, are these good people in the true sense or, if we can conclude that society is created by more Xs than As, are they just people who fit into the model which has been created by Xs for Xs and Ys but not As? (‘The heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself.’ -Plato).

 

Again, I think the answer is obvious. Society is built by the mediocre and through the process of hegemonizing the culture begets itself and thusly those who would be Philosopher Kings remain unknown as those who judge the many are unworthy to be the judges of any, including their own selves, as they exist, metaphysically, on a lower level than the Philosopher Kings.

 

‘til next time

 

Note: I, in no way, endorse, discrimination or subscribe to the bastardised form of the Nietzschean Uber Mensch, as all should be treated as what they are- human and deserving of love and respect.

The Sickness of Society

 

Society is sick. This cannot be disputed. I am not talking about viruses or pandemics, I am talking about the creation of that stench which pervades over everything and that is fear and apathy.

 

Aristotle was right when he said that humans are social creatures, but what he did not say is that other animals are also social creatures (think ants, dolphins, monkeys etc.) yet humans place themselves above animals. Why? Because humans believe that they have the ability to be self-aware. Whilst the tools are in place (the cerebral cortex etc.) it does not mean that one knows how to use them. If, for example, one saw another taking a substance which made them act in a manner which was immoral and destructive then one would, rightly, question the ability of the individual to make decisions for themselves, or in other words, question their sanity. However, if one were to be ‘out’ one evening and see one’s social group, or those around within the same context, drinking too much alcohol and engaging in the said behaviour one would consider this normal and if one were to raise a concern within their self they would, probably, not speak it due to a) apathy- meh, who cares? Or b) fear- fear of not fitting in within the social group. Whilst we can see people getting intoxicated, seeking partners without their current relationships, engaging in bullying etc. and shrug it off as ‘normal’ behaviour it is not a far goosestep from a night club to a Nuremberg rally. Why? Because the same precedent holds sway- fear and apathy means that one will suppress any negative judgement that they may have in order to ‘fit in’ and thusly, the sickness becomes spread, the sickness far more deadly than any virus. What do I mean by deadly? Well, it is well known that children are starving to death in North Korea, it is well known that people are dying of aids, it is well known that people are dying from want of clean water. All of these things are well known and yet nothing is done. Why? Apathy and fear. Indifference to the wellbeing of ‘the other’ and ‘fear’ of putting one’s head above the parapet. ‘gosh, if we say that China commits human rights abuses then they may not want to buy our hamburgers’ and thusly business dictates ethics. If the international community got together and said ‘we will trade with each other, we will provide the Chinese people what they need and we will, together, oppose the Chinese government and their human rights  abuses in a manner which will not even impact upon the markets’, it would be done in a second. But, as we have said, business dictates ethics and business itself is sick.

 

We all know the truism that if you are not in the room you are not in the know, and yet this truism can still stand. If, those inside the room, reached out to those without the room then what would the cost be? Work would be more productive as all would feel included and thusly many obstacles of projects would be side stepped. Right? Yeah but you are forgetting, Greaterfool, that there is the concept of power. Power? Yes, those in the room feel part of the special group. Have you never sent an email asking for help at work and then had someone else come to you about it, as they were in the room when it was discussed? Why is that? Because they, consciously or unconsciously, want to be in the ‘know’, to be in the ‘elite’, the small group which, as with those getting intoxicated, having affairs or other actions which would be judge by an impartial adjudicator, immoral, and, frankly, showing poor mental health, judge those within as they would judge themselves, making themselves weird totems of mediocrity.  And then it gets even more insidious. Who are those who are labelled ‘sick’? those labelled ‘insane’ (not in the clinical sense)?, those who are inclusive, those who are open and, worst of all, those who see a problem and instead of accepting it as the norm, speak up and try to make a positive change after all nothing is more ‘insane’ than seeing a problem and trying to fix it, and nothing is ‘sicker’ than treating people as human and being inclusive, not discriminating upon arbitrary lines, lines which can easily be transcended, such as one’s physical location at a specific time.

 

‘till next time

 

 

Subjectivity and the Law

 

Regular readers may recall that a few weeks ago I presented a case study of someone I had spoken with who had had her personal medical data given out by her workplace, behaviour that went unpunished, causing her great distress. There was one aspect of the story which I did not include last time which I wish to dwell on today as it has been going around my head for the last few weeks (and I am worried that it might die of loneliness).

 

During the meetings that the lady had had, she told me that she frequently given the same ‘explanation’, namely, ‘they were doing it because they thought that was the best thing to do’. If it were something such as giving someone food or doing their laundry then fine but what we are dealing with here is nothing so innocuous, we are dealing with the actual being of another human being.

 

The argument that it was done, not out of malicious intent but, out of a thought of what is right holds no water. Let me explain. What we are dealing with here is subjectivity. The thought that A knows what is best for B. The obvious answer is, surely B knows what is best for B, not A, if we are assuming that B is fully competent in one’s mental faculties (who, seriously, actually is?), yet this argument is often ignored as others, bizarrely, seem to agree with the premise that A knows better than B what is best for B (think herd culture and mass delusion), possibly due to pre-existing social constructs, professional constructs or just self-identification (I would do X so A acted correctly as I would always act correctly).

 

The second defence would be ignorance. A did not know that doing said actions would be bad and therefore A cannot be blamed for said actions because A is ignorant. Again, this argument hold no water, not in regards to the law. Why? Because this is also subjective, and the law is…objective.

 

In the law it is written that, in the instance of the lady, that medical information can not be shared without consent, not at the discretion/whims of an individual, not at all

 

What about…?

No

I think…

No

It may be best…

No

 

Let me put this another way. If I were to put a brick through your window would you say ‘maybe he had a good, personal thought that this may benefit me?’ or would you say ‘hello, police, I’d like to report a crime…’? it is not subjective, the law is, by definition, objective except under clearly defined contexts.

 

As with what usually seems to happen, the victim is victimised by those who commit actions which are protected by the confederacy of those who form the ‘herd’ and as the victim slowly bleeds to death the confederates seek ways to protect themselves from the objective truth that they really are not the good people they claim to be.

Whilst the lady was talking I noticed, or rather, failed to notice something. I asked her if, at many of the humiliating meetings she had had to go to, if anyone had actually used the word ‘sorry’ or, at the very least, shown something which may be akin to a state of remorse. This, I was informed, had not taken place thusly proving once and for all that these events will happen again and again as those who carry out such heinous (and illegal) acts do not even realise that they are wrong. I wonder if they would feel the same if the same was done to them?

 

‘till next time (sadly)