When I was a teenager growing up in Oshawa, I didn't really think of myself as overly privileged. I was, but I didn't really know that I was. My mom, living as a single mother, worked her ass off as a teacher to make sure we had the things we needed, and often the things we wanted. We were an odd family because people didn't normally divorce in 1982, but other than that, we were primarily a pretty standard middle-class family at the time.
Lots of people had more than we did, but we were comfortable. What I didn't realise was that this was not a privilege.
Over the last week, I've been thinking a lot about my various interactions with the police during my youth. I once had a cop catch me J-waking and he gave us a little scare, but we didn't even come out of it with a ticket.
The one that sticks the most, though, is that a friend and I were stopped by police in South Oshawa (there was a recording studio down there where my guitar teacher was working). The cruiser pulled right up on the sidewalk to cut us off. He made us empty our pockets onto the hood of his car and we got a lecture about the firecrackers we had (which were not legal at the time) and he confiscated them.
Apparently, we'd matched a description wearing the standard metal-head uniform of the day, and he was just making sure we weren't the suspects for whom he was looking. It was all fairly polite, cordial, and honestly, not that big a deal, except that he took my firecrackers.
What he didn't do was arrest me for having contraband. He didn't handcuff me. He didn't pull a gun, or put me on the ground, or hold me down by a knee to my throat. It wouldn't have even occurred to either of us that such actions would have even been possible.
All he did was take my firecrackers and tell us to stay out of trouble before he drove off.
THAT is what White Privilege is all about. Had we been two black teenagers with contraband I now know that the experience would have been very different indeed. Back then I had no way of knowing how vastly different my experiences of the police were vs those of People of Colour.
This is why I get angry when people respond with hostility to the words "White Privilege." Maybe you don't feel all that privileged. Maybe your family struggled. Maybe things weren't easy. What you don't know is how much harder, exponentially harder, it would have been if you hadn't been white.
I've been thinking a lot about that inequity, so much so that the words of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the US Constitution, seem utterly hollow, utterly worthless, because if anything we DON'T have the equity, equality, and universal respect for each other that those documents claim are cornerstones of our respective nations.
We're not equal under the law, or in society, so it is vital for all of us to become allies of human equity. The Internet Age has given a voice to those who have traditionally been without one. Everyone has a TV studio in their pockets now and free forums by which to share those videos. You cannot claim ignorance. So you have to either declare yourself an ally, or continue to be part of the problem.
Frater SG's Diary
Frater SG has been an initiate since 1991. Here he discusses more personal aspects of his spiritual and magical journey.
Wednesday, June 3, 2020
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
It took hours...
It took hours in that room,
To die.
I knew it was coming. I could feel the swelling in my throat growing, slowly, but steadily.
I told the nurses, but they said I was fine,
the new medication would work in time.
But it didn't.
I kept ringing the bell, squeezing the button in vain, in desperation, but my voice had already gone. The speaker would crackle, but they couldn't hear me
...calling for help...
Alone in that room, it took me hours to die.
Rasping breath rattling, hunching and stretching to force air through tortured tubes.
Only then did they hear.
Only as my laboured breathing echoed down the hallway, fighting to life, gasping to live...
...did they hear me.
Fighting for consciousness they tried tests, they tried everything, desperate to catch me only after I'd fallen so far. Only when they were little more than impressions and images flashing into consciousness did they come.
Still, I was alone.
Just Death and I.
Everyone else but a dream seeping into my darkness.
It took me hours to die...
...and the whole time...
...I was alone.
To die.
I knew it was coming. I could feel the swelling in my throat growing, slowly, but steadily.
I told the nurses, but they said I was fine,
the new medication would work in time.
But it didn't.
I kept ringing the bell, squeezing the button in vain, in desperation, but my voice had already gone. The speaker would crackle, but they couldn't hear me
...calling for help...
Alone in that room, it took me hours to die.
Rasping breath rattling, hunching and stretching to force air through tortured tubes.
Only then did they hear.
Only as my laboured breathing echoed down the hallway, fighting to life, gasping to live...
...did they hear me.
Fighting for consciousness they tried tests, they tried everything, desperate to catch me only after I'd fallen so far. Only when they were little more than impressions and images flashing into consciousness did they come.
Still, I was alone.
Just Death and I.
Everyone else but a dream seeping into my darkness.
It took me hours to die...
...and the whole time...
...I was alone.
Thursday, February 14, 2019
Attacks on Traditional Masculinity
Over the last few weeks, people have been exploding over the new APA guidelines for treating boys and men. At the cornerstone of their vitriol is the idea that the "Ideology of Traditional Masculinity" is somehow at fault for many of our modern ills. They seem to think that our idea of masculinity is "natural" and that somehow it hasn't been controlled or evolved over time.
It is my opinion that "traditional masculinity" is, in fact, the masculinity of the 20th Century. The usage of the word ideology is not hyperbole but is used advisedly in this context. It is an ideal vision of manliness which was fabricated through the use of mass media and propaganda. The decisions that went into its formation were conscious on some level, and we've suffered the unforeseen consequences.
Of course, if you happen to be a man who has grown up to believe that all men must be competitive, aggressive, stoic, and dominant, you're also not prone to self-reflection. This is the kind of person who will argue a position long after it's been proven that he is wrong. He cannot accept that kind of threat to his dominance. Yet this has been trained into him, and he is continually fearful of losing social position. The words "I stand corrected" are not allowed in his vocabulary. As such, no words can possibly reach him. I write for those who are not so set in their ways, or who are looking for reasons why and how we got here.
British General Staff General Routine Order 2384 of June 1917 stated that "in no circumstances whatever will the expression "shell shock" be used verbally or be recorded in any regimental or other casualty report, or any hospital or other medical document." You see, "shell shock" could not be a diagnosis. The nervous individual was obviously too weak for combat in the first place. This was not a wound on the psyche, but rather a sign of personal weakness which was intolerable in a fighting man.
The white feather movement further shamed individuals who were not of the "appropriate type," basically any man of fighting age who was not currently in France dying in a trench. The two combined created the foundations for our ideal Manly Man, out fighting Gerry across the channel.
In Germany, they treated such "weak men" with electro-shock therapy rather than simply shaming them out of the military and leaving them without pension or support.
World War II was very much an extension of World War I, being the direct result of the Treaty of Versailles. By then we had developed film and radio beyond simple news reporting and were telling stories to the masses... stories about manly men, unshakable men, strong, competitive, unflappable, stoic, aggressive, sexually virile men. They showed the population a manly ideal, a man that always won out against incredible odds, and always, always, got the girl at the end of the story. This was not just story-telling and entertainment, they were inspiring young men to become war material.
As WWII wound down and the Cold War wound up, our ability to tell these stories became more robust. War films and Westerns remained popular giving rise to manly icons such as Justus Barnes, John Wayne, and Clint Eastwood. Action films maintained the theme well beyond and into the present day with manly men like Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chuck Norris, and Mel Gibson. Each one depicting a type of masculinity far removed from the Renaissance Men of previous centuries. The ideal of the gentleman was replaced with the new ideal of the pugnacious, uncompromising action hero.
This ideology was especially attractive to men returning from war to discover that women had taken over their factory jobs. Media again worked to put them back in their place as home-makers, while technology stole from them any value that had been placed on home-making as a pursuit. Automatic washers, vaccuum cleaners, cookers, etc... meant that the full-time job of keeping a household was eroded freeing up "women's work" to the point that men no longer valued the efforts involved. No longer was beating the carpets a full day's work, just a quick go around with the Hoover and it's done!
Full-time education of children further opened up their day, and so when women started looking for meaningful employment, men had to crack down. After all, they were being told by movies and television what a REAL MAN was all about, and that didn't include letting his wife work. That would question his prowess as a breadwinner!
Feminism erupted, demanding equal rights, equal treatment, equal respect, and to be equally valued. If women get equal respect, then what kind of trophy is the man supposed to get at the end of his heroic narrative? If you work hard enough to be the manly man depicted on the screen, then you deserve to be rewarded with the beautiful woman, right? Not an independent person with their own ideas, goals, thoughts, and employment.
We're in the midst of a major backlash where some of us realize that the ideology of twentieth-century masculinity is the result of political propaganda (remember that if a filmmaker deviated from the standard narrative McCarthy would brand them a Communist). We've outgrown that dark time in our history, but the narratives remain. We continue to tell the same old stories without teaching enough media literacy to analyze them within their historical context.
We need to realize that it is not the nature of man to be aggressive, stoic, and dominant. Men's Rights Advocates point to the mighty lion or other animals, not realizing that in the pride, the male is kept for breeding and everything is actually done by the females. From horses to wolves it is the head female who runs the show, not the male. Men compare themselves to "alphas" and "top dogs" but fail to realize that the top dog in a pack is a bitch.
This template for masculinity has been taught to us through society and the media. During the process of individuation, we repress those traits which we're told are inappropriate to our sex. In men, we repress what society tells us is "too feminine" and so create the Anima. In women, they repress anything that is considered too masculine into the Animus. It is entirely a question of nurture, not nature. Certainly, testosterone plays a role, but so does civilization and society.
At school, I had a rival. Not someone I hated, no someone I fought against. Instead, we worked to out-do one another. There was no prize to be won, except that we made each other into better students. That's a spirit of competition we don't teach in the modern era. It's either backstabbing, dog-eat-dog, or we give everyone a medal for showing up on game day. Both have contributed to failures in our technology, our politics, and our social growth.
Aggressive, unethical competition results in the destruction of superior products through subterfuge and ad hominem attacks. 40 years after the advent of the x86 architecture, we're still working on x86-based computers. We're using inferior software in part because of anti-competition tactics, theft, and targeted destruction of companies by the "winning" corporations. Our current processor instruction sets are merely extensions of the 80386 processor design, with true 64-bit processors disappearing from the landscape, most people not even aware that they existed.
When I was growing up, I watched a SPACESHIP land in Florida. An actual spaceship, that had been to space, and back, more than once! Now we rely on a ship designed in the 1960s which is launched and retrieved (it crashes into the desert) in Khazikstan.
Our concept of expertise is thrown out the window because modern masculinity will not allow an individual to admit to being wrong. Somehow a man is lessened as a person if he says "you know what, you actually know more about this than I do, I'll have to revise my position." It can't be done! Just watch congress trying to navigate Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, Internet policies, or National Security. They know they have no idea what they're talking about, but they can't admit that without surrendering their dominance.
Let us look back at Jung's ideal individual. Every person is both Masculine and Feminine, and it is only through integrating the Anima/Animus, or integrating both Masculine and Feminine traits into the personality, that one becomes whole and healthy. Anything else is simply broken, and our society and culture, and future generations, will continue to pay the price.
It is my opinion that "traditional masculinity" is, in fact, the masculinity of the 20th Century. The usage of the word ideology is not hyperbole but is used advisedly in this context. It is an ideal vision of manliness which was fabricated through the use of mass media and propaganda. The decisions that went into its formation were conscious on some level, and we've suffered the unforeseen consequences.
Of course, if you happen to be a man who has grown up to believe that all men must be competitive, aggressive, stoic, and dominant, you're also not prone to self-reflection. This is the kind of person who will argue a position long after it's been proven that he is wrong. He cannot accept that kind of threat to his dominance. Yet this has been trained into him, and he is continually fearful of losing social position. The words "I stand corrected" are not allowed in his vocabulary. As such, no words can possibly reach him. I write for those who are not so set in their ways, or who are looking for reasons why and how we got here.
British General Staff General Routine Order 2384 of June 1917 stated that "in no circumstances whatever will the expression "shell shock" be used verbally or be recorded in any regimental or other casualty report, or any hospital or other medical document." You see, "shell shock" could not be a diagnosis. The nervous individual was obviously too weak for combat in the first place. This was not a wound on the psyche, but rather a sign of personal weakness which was intolerable in a fighting man.
The white feather movement further shamed individuals who were not of the "appropriate type," basically any man of fighting age who was not currently in France dying in a trench. The two combined created the foundations for our ideal Manly Man, out fighting Gerry across the channel.
In Germany, they treated such "weak men" with electro-shock therapy rather than simply shaming them out of the military and leaving them without pension or support.
World War II was very much an extension of World War I, being the direct result of the Treaty of Versailles. By then we had developed film and radio beyond simple news reporting and were telling stories to the masses... stories about manly men, unshakable men, strong, competitive, unflappable, stoic, aggressive, sexually virile men. They showed the population a manly ideal, a man that always won out against incredible odds, and always, always, got the girl at the end of the story. This was not just story-telling and entertainment, they were inspiring young men to become war material.
As WWII wound down and the Cold War wound up, our ability to tell these stories became more robust. War films and Westerns remained popular giving rise to manly icons such as Justus Barnes, John Wayne, and Clint Eastwood. Action films maintained the theme well beyond and into the present day with manly men like Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chuck Norris, and Mel Gibson. Each one depicting a type of masculinity far removed from the Renaissance Men of previous centuries. The ideal of the gentleman was replaced with the new ideal of the pugnacious, uncompromising action hero.
This ideology was especially attractive to men returning from war to discover that women had taken over their factory jobs. Media again worked to put them back in their place as home-makers, while technology stole from them any value that had been placed on home-making as a pursuit. Automatic washers, vaccuum cleaners, cookers, etc... meant that the full-time job of keeping a household was eroded freeing up "women's work" to the point that men no longer valued the efforts involved. No longer was beating the carpets a full day's work, just a quick go around with the Hoover and it's done!
Full-time education of children further opened up their day, and so when women started looking for meaningful employment, men had to crack down. After all, they were being told by movies and television what a REAL MAN was all about, and that didn't include letting his wife work. That would question his prowess as a breadwinner!
Feminism erupted, demanding equal rights, equal treatment, equal respect, and to be equally valued. If women get equal respect, then what kind of trophy is the man supposed to get at the end of his heroic narrative? If you work hard enough to be the manly man depicted on the screen, then you deserve to be rewarded with the beautiful woman, right? Not an independent person with their own ideas, goals, thoughts, and employment.
We're in the midst of a major backlash where some of us realize that the ideology of twentieth-century masculinity is the result of political propaganda (remember that if a filmmaker deviated from the standard narrative McCarthy would brand them a Communist). We've outgrown that dark time in our history, but the narratives remain. We continue to tell the same old stories without teaching enough media literacy to analyze them within their historical context.
We need to realize that it is not the nature of man to be aggressive, stoic, and dominant. Men's Rights Advocates point to the mighty lion or other animals, not realizing that in the pride, the male is kept for breeding and everything is actually done by the females. From horses to wolves it is the head female who runs the show, not the male. Men compare themselves to "alphas" and "top dogs" but fail to realize that the top dog in a pack is a bitch.
This template for masculinity has been taught to us through society and the media. During the process of individuation, we repress those traits which we're told are inappropriate to our sex. In men, we repress what society tells us is "too feminine" and so create the Anima. In women, they repress anything that is considered too masculine into the Animus. It is entirely a question of nurture, not nature. Certainly, testosterone plays a role, but so does civilization and society.
At school, I had a rival. Not someone I hated, no someone I fought against. Instead, we worked to out-do one another. There was no prize to be won, except that we made each other into better students. That's a spirit of competition we don't teach in the modern era. It's either backstabbing, dog-eat-dog, or we give everyone a medal for showing up on game day. Both have contributed to failures in our technology, our politics, and our social growth.
Aggressive, unethical competition results in the destruction of superior products through subterfuge and ad hominem attacks. 40 years after the advent of the x86 architecture, we're still working on x86-based computers. We're using inferior software in part because of anti-competition tactics, theft, and targeted destruction of companies by the "winning" corporations. Our current processor instruction sets are merely extensions of the 80386 processor design, with true 64-bit processors disappearing from the landscape, most people not even aware that they existed.
When I was growing up, I watched a SPACESHIP land in Florida. An actual spaceship, that had been to space, and back, more than once! Now we rely on a ship designed in the 1960s which is launched and retrieved (it crashes into the desert) in Khazikstan.
Our concept of expertise is thrown out the window because modern masculinity will not allow an individual to admit to being wrong. Somehow a man is lessened as a person if he says "you know what, you actually know more about this than I do, I'll have to revise my position." It can't be done! Just watch congress trying to navigate Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, Internet policies, or National Security. They know they have no idea what they're talking about, but they can't admit that without surrendering their dominance.
Let us look back at Jung's ideal individual. Every person is both Masculine and Feminine, and it is only through integrating the Anima/Animus, or integrating both Masculine and Feminine traits into the personality, that one becomes whole and healthy. Anything else is simply broken, and our society and culture, and future generations, will continue to pay the price.
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
My New Normal
Over the last several weeks I have encountered a new experience when it comes to traumatic triggers. Certain words and images illicit an automatic response over which I have no control or agency.
The reaction is one of letting out a shout, trying to get away from whatever the trigger was, rolling into a ball, and becoming non-responsive (with or without crying). Once this is happened I have to try and find my way back to the now. I'm told this is a type of flashback and as far as my amygdala is concerned I have returned to a time 21 years ago.
As one can imagine this is very stressful not only for myself but also for those around me. Perhaps the worst part is that I have no control over this reaction. It is entirely involuntary and is just as intense whether I see an image or hear word related to certain medical equipment and procedures.
Not having any control over the situation, in fact not even knowing that it has happened until after the fact, is possibly the most terrifying aspect of the entire experience.
How do you deal with that complete loss of personal agency, how do you face the fact there is a thing that is so ubiquitous and yet causes a bypass of your Executive Function, your very power as an individual and leaves you crying in a heap, unable to control the situation, unable to control the loss of who you are in a moment? How has this become my new normal, taking away my ability to socialize, to watch television, to engage in the world around me for fear of suddenly losing that personal agency by encountering a trigger over which I have no control?
My primary care practitioner has told me that this is actually quite normal. He's ex-military and says that he knows people who seem fine for 10 or 15 years and then suddenly everything unravels. Somehow hitting the anniversary date at the 20th year caused everything to go downhill, and this is considered "normal."
The reason that post-traumatic stress becomes post-traumatic stress disorder is that there is no reestablishment of Safety and Security immediately after the traumatic event has taken place. By some estimates as many as 20% of people who have long hospital stays suffer from some kind of iatrogenic PTSD. And yet hospitals still refuse to let people who are staying keep their loved ones with them, their support structures with them, but send them away. They force the individual to lie in a dark room alone, in an environment for which we are not equipped to cope. We lie there hooked to whatever, machines or medicines or what have you, and there's nobody there to hold our hand and there's nobody there to make us feel safe and loved and wanted and alive.
Then, as a culture, we ignore the aftermath, the broken individuals who get through this ordeal. We care only for the mechanical functions of life and not the living of it beyond those parameters.
And all we can say is, this is your new normal.
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Sex, Occultism, and Abuse
There has been a lot of talk about sex, abuse, and occult/neo-pagan traditions of late. I've been asking questions of people about how we can justify certain practices in a post #MeToo environment. As a culture, we now realize that sexual consent can only be valid between people on equal footing. Power imbalance makes it impossible to consent freely and without coercion.
Can we, with good conscience continue to support traditions that require individuals to participate skyclad? Can we honestly say that the 5-fold and 8-fold kisses are not a breach of body autonomy, especially when these things are considered requirements of the initiatory process?
I don't think so. Even if you tell someone that the 5-fold kiss is going to happen and that they're required to be naked for their initiation, you're still saying that "you can't be a member of our club/community/tradition unless you get naked and let me kiss your bits." That's simply unacceptable. Such things cannot be a requirement of membership.
Now, I'm not a prude. I have no problem being naked, and I don't have a problem with other people being naked. My problem is that it's a required, non-negotiable part of the ritual. Not just the initiation, but all inner-court rituals of traditional Wicca.
Now some people say "just don't join those traditions." OK, then stop claiming that you're traditions are the only true lineage and that everyone else is bullshit. BTW based traditions basically claim a copyright on Wiccan authenticity and in order to be part of that, to be accepted as genuine by the community, you'd better get naked and let a "legitimate" HP/HPS kiss you in intimate places. Do you see the coercive nature of this yet? If you say "no, I'm not comfortable with this" then you're rejected from the "one true way" and can go join one of those "lesser" or "less pure" traditions.
Not only does this fail to respect an individual's body autonomy, but it also ignores the very real possibility that you're stomping on someone's trauma.
When I was 18 I was bedded by a high priestess seven years my elder. I recently asked someone whether that person was a known sexual predator and, surprise, they said she was. More and more we hear about predation in the Wiccan and Neo-Pagan communities. Individuals can argue that their conquests consented, but never ask themselves "was I in a position of power at the time?" They never question the freedom of that consent or whether it was in question at the time.
Some argue that the Charge of the Goddess demands nudity, yet we know that this charge has its roots in Thelema as interpreted by Gardner. It lacks the authenticity to claim antiquity, and yet is treated as sacrosanct by many traditions and covens. It also contradicts itself. A sign that you are truly free cannot be coerced from you. You cannot enforce nudity as a prerequisite for access to your mysteries and community and claim that it's actually a sign of personal freedom.
Does the word "Gaslighting" mean anything to you?
There is much in Wicca and British Neo-Paganism that I like. I feel that the Hermetic traditions of the Golden Dawn and BOTA badly need more of the devotional Love principle than they currently encompass. Equally, I feel that modern Wicca lacks much in the Wisdom/Knowledge and Power principles. Yet we cannot simply trade the Lodge for the Circle or vice-versa. We need to draw what we need from the various tributaries to forge something new.
The Golden Dawn tradition was not built from the mind of a single person, nor did it evolve in a vacuum. The men and women of that original order came from a variety of traditions, the founders were all initiates elsewhere, and they pooled their resources. In the last 120+ years, many authors and adepts have added to and modified the tradition in wonderful ways.
Yet what we know of Wicca comes down to one or two individuals, and most people are simply copying that in one way or another. Gardner is seen as a kind of god or saint, and the traditions lean precariously close to cults of personality. The very idea that we dispense with required nudity in the circle has been met with strong opposition, some even claiming "then it wouldn't be Wicca!"
Well, maybe it's time for not-Wicca to dominate because, in my opinion, it's unconscionable to maintain outdated and coercive attitudes towards the sexual expression of its members. We need new covens that respect the individual members rather than demand they be put on display to be targeted by abusers and predators. This is no longer acceptable behaviour. Nudity as an option? Yes, that leaves it up to the individual to choose. As a necessity? No, absolutely not.
Can we, with good conscience continue to support traditions that require individuals to participate skyclad? Can we honestly say that the 5-fold and 8-fold kisses are not a breach of body autonomy, especially when these things are considered requirements of the initiatory process?
I don't think so. Even if you tell someone that the 5-fold kiss is going to happen and that they're required to be naked for their initiation, you're still saying that "you can't be a member of our club/community/tradition unless you get naked and let me kiss your bits." That's simply unacceptable. Such things cannot be a requirement of membership.
Now, I'm not a prude. I have no problem being naked, and I don't have a problem with other people being naked. My problem is that it's a required, non-negotiable part of the ritual. Not just the initiation, but all inner-court rituals of traditional Wicca.
Now some people say "just don't join those traditions." OK, then stop claiming that you're traditions are the only true lineage and that everyone else is bullshit. BTW based traditions basically claim a copyright on Wiccan authenticity and in order to be part of that, to be accepted as genuine by the community, you'd better get naked and let a "legitimate" HP/HPS kiss you in intimate places. Do you see the coercive nature of this yet? If you say "no, I'm not comfortable with this" then you're rejected from the "one true way" and can go join one of those "lesser" or "less pure" traditions.
Not only does this fail to respect an individual's body autonomy, but it also ignores the very real possibility that you're stomping on someone's trauma.
When I was 18 I was bedded by a high priestess seven years my elder. I recently asked someone whether that person was a known sexual predator and, surprise, they said she was. More and more we hear about predation in the Wiccan and Neo-Pagan communities. Individuals can argue that their conquests consented, but never ask themselves "was I in a position of power at the time?" They never question the freedom of that consent or whether it was in question at the time.
Some argue that the Charge of the Goddess demands nudity, yet we know that this charge has its roots in Thelema as interpreted by Gardner. It lacks the authenticity to claim antiquity, and yet is treated as sacrosanct by many traditions and covens. It also contradicts itself. A sign that you are truly free cannot be coerced from you. You cannot enforce nudity as a prerequisite for access to your mysteries and community and claim that it's actually a sign of personal freedom.
Does the word "Gaslighting" mean anything to you?
There is much in Wicca and British Neo-Paganism that I like. I feel that the Hermetic traditions of the Golden Dawn and BOTA badly need more of the devotional Love principle than they currently encompass. Equally, I feel that modern Wicca lacks much in the Wisdom/Knowledge and Power principles. Yet we cannot simply trade the Lodge for the Circle or vice-versa. We need to draw what we need from the various tributaries to forge something new.
The Golden Dawn tradition was not built from the mind of a single person, nor did it evolve in a vacuum. The men and women of that original order came from a variety of traditions, the founders were all initiates elsewhere, and they pooled their resources. In the last 120+ years, many authors and adepts have added to and modified the tradition in wonderful ways.
Yet what we know of Wicca comes down to one or two individuals, and most people are simply copying that in one way or another. Gardner is seen as a kind of god or saint, and the traditions lean precariously close to cults of personality. The very idea that we dispense with required nudity in the circle has been met with strong opposition, some even claiming "then it wouldn't be Wicca!"
Well, maybe it's time for not-Wicca to dominate because, in my opinion, it's unconscionable to maintain outdated and coercive attitudes towards the sexual expression of its members. We need new covens that respect the individual members rather than demand they be put on display to be targeted by abusers and predators. This is no longer acceptable behaviour. Nudity as an option? Yes, that leaves it up to the individual to choose. As a necessity? No, absolutely not.
Trauma and Autonomy
Lately, a new symptom has arisen where certain medical terms, images, etc... will trigger a total loss of autonomy. Involuntary action as a response to stimuli is very disempowering.
In Occultism we talk often about the separation of the Conscious and Subconscious minds. We're a composite creature made up of body, mind, spirit, etc... The Guph, the Nephesh, the Ruach, the Nashama, the Yekhida, are all separate parts of what makes us, us.
So where does trauma come in? It seems to me, from my reading and my experiences, that it might actually be a wound in the Guph. The autonomic nervous system reacts first, and only later does it fill in a report to the conscious mind. The amygdala triggers the Vagus Nerve and responds, cutting off and protecting the conscious mind (medial frontal cortex) in order to keep us safe.
This is great if we're touching a hot stove, or encountering a tiger, or stepping on a pin, but not so great when that system has been wired to something that isn't actually all that dangerous.
My hope is, though, that this is a wound of the Nephesh, existing in our astral and subconscious existence. Part of our mind is still trapped in the moments of trauma, and part of us has been trained to respond to stimuli as a dire threat. If this is part of the Nephesh, then it's more likely to be repairable, though brain plasticity does last longer than we ever thought possible. It's not true that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, it just takes longer.
I'm also wondering whether Simple PTSD and Complex PTSD are different processes. With Complex PTSD we have learned something through repeated exposure as opposed to Simple PTSD which happens in a single moment of experience. In our Occult tradition, we often train the mind and brain in various ways. Meditation, ritual, recitation, and memorization all act to alter or program the mental pathways and functions of our subconscious mind and brain. Every martial artist who has had the experience of reacting first and thinking second knows how deeply ingrained the forms can become through repeated practice.
The key seems to be in finding ways to reprocess trauma. EMDR uses eye movement to trigger the dream reprocessing circuitry of the brain so traumatic memories can be reprocessed into historical artefacts that are part of your life narrative, and not something your brain thinks is still happening.
When these triggers hit I have the very real sensation of being shoved out of the way. My conscious mind is pushed aside because the brain's primary goal is self-preservation and cognition could take too much time. It's quite frightening to experience that loss of autonomy, even though it's only for a second or so.
It can be very difficult to rebalance oneself after such an experience, especially if they seem to keep happening. Some triggers appear to be far more ubiquitous than I'd ever realized.
I'm not yet sure how to approach this yet since I can't even get near the triggers in thought or word or deed without being shoved out of the way by the sub-c. Although it is fascinating to actually feel that system work, to have that visceral experience of consciousness being a separate entity from the rest of the body, it's also quite frightening and extremely frustrating at the same time.
In Occultism we talk often about the separation of the Conscious and Subconscious minds. We're a composite creature made up of body, mind, spirit, etc... The Guph, the Nephesh, the Ruach, the Nashama, the Yekhida, are all separate parts of what makes us, us.
So where does trauma come in? It seems to me, from my reading and my experiences, that it might actually be a wound in the Guph. The autonomic nervous system reacts first, and only later does it fill in a report to the conscious mind. The amygdala triggers the Vagus Nerve and responds, cutting off and protecting the conscious mind (medial frontal cortex) in order to keep us safe.
This is great if we're touching a hot stove, or encountering a tiger, or stepping on a pin, but not so great when that system has been wired to something that isn't actually all that dangerous.
My hope is, though, that this is a wound of the Nephesh, existing in our astral and subconscious existence. Part of our mind is still trapped in the moments of trauma, and part of us has been trained to respond to stimuli as a dire threat. If this is part of the Nephesh, then it's more likely to be repairable, though brain plasticity does last longer than we ever thought possible. It's not true that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, it just takes longer.
I'm also wondering whether Simple PTSD and Complex PTSD are different processes. With Complex PTSD we have learned something through repeated exposure as opposed to Simple PTSD which happens in a single moment of experience. In our Occult tradition, we often train the mind and brain in various ways. Meditation, ritual, recitation, and memorization all act to alter or program the mental pathways and functions of our subconscious mind and brain. Every martial artist who has had the experience of reacting first and thinking second knows how deeply ingrained the forms can become through repeated practice.
The key seems to be in finding ways to reprocess trauma. EMDR uses eye movement to trigger the dream reprocessing circuitry of the brain so traumatic memories can be reprocessed into historical artefacts that are part of your life narrative, and not something your brain thinks is still happening.
When these triggers hit I have the very real sensation of being shoved out of the way. My conscious mind is pushed aside because the brain's primary goal is self-preservation and cognition could take too much time. It's quite frightening to experience that loss of autonomy, even though it's only for a second or so.
It can be very difficult to rebalance oneself after such an experience, especially if they seem to keep happening. Some triggers appear to be far more ubiquitous than I'd ever realized.
I'm not yet sure how to approach this yet since I can't even get near the triggers in thought or word or deed without being shoved out of the way by the sub-c. Although it is fascinating to actually feel that system work, to have that visceral experience of consciousness being a separate entity from the rest of the body, it's also quite frightening and extremely frustrating at the same time.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Trauma Frustrations
Basically, since the PTSD became unlocked it's hijacked my whole life. I spend most of my time avoiding myself rather than actually living. It's bullshit, and I keep thinking there must be some way to just "not let it control me."
Then I have a bad night with night terrors keeping up the neighbours.
Or an involentary reaction in public to an otherwise innocuous word or anecdote.
It's amazing how difficult it is to even discribe what happens to someone who hasn't experienced it first-hand. Although I understand the mechanism and can talk about the Thalimus sending signals to the Amygdala which reacts independantly of the Medial Frontal Cortex, it lacks the sheer helplessness the MFC feels in being left out of the conversation. It fails to explain the sudden sensation of being switched off and removed from the decision-making process.
I remember watching Forest Gump in the theater with an older friend, a military vetran. Although I sympathized with him as he sank into his seat, gripping the armrests while THX-SurroundSound tracer bullets screamed around the screen, I didn't truly understand. Considering the date, I'm not sure anyone understood exept a fellow vet.
We understand so much more than we did back then. We have much for which to thank Dr. VanDerKolk and General Dallaire.
The kids today (what am I, old?) talk about "trigger warnings" and triggering subjects. I think it's often bullshit. Yes, some things might make me uncomfortable, but an actual trigger is a singular experience, and not one I would wish on anybody.
For example, discussions about spousal abuse are uncomfortable reminders of my past. I don't like them, but I realize that's part of my experience, and maybe I can contribute something valuable to the conversation. Yes, my BP goes up, heart-rate, etc... but I'm not "triggered."
On the other hand certain specific words, actions, sensations result in immediate physiological reactions. They instantly engage my Fight/Flight/Freeze Amygdala alarm responses. My mid- and hind-brains see no difference between that trigger and the sound of a tiger in the brush six feet away.
In an uncomfortable situation "I" am still in control. In a truly triggered situation "I" am just a passenger as millions of years of self-preservation instincts take over.
Sometimes the former is damned hard, but I mostly feel my own autonomy, and that's important. When triggered I don't blame anyone. I don't get angry. I accept that people wander on to psychological land-mines, and those psychic scars are mine, not theirs.
I can't imagine being in a classroom and outright banning entire areas of discussion because of my illness. That takes away from everyone's ability to learn. I might make a note of known triggers to my prof, but I'm not going to ban whole areas of inquery.
Equally, I'm not going to take courses that are likely to contain triggering content.
A student with legitimate PTSD needs to be in therapy. In the case of simple, single event PTSD we have real treatment options.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)