#phenomenology human person | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

transmutationisms · 3 months

Note

along w ur plato post uve also mentioned disliking marxist syllabi that make you go chronologically just to understand one author (ie greek philo - hegel - marx)

i was planning to go down this route this yr to combine both my long overdue dive into theory and philosophy, and i actually found this to be less overwhelming than immediately diving into say, continental philosophy or critical theory. i wonder then what other route you'd suggest for philosophy? (since for marxist theory youve pretty much alr answered it in a past ask)

are greek philosophers still "useful" to read for beginners or is it much better off to start with contemporaries? is this a case of "we've actually been doing the math curriculum wrong this entire time" or is it just personal preference. help

depends what you're trying to accomplish, but if someone's in my inbox asking how to get started reading theory or philosophy then i think it's a) unhelpful, and b) needlessly deferent to received ideas of 'canonicity', to perpetuate the notion that there's a single correct order in which to read, and it begins with the same 20 ancient greeks writing about geometrical forms and elemental tetravalence. like, it's worth remembering what's missing from a typical global north university's philosophy syllabus: perhaps most obviously, reams of islamicate scholarship and centuries of dialogue between 'western' and 'eastern' writers often suppressed in favour of a 'dark ages' narrative that just sort of jumps up to the 'renaissance'... and there are so many other, egregious, historically unjustifiable lacunae like this.

it's noble enough to want to know where an idea comes from or what its genealogical lineage is, but to try to discover this by reading through a list drawn up by classicists or philosophy departments is dangerously optimistic about the politicking that shapes and perpetuates such lists. even just reading the works that an author is openly citing or arguing with is lacking: what about, say, hegel, whose idea of freedom and enslavement developed partially in response to reading newspaper coverage of the haitian revolution? he didn't exactly announce that in the text! to read the phenomenology of spirit as merely the next intellectual step after kant is deeply distorted; for that matter, kant's own intellectual influences came not only from a supposed philosophical canon but also from the scientific and anthropological discourses underpinning his biological theory of race and defence of racism.

my issue with the "read chronologically" approach isn't that it's bad to follow a topic over a process of historical change. it's that these received lists of 'canonical' thinkers are artefacts of their own social and historical contexts, and are both produced to certain ideological ends, & then appealed to later in order to enforce and even naturalise those ideologies. if what we want is the context to understand what hegel or marx or adorno were really talking about, we need to engage with the texts as historical documents and with the histories as products of imperfect, biased, and ideologically laden human labour.

i'm not here to tell you not to read whatever you were planning to read. for one thing, sometimes the intellectual influence named in the syllabus is a useful one (there are certain questions about marx and marxian ideas that are easier to understand and answer if you have read at least a little bit of hegel). but, in the context of the overwhelming gatekeeping of knowledge, and the hegemonic use of ideas about canonicity and the 'right' way to read 'classics', if someone asks what they need to do in order to read xyz, i'm pretty much never going to default to "start by reading plato". read things that are interesting to you, however old they are; read about their authors; make liberal use of online resources like the SEP if you need a crash-course on certain concepts or jargon. you certainly don't need to be afraid of reading one text to better understand another. i just don't think you need to be beholden to that mode of reading, either, especially not in a context where the common wisdom on whose work belongs in such a genealogy is predicated on centuries of colonial and imperial scholarship and disseminated by institutions structurally positioned to defend the idea of an enlightened and ennobling western intellectual tradition.

in a certain twisted way, these 'standard' (to whom?) or 'traditional' (since when?) reading lists are often presented as the shortcut to the 'correct' understanding of landmark texts or authors—only, this is a 'shortcut' that considers ideas as disembodied from their real contexts, relating only to one another in an intellectual realm and developing in more or less linear fashion often to some teleological end; and, by dint of the sheer amount of material involved, it's also a 'shortcut' that many people will never actually traverse. i don't have an inherent problem with reading chronologically. i just don't automatically defer to these kinds of syllabi, and i think dethroning them could do us all a lot of good.

#lit and literacy

87 notes · View notes

littlekiwi78 · 4 months

Text

Environmental Art

Roughly Ranges from 1965-Present

Environmental or Land Art rose from a desire to reconnect to the land and move art outside of the gallery.

-Smithson, Spiral Jetty (1970).

The Spiral Jetty on the Great Salt Lake in Utah made by Robert Smithson is 1500 feet long and meant to be walked on. It provides an introspective exercise for those who interact and reconnects them with the environment.

-Heizer, Double Negative (1970)

Michael Heizer cut two trenches into the Norman Mesa in Nevada stretching over 1500 feet long. With machinery, Heizer cut gashes into the mesa to heighten its contours.

--Art such as this critiques the art world. It cannot fit in a museum or gallery, you cannot buy or sell it and it is not reserved for the elite. Art such as this conveys a phenomenological experience and integrates humanity with nature.

-Mendieta, Silueta Series (1973-79)

Ana Mendieta created her Silueta Series to display a different kind of environmental art in which rather than taking away from nature she adds herself to it. Mendieta collaborates with nature by inserting her body into the earth reconnecting with nature. Her process is much more personal as opposed to the prior two artists.

-Goldsworthy, Slate Arch (1982)

Andy Goldsworthy is a well-known environmental artist who often uses more ephemeral mediums for his creations. His art is made from found environmental objects such as ice, snow, rocks, or leaves. Nature provides the materials that he uses.

#art #art history #environment #enviroment art #environmetalists #andy goldsworthy #ana mendieta #michael heizer #robert smithson

20 notes · View notes

thorraborinn · 1 year

Text

sonneve

How might you describe or define animism, or alternatively, do you have any recommendations for reading about it?

Graham Harvey defines it as understanding "that the world is full of persons, only some of whom are human, and that life is always lived in relationship to others." This is definitely a better definition than "the belief that everything has a soul" but you might also notice that it's vague to the point of including practically everything that doesn't include Aristotle's rational soul as a distinctive feature of humans. Harvey is aware of this (he even includes things like yelling at your computer as an animistic behavior). As soon as you start to narrow the definition more than that, it starts to exclude peoples and customs that it's trying to include.

Nordic Animism has a good short video that does like a drive-by description of animism and history of its study that comes from the same sorts of books that I'm going to mention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_j9oPCE-Ns

Harvey edited a book called The Handbook of Contemporary Animism. If you were going to pick a single book to start with, you could do much worse than this. Very many of the authors are ones that you'd see recur frequently if you were to go deeper into studying recent anthropology related to animism. If chapters stand out, it would be a good idea to find that author's other works.

My personal favorite single book on the subject is How Forests Think by Eduardo Kohn. He has a lecture on YouTube that introduces some of the ideas in the book: https://youtu.be/mSdrdY6vmDo?t=102.

Kohn draws heavily on the works of Eduardo Viveiros de Castro. Viveiros de Castro is one of the most important recent anthropologists in terms of him being the guy that everyone writing after him has to have an opinion about, whether positive or negative. It's a good idea to read him because he's going to come up in others' works. I personally find his stuff on Amazonian "perspectivism" very good. There's a collection of his essays called The Relative Native.

The Spell of the Sensuous by David Abram is a good book about animism and phenomenology, kind of using ideas from Western philosophers like Husserl and Merleau-Ponty to derive something compatible with non-western animistic ideas. He has another book called Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology that I wasn't into but might be a good intro for some people.

There's like this whole scene of books about "entanglements" and use words like "response-ability"; it's not a bad idea to read one of them but I don't think it's necessary to read all of them; my favorite was The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins by Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing. Donna Haraway has some books in this category that I know some people love but didn't do as much for me, admittedly possibly because of stuff I'd already read that was influenced by them. Here is also a good critique of these authors that I think preserves the positive while pointing out limitations: https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10180270.

Though only tangentially related to animism, Becoming Human: Matter and Meaning in an Antiblack World by Zakiyyah Iman Jackson is not only good on its own but I think is important to read if you're also reading stuff that focuses on distinction or non-distinction of human from non-human.

Pantheologies by Mary-Jane Rubenstein isn't specifically about animism but intersects with and includes it. I think just reading through the first chapter is worthwhile (the rest might be better for others but it drew heavily on stuff I'd already read). She also has a bunch of stuff on Youtube.

I dunno if she uses the word, but some of Gloria Anzaldúa's work intersects with it, e.g. Light in the Dark/Luz en lo Oscuro.

I am a big fan of Katherine Swancutt, she has written a lot of articles and done a lot of book editing; her book Fortune and the Cursed: The Sliding Scale of Time in Mongolian Divination is not really about animism per se but is a very good read.

Also not about animism, but a good thing to read for anyone interested in it, is The Invention of World Religions or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism by Tomoko Masuzawa.

This is probably getting overwhelming so I'm cutting myself off even though there's other stuff that I would list otherwise. This stuff is currently very popular and well-funded in academia which means they are actually fairly widely available, including as audiobooks, for those who prefer those.

66 notes · View notes

omegaphilosophia · 1 month

Text

Theories of the Philosophy of Expression

The philosophy of expression explores the nature, significance, and implications of human expression in various forms, including language, art, music, and body language. It delves into questions about the origins of expression, its relationship to identity, culture, and society, and its role in human communication and understanding. Additionally, it examines ethical and aesthetic considerations surrounding expression, as well as the philosophical frameworks that underpin different modes of expression.

The philosophy of expression encompasses various theories and perspectives that seek to understand the nature and significance of human expression. Some prominent theories include:

Mimetic Theory: This theory, proposed by Plato and Aristotle, suggests that art and expression imitate or reflect reality. It emphasizes the role of art in representing the natural world and conveying universal truths.

Expressivism: Expressivism posits that expression, particularly in language and art, serves as a means for individuals to express their inner thoughts, emotions, and experiences. It emphasizes the subjective and personal aspect of expression, focusing on the individual's unique perspective.

Semiotics: Semiotics, developed by Ferdinand de Saussure and Charles Peirce, explores the study of signs and symbols and their interpretation. It examines how meaning is conveyed through linguistic and non-linguistic signs, highlighting the role of context and cultural conventions in interpretation.

Pragmatism: Pragmatist philosophers like John Dewey emphasize the practical consequences of expression. They argue that expression serves a functional purpose in communication and problem-solving, shaping social interactions and facilitating collective action.

Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics focuses on the interpretation of texts and cultural artifacts, including literary works, religious texts, and artistic expressions. It examines the process of understanding and meaning-making, considering the role of context, tradition, and the interpreter's perspective.

Aesthetic Theory: Aesthetic theories, developed by philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Arthur Schopenhauer, explore the nature of beauty and artistic experience. They examine how aesthetic judgments are formed, the criteria for evaluating art, and the relationship between art and morality.

Phenomenology: Phenomenological approaches, as developed by Edmund Husserl and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, explore the lived experience of expression. They focus on the first-person perspective and the embodied nature of expression, examining how individuals perceive, interpret, and engage with the world through expression.

These theories offer diverse insights into the complexities of human expression, highlighting its multifaceted nature and its significance in shaping individual and collective experiences.

8 notes · View notes

all-eyes-lead-to-the-truth · 2 months

Text

All Eyes Lead to the Truth (4x14) | Memento Mori

They are referred to as alien-human hybrids. While scientifically correct, they don’t consider the title to be phenomenologically accurate. They are bound in this corporeal form, but possess no superhuman capabilities or powers to signify alien origin.

Down to the most minute cell, they are Kurt Crawford. They are the little boy who held his mother’s hand as they were taken from the El Rico Air Force Base in 1973. They are the innovation of men who weren’t satisfied with God’s plan and decided to make their own.

His existence is similar to a violinist who can play the second movement of Tchaichovsky’s Violin Concerto without missing a note, but who failed to imbue emotion into the song — the audience can recognize the tune, hum along to the melody, but they know deep down that there’s something not quite right.

Perhaps it’s because they were not of woman borne. There was never a mother to nurture them, only the replicas of other missing people. They never experienced what it was like to grow up or figure out their place in the world — they knew their mission the moment electricity lit up their synapses.

At least Dr. Frankenstein could see his creation was a crime against nature; even Mary Shelley couldn’t conjure the horror of a monster masquerading as a man. Perhaps the fact that the alien-human hybrids looked like the Syndicate’s loved ones is their punishment for defying the laws of science.

Regardless, the Crawfords’ pragmatism began to fade alongside the health of all the women who suffered just so they could exist. He knew some of the other series didn’t feel the same. The others thought this intervention in evolution was the key to a better world without considering who they would be making it better for.

Why bother with the betterment of humanity if there were no humans left?

John Locke always said that humans enter the world with a tabula rasa, that a person’s environment nurtures who they are to become. Jean-Jacques Rousseau contended that humans enter the world with a predestined morality, that people are innately good without interference.

But what about them? What is destined for a creature borne of fluid and test tubes, guided by the hands of cruel men?

But then again, it would be an insult to claim innocence in the grand scheme. The Gregor Series may have been evil when they cloned the DNA of defenseless children, but the Crawford Series was still using the genetic material harvested from the same project they sought to destroy. The ova from the MUFON women were an integral part in piecing together the genetic puzzle of who they were, but it didn’t make it any easier whenever they saw the women begin to deteriorate.

The list was getting longer by the day; Edna Cooper, Lottie Holloway, Betsy Hagopian, Penny Northern, soon to be —

“Scully.”

Kurt bowed his head and tried to pretend that their voices didn’t echo around the tiny apartment. For all the bravado Agent Scully was feigning, Agent Mulder matched her with unconcealed fear. This was one of the facets of humanity that made him feel alien. She was dying, and they were fighting. Earlier she had even said she was “fine” while blood poured out of her nose.

He saw death every day. Maybe not first hand, but every file referenced, every lead followed, and every medical chart the Crawfords looked at was laden with it. It seemed to him that wherever death tread, grief and despair were close behind. The losses of the MUFON group didn’t merely extend to the women who died, but the families left behind.

All of the Kurt Crawfords believed that was uniquely human: the desire to live one’s life in the company of others, to bond with others and care for each other. They wanted to believe their desires to protect the MUFON women was evidence that their existence meant something more. They wanted to exist outside the confines of what the Syndicate had planned for them.

But the Agents standing in front of him whispering with trembling breaths went against all he’d learned about human relationships. There were no hugs of reassurance or words of comfort, yet their gazes held an intimate yearning for each other that reached a depth Kurt couldn’t fathom.

Even as the woman rushed out of the apartment, sparing a sideways glance in the hallway mirror to check for dried blood, Agent Mulder’s eyes never left her. The moment the door shut, the man’s entire body seemed to deflate, his head bowing down as his shoulders curved inward. Agent Mulder raised his hand to his mouth and rubbed the short hairs growing across his skin.

Agent Mulder looked like he might vomit or start crying at a moment's notice, and it struck Kurt that maybe what he was witnessing was one of the most important elements of being human he hadn’t experienced yet.

Love.

Kurt couldn’t help but think it looked painful, but maybe that was the laws of equivalent exchange at work. He supposed someone could only feel such intense despair and profound loss because they’d known joy and contentment.

“How soon-“ Agent Mulder started, pausing to take a measured breath. “Do you know how long ago Penny found out about her cancer?”

“Within the past year,” Kurt replied, hoping the Agent would accept this answer so that he wouldn’t have to admit it had only been a couple of months.

The answer was grim nonetheless and they both knew it. Kurt could see Mulder tying to could every grain in the proverbial hourglass Scully had left, and he knew it would be a matter of time before he was crushed under the weight of the spent sand.

“Did Betsy have any files on Scully at her place?”

Kurt knew she didn’t, not really, but he could tell Mulder needed to feel like there was something he could do to help her. So Kurt did the most human thing of all.

“I think she did.”

Read the rest of All Eyes Lead to the Truth on Archive of Our Own!

@gaycrouton

#all eyes lead to the truth #x files #fanfic #x files fanfic #kurt crawford #memento mori #4x14 #cancer arc #mulder #scully #msr

6 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 1 year

Text

Gender reality is performative which means, quite simply, that it is real only to the extent that it is performed.

-- Judith Butler, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory”

This doing of gender is not merely a way in which embodied agents are exterior, surfaced, open to the perception of others. Embodiment clearly manifests a set of strategies or what Sartre would perhaps have called a style of being or Foucault, "a stylistics of existence." This style is never fully self-styled, for living styles have a history, and that history conditions and limits possibilities. Consider gender, for instance, as a corporeal style, an 'act,' as it were, which is both intentional and performative, where 'performative' itself carries the double-meaning of 'dramatic' and 'non-referential.' When Beauvoir claims that 'woman' is a historical idea and not a natural fact, she clearly underscores the distinction between sex, as biological facticity, and gender, as the cultural interpretation or signification of that facticity. To be female is, according to that distinction, a facticity which has no meaning, but to be a woman is to have become a woman, to compel the body to conform to an historical idea of 'woman,' to induce the body to become a cultural sign, to materialize oneself in obedience to an historically delimited possibility, and to do this as a sustained and repeated corporeal project. -- Judith Butler, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory”

Queer theory functions to complicate existing academic frameworks, and conceptions of social relations, by deconstructing the dominant, heteronormative structures undergirding extant scholarship (Marinucci, 2010). One theoretical strategy relies on an insistence on the social construction of gender and sexuality (see Butler, 1990). Theories of social construction claim that human identities are not inherent or essential (that is, having an essence), but rather emerge out of social relations and discourse. In Butler’s (1990) work, she understands gender as produced through repetitive practices of personal and social practices. In other words, one’s gender does not exist a priori discourse, but instead is constructed by characteristics and experiences. At the base of social constructionist theories is the assumption that, since identities are constructed, they can always be constructed otherwise.

Queer theory also offers the opportunity to rethink or reimagine normative or dominant discourse “queerly.” Intellectual labor of this sort requires scholars to transpose queer ideas of identity formation and social relations to texts that might otherwise be taken for granted as part of the dominant sex-gender-sexuality matrix. For instance, one might imagine that two women in a mainstream magazine advertisement are lovers and then consider the social and political import of such a reading. Or one might “read” texts through a queer lens, as illustrated by Alexander Doty in Making Things Perfectly Queer (1993), which allows scholars to offer a queer “corrective” to mainstream interpretations of media culture. One could also read historical discourse queerly, as Chuck Morris (2007) and others do in Queering Public Address, an intellectual strategy that allows us to imagine a queer past.

One of queer theory’s strengths is its explicitly political character. Drawing on its roots in feminist intellectual projects, queer theory attempts to bridge the gap between the academy and the populations being theorized (Beemyn & Eliason, 1996). Because queer theory functions to complicate and challenge heteronormativity, it is situated in opposition to many oppressive practices (sexism, homophobia, etc.). Queer theory thus has the potential to undermine systematic domination by deconstructing the practices that lead to oppression. Scholars and activists (these identities frequently overlap within the realm of queer studies) often find that queer theory and the process of deconstruction is a productive way to rethink identity and to rework social relations. In its ideal manifestation, queer theory is also a form of queer practice.

-- Sherwood Thompson, "Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice" (TOR)

Gender dysphoria (Gender Identity Disorder) is not required; this isn't about alleviating distress.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms

Transgender | An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or expression is different from cultural expectations based on the sex they were assigned at birth.

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/exposed-gender-workshop-for-parents

Question: Do you need to have gender dysphoria to be trans?

Kyle responds, “Absolutely not, no. Not every person is going to experience dysphoria, or sometimes it might develop, or it might come and go like a little annoying house guest.” Kyle then says “You don’t need to have anything to be trans besides the knowledge or the feeling that you’re trans.”

No form of transitioning - literally the trans in trans- is required.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms

Transitioning | A series of processes that some transgender people may undergo in order to live more fully as their true gender. [..] Transgender people may choose to undergo some, all or none of these processes.

Note: Queer Theory says that there can be no such thing as a "true gender," as it's performative and socially constructed, not innate; something you do, not something you are or have.

This isn't a civil rights movement, it's a political ideology that denies objective, material reality in order to undermine and dismantle it. Because trans experience is defined by biology, this denial of all things anchored in reality - including psychology and neurology - means it's as much anti-trans as it is anti-everything-else, while wearing the mask of trans people, Face/Off-style, and pretending to be the real thing.

The human rights issue issue at hand is the damage it's doing to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transsexuals, those with intersex (DSD) conditions, women, children - especially those who are NGC, autistic, gay, or have self-esteem or body issues, and therefore vulnerable - and yes, men and heterosexuals too, as objective reality itself becomes unspeakable.

#Aaron Kimberly #queer theory #feminist theory #western feminism #political movement #identity politics #transsexual #transsexual not transgender #gender cult #gender performativity

40 notes · View notes

motivesworld · 7 months

Text

The Best Books to Read About Philosophy

When it comes to the vast expanse of human knowledge, few realms hold the same level of intrigue and contemplation as philosophy. The study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, ethics, and reality has been a cornerstone of intellectual exploration for centuries. As avid seekers of wisdom, we are committed to providing you with a curated list of the best books to read about philosophy. Dive into these literary treasures to embark on a profound journey of philosophical enlightenment.

1. Meditations by Marcus Aurelius:

Our first foray into the world of philosophical literature takes us to the thoughts of Marcus Aurelius, a Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher. “Meditations” is a collection of his personal writings, offering profound insights into Stoicism and the art of living a virtuous life.

2. Sophie’s World by Jostein Gaarder:

For those new to philosophy or seeking an engaging introduction to the subject, “Sophie’s World” is a masterpiece. This novel weaves a captivating narrative while exploring the history of philosophy, making complex ideas accessible to all readers.

3. The Republic by Plato:

Delving into the core of political philosophy, Plato’s “The Republic” examines the ideal society and the concept of justice. It remains a foundational work that continues to shape modern political thought.

4. The Stranger by Albert Camus:

Existentialism takes center stage in Albert Camus’ “The Stranger.” This thought-provoking novel challenges conventional notions of morality and the absurdity of human existence.

5. Being and Time by Martin Heidegger:

Prepare to engage in a deep philosophical dive with Martin Heidegger’s “Being and Time.” This monumental work explores the nature of being and existence, influencing existentialist thought and phenomenology.

6. Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant:

Immanuel Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” is a cornerstone of modern philosophy. It examines the nature of human knowledge and the limits of reason, paving the way for critical philosophy.

7. Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche:

Nietzsche’s provocative and often controversial work, “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” delves into themes of nihilism, the will to power, and the Übermensch (Overman).

8. The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff:

In a delightful fusion of Eastern philosophy and Winnie the Pooh, Benjamin Hoff’s “The Tao of Pooh” introduces readers to Taoism and mindfulness in an accessible and charming manner.

9. A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell:

For an expansive overview of Western philosophical thought, Bertrand Russell’s “A History of Western Philosophy” is an indispensable resource. It traces the evolution of philosophical ideas from the Pre-Socratic philosophers to the 20th century.

10. The Art of War by Sun Tzu:

While primarily known for its strategic insights, “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu has profound philosophical underpinnings. It explores the nature of conflict, leadership, and the art of diplomacy.

Conclusion:

As dedicated purveyors of knowledge and wisdom, we invite you to embark on a philosophical odyssey through these remarkable books. Whether you’re a seasoned philosopher or a newcomer to the world of profound thought, these works will undoubtedly leave an indelible mark on your intellectual journey.

Remember, the pursuit of philosophy is not merely an academic endeavor; it’s a voyage into the depths of human consciousness and the exploration of the fundamental questions that define our existence.

#books & libraries #best books #must read #philosophy books

8 notes · View notes

wordsinhaled · 2 years

Note

I've been thinking about what things had been like for Dream - who is at that point a stubborn teenager in spirit - for what, how many thousands of years before Death decided that Dream needed to touch grass? It sounds like it's his first time really being among people in the waking world, so from his perspective? People are just ghosts who flit in and out of his realm to be entertained (or frightened or inspired) for a little bit. And if you've never been there among them, you can only really base what you create on what is brought to you, which is like a painter only owning one brush and two paints. It sounds so incredibly depressing. And then in comes Hob.

anon, i don't know if you're the same person who sent me an ask a couple of days ago about dream the eldritch being shepherding the collective unconscious? - if you are, i like the way you think (and if not then whoever sent that is excellent as well!)

i think it's interesting to think of how dream understands humanity through dreams. it's almost like—he'd have to understand things he gleans from people's dreams as though it's a big game of telephone in a way? i mean, dreams are so rarely straightforward and have so much symbology, it'd be like learning an echo of the concept of something based on the way the dreamer's dream distorted their experience of life

like, you can't count on anything in a dream being accurate. you could dream of eating a biscuit, but would it taste the same or have the same texture as it does when you're awake? would it have the same purpose and make you feel the same?

so i think he understands or has encountered a lot of things, but often really theoretically, and in practice, in the waking world, things are a lot more tangible and solid, so it's a lot to adjust to. but at the same time i think he'd also absolutely have to have a really great understanding of the purpose of the symbols and the echoes in people's dreams and how they inform the subconscious, so that he can guide the dreamers toward processing and actualization

i think hob would really bring that immediacy for dream, that love and joy at being-in-the-world, inhabiting life in all its minutiae type of experiencing

and i also have a lot of thoughts about how after dream starts being in the world more thanks to hob, dream probably really vibes with sartre's brand of existentialism and phenomenology and also sartre's squeamishness about how visceral experiencing the world is

#the sandman #dreamling

57 notes · View notes

endworldbroadcast · 24 days

Text

LONELYPOSTING #N

Read through this study on loneliness that concludes emotional loneliness [ perceived lack of intimate figures/relationships ], as opposed to social loneliness [ perceived lack of belonging to a broader community ] or existential loneliness [ a more abstract preoccupation with how humans are 'fundamentally alone' ] is what most closely represents what people mean when they report to feeling 'lonely'.

Emotional and social loneliness are typically regarded as the 'basic' forms of loneliness so existential loneliness is not often discussed [ and, when it is, it's often distinguished from the former two due to its more abstract nature, potential positive effects (means of finding 'strength in being solitary') and that unlike the first two which are externally imposed, this one internally arises ]. To quote:

Existential loneliness differs from social and emotional loneliness in two ways. First, social and emotional loneliness are associated with a lack of meaningful social relationships and a lack of social companionship. Existential loneliness is the result of a broader separation related to the nature of existence and, in particular, a lack of meaning in life. An individual may be in the company of others but experience existential loneliness (Larsson et al., 2019). Second, social and emotional loneliness can be overcome by improving the quality of the network of relationships or by adjusting the level of aspiration (Rook & Peplau, 1982). Existential loneliness, on the other hand, has no permanent remedy according to the phenomenological approach (Mayers & Svartberg, 2001).

The idea that loneliness is most directly associated with the emotional dimension tracks [ source: the infinite fountain of wisdom that is my mind ]. There's no dearth in thinkpieces and not-so-veiled-calls-for-help bloge postes regarding the feeling of 'being alone even with other people,' so I suppose it follows that not being sharply rejected by the community one is in (fulfilling the social dimension) is not satisfactory in curbing the loneliness of having nobody particularly close to you; I'd argue it may be, in some cases, aggravative of (emotional) loneliness, because it resembles neglect.

It's something I often think about in discussions of the etiology and pathogenesis of schizoid personality disorder (and to an extent the similar avoidant personality disorder, I think): the terrible crisis of being unwanted when paired with the fact that you're not particularly despised. Loneliness defined as an internal experience, and thus a perceived discrepancy between the intimacy one receives and the intimacy one desires is an important thing to recognise because it validates the negative consequences of this form of 'neglect'.

That is to say, in the absence of explicit rejection from your peers, or even in the face of genuine (but passive and ineffectual) 'love', the lack of intimacy then seems irrational. One feels there is nothing to 'complain' about and struggles to find a discrete factor to pinpoint the dissatisfaction to, in a sort of 'others have it worse' mindset where to vocally express the hypocrisy and superficiality one experiences from love (brought about by the societal associates we have of it[1]) feels like an act of selfish entitlement. The inability to reconcile this contradiction, especially as a child, I feel is the main 'trigger' to these conditions.

Well, anyway, now I wonder if the dimensions of loneliness could potentially vary across populations with certain conditions. Existential angst is a noted feature among schizoids (et al) after all, and one I would argue is a key feature of schizospectral/'schizotaxic' conditions as a whole as a result of Self-Other Differentiation/Integration difficulties. Even giving a quick glance at the items in the scale[2], I find the items representing existential loneliness more 'evocative' of my experiences. Of course, a sample size of one is not at all reliable, but it's still an interesting consideration for potential study.

... anyway, this isn't actually what I was going to talk about at first. This was (supposedly) preliminary context to me talking about the correlation between loneliness and perceptions of family experiences among schizophrenics, of which I will introduce with this funny line:

There is no clear evidence that schizophrenia directly causes negative perceptions on family life experiences.

A-ha! Ahahahah! Yes, sure, like are we certain the Pope is Catholic? Come on now. This isn't a legitimate criticism on this paper, which has actual reasons for making claims like these [ Much of what seems like 'common sense' without the need for empirical evidence is confirmation bias after all, so studies like this still matter ]. It's just hilarious from a personal point of view. It's the whole 'you'd know if you just asked [a person who actually experiences this firsthand]' sort of matter.

Anyway, short segue:

The inherited trait-like vulnerability to the disease is risky if the individual is exposed to environmental stressors like negative family life experiences in childhood through adulthood. If the trait-like vulnerability is high, even very little stress may be enough to develop the disorder and control its course.

Many such cases. I'm always saying this. etc. etc. It's not related to my current topic[3] of 'loneliness' but I always find it affirming to see it stated by others that stressors that may not immediately appear as 'stressors' can be aggravating, especially in this climate that focuses so much on mental pathology as being caused by capital-T trauma (somewhat related to what I say in [1]).

Anyway, back on track, the study is relatively straightforward with the conclusions being just about what I expected, but here are some salient points in bullet form:

Notably, the most common traumatic experience to which loneliness was attributed to is the loss/death of a family member, with some participants specifically noting grandparents due to being raised by them in the absence of parents. I wasn't expecting this exactly, but thinking it over it makes sense. The paper goes on to acknowledge the cultural context of Filipino family dynamics, and I found this paragraph interesting:

It is quite an irony to see in a Filipino child-centered family that children experience more traumatic interactions with their parents. Children are even viewed as a source of joy and entertainment in a Filipino family. Some parents could even feel that the presence of children challenges their own character and make them more responsible (Bulatao, 1978). It is in this Filipino family context that the participants of this study attributed the second predominant cause of their loneliness to the criticism and scolding of parents from childhood through adulthood. A cold home environment, fighting family atmosphere, and lack of love of parents could also be added...

An additional topic on the disenfranchisement of children could be discussed here, especially in regards to the collectivist, conservative culture of the Philippines where children are normally treated like parental 'mini-me's' where violent acts of 'discipline' are seen as normal and even ideal, though I suppose that's a little bit too off-track for now so I'll ruminate on the matter another time.

That aside, there's this bit which I feel draws from the same conclusion as the other study:

Naturally, one must have expected that the higher the level of loneliness, the greater the attribution of lack of social support as cause of loneliness. It may be noted that an interesting finding of this study regarding the perceptions of lack of support is that not many participants attributed inadequate social support and separation from loved ones as causes of loneliness.

The paper goes on to contextualise it once more within Filipino family dynamics where there's a higher tendency to be 'tight-knit', and attributes this to even lonely people engaging in interactions that are already present/'naturally occurring' such as within the family. Within the context of schizospectral conditions, I suppose it checks out that schizoids, schizotypals and schizophrenics are often said to have no/few close relationships 'except for family'.

That aside, I think this bit relates once more to what I said re:emotional loneliness: that being physically 'accepted' within a community is not particularly ameliorative of a lack of interpersonal intimacy. Indeed, I'd argue that the reports of cold, dismissive and neglectful families in this study makes it so that their presence might make loneliness more pronounced to begin with.

While childhood abuse is noted in a significant number of the participants, it is notable to me that the primary description for parental figures rests on passive neglect and not active abuse: 'cold, distant, nonnurturing, remote, punishing, absent, and lacking in warmth and emotional support to their loneliness.' Marital conflicts and a cold home environment take precedence over direct physical/sexual abuse. I think studies like these really do highlight the more mainstream conceptions of mental pathology as a result of 'louder' forms of trauma and abuse, as opposed to being adaptations to a broader set of non-ideal circumstances, even (or especially) when those circumstances are deemed 'normal'.

... which sort of makes me critical of how the limitations of the study were worded. I'm not particularly ticked off by this, but the paper does make concessions to the respondents 'exaggerating' or 'misinterpreting' family experiences to be 'worse' than they are. I understand the sentiment and all but it does make me think of that thing I said the other day regarding the distinctions between 'objective' psychiatric studies that centre the perspective of the researchers and treat respondents almost as if they exist within the context of clinical studies alone, and that of phenomenological descriptions of internal qualitative experience. I understand this surpasses the scope of the study, but I do think research ought to delve more into how feeling something is 'a big deal' is in and of itself a significant factor to consider in assessing how mentally ill people cope with their circumstances, regardless of whether the event is externally viewed by onlookers as 'a big deal'.

WEAK ATTEMPT AT DISTILLATION

When you're mentally ill, it makes your family critical and cold towards you so even if they support you physically/financially you still feel alienated and lonely. But of course.

Loneliness is most often attributed to an emotional dimension ie a lack of intimate/close relationships even in the presence of generic 'acceptance' among your peers/community.

Whether existential loneliness (abstract notions of 'life having meaning' and the nature of humans being 'fundamentally alone') may be stronger and more representative of loneliness than emotional loneliness in certain populations (thinking about schizoids and to an extent other schizospectral/schizotaxic conditions here) is a potential hypothesis somebody out there should test eventually probably.

I think schizoids and avoidants (et al) are more sensitive to and have more difficulty reconciling the discrepancies on societal expectations/presentations of love in our amatonormative and alloromantic-centric society. Explicitly, 'love' may be discussed as freely-given virtues and actions and not just as an internal experience, and because of the expectation that you should 'want' love but not 'ask' for it, there's this sort of limbic state of existence that the emotionally neglected live in where their dissatisfaction is treated as a feature of their insatiability and not the actual quality of their relationships.

This is further aggravated by the fact neglect or a lack of intimacy is often not seen as important or aggravating as 'abuse' and therefore conventionally people do not tend to make distinctions between feeling 'hated' and 'unwanted', with the latter group being seen as 'exaggerating' their loneliness if they do not appear to belong to the former: one only has the right to be lonely (and barely so) if they are actively persecuted, and people who are for the most part 'accepted' in their communities but lack meaningful relationships may not immediately recognise or may even deny the depth of how much... it... actually... hurts.

ANNOTATIONS

[1] To elucidate what I mean here: in our amatonormative [ a Big Word! Scary! Wah! ] society, 'love' is seen as distinct from other emotions, equated to being both a virtue and an action (as opposed to being 'just' an internal experience). There's a tendency for people, in a bid to present themselves as good, to then associate themselves with 'love', and to express certain popular sentiments surrounding it without an actual innate desire to manifest these sentiments.

It's difficult for me to articulate, but to give an example that hopefully makes my point clearer, see: the phenomenon where people will call loose acquaintances 'friends' and publicly (such as on social media) talk about 'friendship' as a tight bond requiring commitment, promoting sentiments like 'Check up on your friends!' etc. Depending on such people's social spheres, you may even find more progressive ideas a la 'Friendship isn't lesser than romance!'

And yet, in practice, how much these people devote to their friends is limited, with it being common to barely keep in contact with some 'friends' and being unaware of major events in their life.

This isn't a moral judgement nor a call to action per se: I don't think it's unreasonable to only have the resources to really keep in touch with a select handful of people. However, what I am gesturing to here is the discrepancy between publicly expressed ideals of what 'friendship' is, especially among people who claim not to see it as lesser than 'romance', while also throwing around claims of 'friendship' towards anybody they are on good terms with [ or, perhaps more accurately, have yet to find a reason to be on bad terms with... lol ].

People would find it stupid on the face if you say you are 'dating' or 'in a romantic relationship' with somebody you don't really interact with a lot: I think this alone makes it clear that even people who profess not to make amatonormative/alloromantic-centred judgements between 'romantic' and 'platonic' love do not actually internalise this 'equality' in any meaningful way.

Anyway, with all this in mind, because it is socioculturally accepted to explicitly say that friendship is something deep, encompassing and full of commitment without actually needing to express this depth of emotion, but that this would be considered more unacceptable for romance, there's a more pervasing subtext that dissatisfaction with 'friendship' is abnormal and entitled.

[2] The items are in the study, but for quick reference:

Existential loneliness in relationships

I am surrounded by strangers I cannot connect with

I feel I have people I can trust and rely on if I need them

I stay in bad relationships too long in order not to be alone

I mean something to others

Important relationships have ended or become weaker

No one else in the world can understand my feelings

My world seems so different from everyone else's

Existential loneliness: meaninglessness in life

I am happy with the way I have lived my life

There is a purpose to my life

I feel helpless

I feel at the mercy of the world

I feel dead

The universe is full of meaning

I feel that there is little point to life

It is worth noting that existential loneliness is split into two here, and that whether perceived 'meaninglessness in life' can really be considered as part of the construct of 'loneliness' or whether it ought be seen as a distinct life experience is a consideration to be had, although this particularly study did not find the different dimensions distinguishable enough to consider them standalone phenomena.

[3] Insofar that I pretend to have a 'topic' to this poste when in reality I'm live-reacting to two random studies in incoherent stream-of-consciousness blogeing.

#d #schizoid tag #schizotypal tag #lovelessness #schizotaxic #schizoposting #me back on that loneliness grind #sorry I know my horrifically long and mundane thoughts are uninteresting but alas #it is my nature and perhaps my essence if one may be inclined to say so

5 notes · View notes

onewomancitadel · 29 days

Text

Ok I finished reading Annie Bot by Sierra Greer. Have that usual sickly, sticky feeling after reading sci-fi. We do this for fun!

Spoilers follow, do go read it if you're interested, I think it explores the gynoid archetype in an interesting way. I won't be too specific though.

I'll probably end up thinking about it more later (I made a post and deleted it when I was about a little less than a quarter of the way through) but I think what's interesting about it is that there's this self-consciousness to the prose, which is very common in a lot of new books I've read, that feels strangely counterthetical to Annie's growing perception of herself, almost intrusive, which grows literal by the time the therapese - not even really psychonanalytic awareness, but the impersonality of pop psychology - enters the story literally with the psychologist figure. At that point I thought it would've - or perhaps it did indeed aim to - tease out the farce of psychotherapy in an abusive relationship, with an ostensibly non-person robot - like would you do therapy with a toaster? - and maybe it does interact with the gendered nature of relationship counselling ('how to please the man and cow the woman'), although it did just narratively drag - I think the intentions with the therapy in the story were more didactic than I'd like, and that's sort of what I mean about the narrative self-consciousness.

The strangest thing about robots developing awareness (and the allegory it serves for humans) is that rarely if ever have I seen this alienness portrayed in a way which - the word here isn't believable, not immersive - but something which feels truly alien. In a lot of cases, potentially even this one, it's with the intention of drawing out the allegory to humans, in this case a woman. I have documented opinions about allegory.

This isn't a proper review, not by any means, but just a collection of remarks, and it's interesting how at once some of the human characters feel real yet at the same time psychologically uninteresting, bar for Cody; I think this was probably intentional and so I think it was successful. I think what was especially successful were the concessions Annie made for her surrounding environment and owner, and it went places which are real but where a lot of authors, especially anxious feminist authors, might not want to go. But that's her life.

I'm still not fully with the metaphysics, nor am I ever really 100% on board about the depiction of artificial intelligence in science fiction, nor its phenomenology, but in this case I think that the allegory almost always ends up superseding a literal depiction of sentient AI, and I can see exactly what it was trying to do. But I think probably one of my favourite bits is the invented memory of Annie touching the fabric bolts. And the lake. It's very good.

One thing that occurred to me as well with the ending is that Annie's freedom is contingent upon being released to that freedom by her human owner, which is not only a gendered dynamic but a racial one, given that she is a Black woman enslaved by a white man. It's the seeming injustice and backwardness of freedom - Annie terms it as something she won, in a power-play - and it's something that seems to implicitly predominate anti-Black and antifeminist politics: we gave you [emancipation/voting rights/birth control/right to work/right to own a bank account/right to buy a house/abortion/right to intermarry/right to marry/right to divorce], and we can just as easily take it back (in some cases they will - in the US with abortion, for instance, with a threat of divorce and birth control, or the Gambia is currently making a bid to roll back the outlaw on FGM). It's troubling to meditate on. I think that was a good move, because it makes the ending feel a little more bittersweet. You have a good owner, she's told over and over again.

#do I have a reading log #I tend to just ruminate to myself

2 notes · View notes

blrowanducks-blog · 9 months

Text

Guhyasamaja Tantra (52)

An introduction to blessing the mind of the emanation body.

The only place of becoming divine that is accessible to us is the human heart, where we will place a blue hum syllable as a true part of this transcendent process itself.

THE VISIONARY apparitions from the limbic state with which awareness is confronted are often of a fascinating and terrifying, unattractive form. As numinous figures they contain within themselves the most extreme antinomies of meaning and seem to be unbridgeable manifestations of polarity (duality) itself. Yet in this extreme polar opposition they are only various manifestations of the same phenomenon, namely, human awareness. They appear with such a forceful and convincing effect in psychic reality that it is impossible to overlook them or to rationalize them away.

We must always bear in mind that in all phenomenological reality the deities are not gods in the traditional sense. They are not to be relegated to any heavenly or underworldly realms of spatial dimensions, nor are they mythological figures that are supposed to fulfill a mythological or soteriological purpose. Morever, these visions are not to be understood as the forms of emanation of a god or of his/her hierarchical order. They are also not a theophany (God Manifest) but a psychic reality, a primordial imaginal manifestation of 'numinous' powers, which occur as images in the inner space of human awareness and also out from these mental states as projections unto sensory experiences. Therefore they are called "illusory images of one's own mind," or "illusory" figures, or even "visions." Even as such, visionary deities of one's own mind, they yet have the character of a psychic reality. The deities of these visions are an intrapsychic occurrence, represented by archetypal symbols within religious traditions, which were practically proven as spiritual realities. Within Buddhism in particular, the five Tathāgatas (Dhyana Buddhas) are primordial images of the corresponding wisdoms, of Buddhist virtues, of cosmological and psychological relationships which were brought together in the five skandhas of the human personality.

The deities of the collective also appear as a reply to karma, the self-perpetuated and personal fate of the individual, and so they become in the image of the personal situation of awareness on the path towards karmically conditioned becoming. To make connections with mythology would from this point of view miss the true point. The deities are not mythological and therefore occupy a special place in the pantheon of the deities of Buddhism, since they are attributed no reality for earthly existence. This is specifically true of the wrathful deities, who are hardly shown in representations of the pantheon.

All deities are manifestations of a "combination of radiance and emptiness"; they come "from the realm of pure self-nature" and appear "in the sphere of the precious mind," the experience of 'death' 'turning around in the root of the mind' in which the clear primordial light has first been illuminated "in the boundless mind." is found in the Tibetan meditation texts as a map to this realm.

All visionary deities appear on a lotus in a posture (S. asana) of sitting, standing, or moving. The lotus (S. padma) is a symbol of heavenly ecstasy, an unearthly throne, a symbol of unfolding from the cakras and from the center of awareness, and its purpose is to establish in the mind a heavenly throne for the deities. The lotus signifies that the deities have overcome the cycle of suffering in samsara and are far from the world of suffering. The peaceful buddhas and bodhisattvas appear on a lotus-moon throne of the heart mandala, and the wrathful deities appear on a lotus-sun throne of the forehead mandala. The peaceful deities radiate in the five elemental colors, and the wrathful deities stand in a blazing aureole of flames. Two ancient symbolic relationships with Indian Yoga are evident in this, namely the cosmologically related sun-and-moon significance of the deities and of the psychic powers in man himself. This doctrine plays an important role in the practice of Kundalini Yoga and in the Tantras for the representation of esoteric polarity-symbolism.

10 notes · View notes