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.
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.
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Tales of Trauma IV: Opening Doors
One of the biggest problems I've run into is finding access to really valuable tools for coping with trauma. Even accessing or uncovering trauma can be nearly impossible without the "right" kind of therapist. I keep getting told "oh, we don't know how to do that here," or "I want to study that, but we don't have time."
Recently I was working on an inner landscape. Inner visualization is something I've explored most of my life, and as an Occultist, I highly recommend working with inner visualization. It's not terribly difficult. If you've ever read The Magician's Nephew (the prequel to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) you'll be familiar with Aslan's "singing" the world into existence. In a similar fashion, many years ago, I began with a blank slate, built a beach on the ocean, a house, mountains, forests, temples, etc... and populated it with people, archetypes, and characters from books.
In the language of Jung, I gave form to the inner Parts of my personality and psychology. By interacting with these Parts I have often been able to communicate with my own subconscious in a way not unlike "talking" to Tarot Keys.
What's interesting is that these parts also seem to have fallen into the roles described in Internal Family Systems Therapy (IFS). IFS teaches that there are certain personalities, certain Parts, that act as Managers, and these Managers can help protect the conscious mind from traumatic events. We know from fMRI studies that accessing traumatic memories is really re-living those memories, rather than recalling them. By accessing these memories we can re-traumatize ourselves (which is why MDMA is being used in trauma therapy).
A few weeks ago I went back to my old neighbourhood. I haven't been there in about 25 years, and it's been a constant source of personal pain, for I never got to say goodbye. The experience was intense and strange. Nothing was the same. They'd heavily modified my old house, the nearby school is empty and covered in graffiti, and the creekbed where I used to play has become overgrown and unloved. It was as though the Spiritus Loci had fled.
The entire experience was like walking in a dream or watching some post-apocalyptic film. I even found an old friend of mine who is back living in the house next to my old home. They're also not what I remember. No longer is my childhood friend full of promise and excited about technology, hacking computer games for fun, but she's a bitter, wrung-out, racist, and petty person, so far from what I recall. It was painful.
I was able to find some large stones from the river, itself but a trickle, no deeper than my ankle, and I was able to finally leave because I wanted to leave. It was left behind, and it took a while to process.
After that, one of the primary denizens of my inner landscape changed their personality. They were suddenly deferential, polite, subservient. So I asked them about trauma, I asked about the places where my trauma has been stored. I've been depressed lately, and rather than deal with psychiatric drugs, I'd rather find ways to integrate the traumas that are at the root of the problem.
I was taken to a dungeon and told that behind each great wooden door is a trauma. The row doors disappeared into the darkness. So I thought I'd try to open one.
I want to share this for two reasons. The first is that I had no idea what to expect, and perhaps, dear reader, you will fare somewhat better than I if you make the attempt. The second is to talk about the methods I tried to employ, and why they were difficult.
A few months back I tried to deal with one of my primary trauma memories. It's the memory of an assault that often dominates my thinking for weeks on end. I've found diary entries from a decade ago where I've been stuck fighting that same assault in dreams, or struggling through the day when nothing can distract me.
Using visualization techniques I tried to re-frame the experience, to move outside of the "first person" perspective and re-process the memory. Rather than being helpless (I was a child, he was not) I entered the scene as the "me" of today and rescued the "me" of back then from the attacker. While doing this I kept moving my eyes back and forth emulating the EMDR eye movements.
After having done this a couple of times I can honestly say that memory is NOT as intense as it once was. I no longer feel utterly trapped or helpless, and if I start to, I can re-play the "new" memory and "fix" it in place with eye movements. Perhaps that alone deserves its own blog post.
Feeling somewhat confident in this experience, I thought I'd be fine to open a door. It was more intense than that.
Behind that door, I found more than one trauma, all of them sexual, some of them were things I haven't thought about in a very long time, but remain strangely relevant to my day to day experience. Some of them were things I "know happened" but only in a detached sort of way. Like knowing the Battle of Agincourt happened, but have no real experience to connect with the knowledge.
Three experiences, three moments in time, three traumatic experiences, and all of them extremely intense. I've never felt my vagus nerve convulse before. It wasn't just the tightening of the chest that one might associate with a trauma response or anxiety, but waves of clenching and vibrating. I was doubled over, pulled into a near fetal position. With each one I tried to reframe the memory, I tried to activate the eye movements, but the vagus nerve would clench and dance and I couldn't concentrate. It was like trying to stop a firehose with a marble.
It was awful. The realizations that it forced me to make, equally as terrible. Although I'd thought about how #MeToo is about people in positions of power taking sexual advantage of people over whom they have power, and how it technically might apply to myself, it wasn't until this "relived" experience that I felt forced to accept the truth of what happened to me in that context.
Perhaps uncovering the memories and reprocessing the memories have to happen at different times. You can't mop up the soda while the bottle is still erupting. You have to wait until it's done before you can deal with the mess it leaves behind. Similarly, the explosion that came from these memories being properly revealed had to be ridden out before I can try to tackle them from a re-processing perspective.
I have not yet tried to open any more doors. I want to try to work through these memories first. The memories were forceful and intense, each memory leading to the next, and it was an act of will that stopped the cascade. One door intentionally opened either opened two more, or there's more than one trauma behind each door.
What's interesting is that, after that experience, I'm already feeling better than I have for a while. I still want to try to "save myself" and re-frame the narrative of these memories. I want to understand them, see how they've shaped me, and take back my power from them. I'm just somewhat surprised that I've had any relief from the simple experience of accessing them, remembering, reliving, and re-experiencing them.
There's no real "textbook" on trauma. Every person responds differently, and the nature of a traumatic memory, and what counts as trauma to the individual is irrelevant to the rest of the world. One person is destroyed by something that another person hardly notices. Even when another person is involved, it has more to do with how your amygdala responds than any intent on their part. Certainly, 2/3 of these traumas were due to the actions of someone who should have known better, but the first one I encountered was more accident than assault.
I found one more thing that needs to be said, and perhaps it comes back to Megan Devine's concept of "bearing witness" to pain. I found that I HAVE to talk about my traumatic experiences. Some memories I've had, and suffered with, for a very long time without expressing them properly. I've found it very important to tell people, especially people close to you, about your traumas. It's important that they understand they are not expected to "fix" anything. They are not expected to pity or try to bolster your self-esteem. All I wanted, all I needed, was to have others bear witness.
When someone says "I hear you" or "I can see that you are in pain," or something along these lines, the emergency system responds in an interesting way. The mirror neurons fire, and somehow one feels so much less alone. Bearing witness to pain, to trauma, to fear, to whatever, and articulating it is perhaps the best thing anyone can do to help work through these things.
It's like working on some powerful piece of magic. You don't talk about it, you don't post the talismans online, or blog, brag, or whatever part-way through. You have to "Keep Silent" in order to build up the forces with which you are working. Talking about it, not keeping silent, disperses the force you've so carefully built up over time. This is simply the opposite use of that maxim. When a memory, trauma, etc... has power over you, that power grows the longer you keep silent, and only by "speaking its name aloud" do you take its power away and give yourself power over that particular "demon."
I may move these posts to a new blog, I think I have, and will have, a lot to say about this particular journey, and I hope that it can be of help to others. Also, a good Records Manager knows that once you have five records of a specific type in a general folder they need to be put in a specific folder of their own.
in LVX
Recently I was working on an inner landscape. Inner visualization is something I've explored most of my life, and as an Occultist, I highly recommend working with inner visualization. It's not terribly difficult. If you've ever read The Magician's Nephew (the prequel to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) you'll be familiar with Aslan's "singing" the world into existence. In a similar fashion, many years ago, I began with a blank slate, built a beach on the ocean, a house, mountains, forests, temples, etc... and populated it with people, archetypes, and characters from books.
In the language of Jung, I gave form to the inner Parts of my personality and psychology. By interacting with these Parts I have often been able to communicate with my own subconscious in a way not unlike "talking" to Tarot Keys.
What's interesting is that these parts also seem to have fallen into the roles described in Internal Family Systems Therapy (IFS). IFS teaches that there are certain personalities, certain Parts, that act as Managers, and these Managers can help protect the conscious mind from traumatic events. We know from fMRI studies that accessing traumatic memories is really re-living those memories, rather than recalling them. By accessing these memories we can re-traumatize ourselves (which is why MDMA is being used in trauma therapy).
A few weeks ago I went back to my old neighbourhood. I haven't been there in about 25 years, and it's been a constant source of personal pain, for I never got to say goodbye. The experience was intense and strange. Nothing was the same. They'd heavily modified my old house, the nearby school is empty and covered in graffiti, and the creekbed where I used to play has become overgrown and unloved. It was as though the Spiritus Loci had fled.
The entire experience was like walking in a dream or watching some post-apocalyptic film. I even found an old friend of mine who is back living in the house next to my old home. They're also not what I remember. No longer is my childhood friend full of promise and excited about technology, hacking computer games for fun, but she's a bitter, wrung-out, racist, and petty person, so far from what I recall. It was painful.
I was able to find some large stones from the river, itself but a trickle, no deeper than my ankle, and I was able to finally leave because I wanted to leave. It was left behind, and it took a while to process.
After that, one of the primary denizens of my inner landscape changed their personality. They were suddenly deferential, polite, subservient. So I asked them about trauma, I asked about the places where my trauma has been stored. I've been depressed lately, and rather than deal with psychiatric drugs, I'd rather find ways to integrate the traumas that are at the root of the problem.
I was taken to a dungeon and told that behind each great wooden door is a trauma. The row doors disappeared into the darkness. So I thought I'd try to open one.
I want to share this for two reasons. The first is that I had no idea what to expect, and perhaps, dear reader, you will fare somewhat better than I if you make the attempt. The second is to talk about the methods I tried to employ, and why they were difficult.
A few months back I tried to deal with one of my primary trauma memories. It's the memory of an assault that often dominates my thinking for weeks on end. I've found diary entries from a decade ago where I've been stuck fighting that same assault in dreams, or struggling through the day when nothing can distract me.
Using visualization techniques I tried to re-frame the experience, to move outside of the "first person" perspective and re-process the memory. Rather than being helpless (I was a child, he was not) I entered the scene as the "me" of today and rescued the "me" of back then from the attacker. While doing this I kept moving my eyes back and forth emulating the EMDR eye movements.
After having done this a couple of times I can honestly say that memory is NOT as intense as it once was. I no longer feel utterly trapped or helpless, and if I start to, I can re-play the "new" memory and "fix" it in place with eye movements. Perhaps that alone deserves its own blog post.
Feeling somewhat confident in this experience, I thought I'd be fine to open a door. It was more intense than that.
Behind that door, I found more than one trauma, all of them sexual, some of them were things I haven't thought about in a very long time, but remain strangely relevant to my day to day experience. Some of them were things I "know happened" but only in a detached sort of way. Like knowing the Battle of Agincourt happened, but have no real experience to connect with the knowledge.
Three experiences, three moments in time, three traumatic experiences, and all of them extremely intense. I've never felt my vagus nerve convulse before. It wasn't just the tightening of the chest that one might associate with a trauma response or anxiety, but waves of clenching and vibrating. I was doubled over, pulled into a near fetal position. With each one I tried to reframe the memory, I tried to activate the eye movements, but the vagus nerve would clench and dance and I couldn't concentrate. It was like trying to stop a firehose with a marble.
It was awful. The realizations that it forced me to make, equally as terrible. Although I'd thought about how #MeToo is about people in positions of power taking sexual advantage of people over whom they have power, and how it technically might apply to myself, it wasn't until this "relived" experience that I felt forced to accept the truth of what happened to me in that context.
Perhaps uncovering the memories and reprocessing the memories have to happen at different times. You can't mop up the soda while the bottle is still erupting. You have to wait until it's done before you can deal with the mess it leaves behind. Similarly, the explosion that came from these memories being properly revealed had to be ridden out before I can try to tackle them from a re-processing perspective.
I have not yet tried to open any more doors. I want to try to work through these memories first. The memories were forceful and intense, each memory leading to the next, and it was an act of will that stopped the cascade. One door intentionally opened either opened two more, or there's more than one trauma behind each door.
What's interesting is that, after that experience, I'm already feeling better than I have for a while. I still want to try to "save myself" and re-frame the narrative of these memories. I want to understand them, see how they've shaped me, and take back my power from them. I'm just somewhat surprised that I've had any relief from the simple experience of accessing them, remembering, reliving, and re-experiencing them.
There's no real "textbook" on trauma. Every person responds differently, and the nature of a traumatic memory, and what counts as trauma to the individual is irrelevant to the rest of the world. One person is destroyed by something that another person hardly notices. Even when another person is involved, it has more to do with how your amygdala responds than any intent on their part. Certainly, 2/3 of these traumas were due to the actions of someone who should have known better, but the first one I encountered was more accident than assault.
I found one more thing that needs to be said, and perhaps it comes back to Megan Devine's concept of "bearing witness" to pain. I found that I HAVE to talk about my traumatic experiences. Some memories I've had, and suffered with, for a very long time without expressing them properly. I've found it very important to tell people, especially people close to you, about your traumas. It's important that they understand they are not expected to "fix" anything. They are not expected to pity or try to bolster your self-esteem. All I wanted, all I needed, was to have others bear witness.
When someone says "I hear you" or "I can see that you are in pain," or something along these lines, the emergency system responds in an interesting way. The mirror neurons fire, and somehow one feels so much less alone. Bearing witness to pain, to trauma, to fear, to whatever, and articulating it is perhaps the best thing anyone can do to help work through these things.
It's like working on some powerful piece of magic. You don't talk about it, you don't post the talismans online, or blog, brag, or whatever part-way through. You have to "Keep Silent" in order to build up the forces with which you are working. Talking about it, not keeping silent, disperses the force you've so carefully built up over time. This is simply the opposite use of that maxim. When a memory, trauma, etc... has power over you, that power grows the longer you keep silent, and only by "speaking its name aloud" do you take its power away and give yourself power over that particular "demon."
I may move these posts to a new blog, I think I have, and will have, a lot to say about this particular journey, and I hope that it can be of help to others. Also, a good Records Manager knows that once you have five records of a specific type in a general folder they need to be put in a specific folder of their own.
in LVX
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Tales of Trauma III: Living a Healthy Life with Chronic Pain? Bollocks!
I've been reading a number of books lately, some good, some bad. One of the healthcare professionals with whom I've recently met lent me a book called Living a Healthy Life with Chronic Pain (Sandra M. LeFort, Lisa Webster, Kate Lorig, Halsted Holman, et al... Bull Publishing Company, 2015). Besides the terrible writing style, the book is overly condescending. You can simply "choose" to live a happier, healthier life regardless of your chronic pain condition. It also assumes that your chronic pain is idiopathic, which, of course, mine isn't. They go on at great lengths about how "the healing has already happened, now the pain is all in your mind." Bullshit!
First of all, there are so many conditions where there is no physical healing. If the bones are rotting, or the cartilage has worn off of your joints and the bones are grinding together, if something is growing inside of you that shouldn't be, if you have Cancer or Chrones, etc... then you are NOT in a position of having the healing completed.
It also assumes that there is only ONE way to heal, and that's physical healing. On page 15 they use the example of David:
The book does talk about the central nervous system's alarm system which is the basis of receiving pain signals. They talk about pain gates being stuck open, but they never consider WHY. Pain is traumatizing, and the body remembers. Even after surgery, the limbic system knows something is not right in his leg. It is also possible that the memory of that accident is "stuck" in the brain. This is how trauma works, for that part of the brain, time does not move. It is stuck in a moment of pain, and there's nothing you can do to talk yourself out of it. You need to treat the trauma.
On page 14 they talk about Fred and Joyce, both with chronic back pain. They use this as an example of how a great attitude can fix anything. Joyce is SO well adjusted that it's nauseating, while Fred is an asshole. On one hand, they don't talk about what Joyce is FEELING, only what she's DOING. On the other hand, they don't talk about Fred's internal processes either.
Fred is likely grieving. He took early retirement and sits on the couch all day. There is no indication as to what that means. They lack any sense of meaning or cognition of events. "Just get out there and make the best of it!"
But for a man to have to leave his work is a deathblow. I remember well that moment that I was told I wouldn't be going back to work. My surgeon looked at me with compassion and said: "That's not how this works, I'm sorry." What a thing to say to a 27-year-old, let alone telling a 55-year-old Fred that you're done here. We're talking about a man who has likely spent decades defining himself by his work, and now that's been taken away from him. There's no thought given to what that means.
In our society men are defined by our ability to work. When men meet for the first time they almost invariably ask "what do you do?" What they mean is "where do you work, and what do you do there." It's a subtle game of competition because we are not just defined by our employment, but it also determines our social value to others. I cannot erase from my mind the look on people's faces when I admit that I'm disabled. Suddenly you're a drain on the system, a leech, worthless, unworthy of attention. The book has nothing to say about this.
It also misses the point of the things we do, or don't do. Men are expected to be physically active, and often pain conditions are invisible. My prostheses are internal, covered in skin, so you can't see them, or the broken muscles, or the rotting bones, so why am I not helping move the cases of pop for the club picnic or helping put up the shed in the community garden? They don't know that I have a seven-pound lifting limit with the GOOD arm. We have to carry that, and there's no consideration of it in this book.
We also give up the things we used to love. I used to be involved in a number of martial arts, but it eventually became too painful to even maintain a peripheral relationship to my favourite past-time: heavy weapons SCA combat. I tried helping with tournaments and being involved in training, but there comes a point where the desire to throw on the gear and pick up a stick—knowing it is impossible—hurts too much. In time I lost all contact with my friends in that world. I just couldn't do it anymore. I couldn't even listen to them talk about the thing I loved so much, that was now beyond my reach.
When I see this example of Fred, I see someone who is grieving. I see it in my friends who have chronic pain. I see it in their eyes when they look at something that reminds them of the person they've had to leave behind. Chronic illness and disability are no different from a death, except that the reminder of everything you've lost looks back at you in the mirror every day.
In her book It's OK that you're not OK,(Sounds True, 2017) Megan Devine says that most of what we talk about in terms of grief is bullshit. She's right. What we get from our supposed support group, whether it's a death, disability, or chronic illness, are bullshit platitudes, blame, and condescension. I've had people say "but what have you learned from it" and "what must you have done to deserve that?" I've heard so many things and each one of them makes me feel angry.
What we need, when coming to disability and pain, is love and acceptance. We don't need your words of "encouragement" or anything else. What we need is to feel that we still have value in this world when everything by which we defined ourselves has been stripped away. Even the diagnosis and onset of chronic illness can be a traumatic experience. The brain tries to protect us from the news that our old life is over, and now we have to figure out everything again from scratch. Is it any wonder that we get "stuck?"
The entirety of the book on Chronic Pain basically says:
Doctor Bessel Van Der Kolk is a psychiatrist, a research scientist, and an expert in trauma. He comes from a place of having healed his own traumas, growing up in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands. He's spent 40 something years studying trauma, putting people into fMRI machines to see how trauma works in the brain and developing tools to access those areas to reintegrate traumatic memories and heal the whole person.
Megan Devine, a trained psychotherapist, quit her private practice the day she saw her husband swept away by a river and failed to rescue him. (In fact, if the dog hadn't rescued her, she wouldn't have survived either.) Since then she's worked with thousands of grieving people, and her book is the result of this research into what works, and what doesn't, from a professionally trained perspective.
Living a Healthy Life with Chronic Pain is written by eight different authors, has an average sentence length of about 10 to 12 words, and reads more like a scolding than a supportive guide towards healthy equilibrium. It's condescending, simplistic, and in my opinion, utterly ignores the reality of what people with chronic pain conditions are experiencing. I honestly think that it's a workbook for people who want to feel proactive about someone else's pain so that they can feel better about themselves. I wrote many years ago about how people try to distance themselves from your disability experience. They need to feel that it can be fixed, or repaired in some way so that it's not terrifying for them to think "shit, that could be me." They always know that they would handle things better, they'd cope, they'd have a great attitude. It's self-protecting behaviour, and it's utterly useless to us.
...as is, I think, this book.
First of all, there are so many conditions where there is no physical healing. If the bones are rotting, or the cartilage has worn off of your joints and the bones are grinding together, if something is growing inside of you that shouldn't be, if you have Cancer or Chrones, etc... then you are NOT in a position of having the healing completed.
It also assumes that there is only ONE way to heal, and that's physical healing. On page 15 they use the example of David:
David developed chronic hip and leg pain after a car accident. He has had four surgeries but still is in pain 15 years later.OK, so as far as they're concerned David has "healed." There is no longer anything wrong with his leg and hip, but they continue to cause him pain. Yet at no point do they address that both surgery and car accidents cause trauma to the limbic system. Nobody considers that this chronic pain could be the result of unresolved PTSD.
The book does talk about the central nervous system's alarm system which is the basis of receiving pain signals. They talk about pain gates being stuck open, but they never consider WHY. Pain is traumatizing, and the body remembers. Even after surgery, the limbic system knows something is not right in his leg. It is also possible that the memory of that accident is "stuck" in the brain. This is how trauma works, for that part of the brain, time does not move. It is stuck in a moment of pain, and there's nothing you can do to talk yourself out of it. You need to treat the trauma.
On page 14 they talk about Fred and Joyce, both with chronic back pain. They use this as an example of how a great attitude can fix anything. Joyce is SO well adjusted that it's nauseating, while Fred is an asshole. On one hand, they don't talk about what Joyce is FEELING, only what she's DOING. On the other hand, they don't talk about Fred's internal processes either.
Fred is likely grieving. He took early retirement and sits on the couch all day. There is no indication as to what that means. They lack any sense of meaning or cognition of events. "Just get out there and make the best of it!"
But for a man to have to leave his work is a deathblow. I remember well that moment that I was told I wouldn't be going back to work. My surgeon looked at me with compassion and said: "That's not how this works, I'm sorry." What a thing to say to a 27-year-old, let alone telling a 55-year-old Fred that you're done here. We're talking about a man who has likely spent decades defining himself by his work, and now that's been taken away from him. There's no thought given to what that means.
In our society men are defined by our ability to work. When men meet for the first time they almost invariably ask "what do you do?" What they mean is "where do you work, and what do you do there." It's a subtle game of competition because we are not just defined by our employment, but it also determines our social value to others. I cannot erase from my mind the look on people's faces when I admit that I'm disabled. Suddenly you're a drain on the system, a leech, worthless, unworthy of attention. The book has nothing to say about this.
It also misses the point of the things we do, or don't do. Men are expected to be physically active, and often pain conditions are invisible. My prostheses are internal, covered in skin, so you can't see them, or the broken muscles, or the rotting bones, so why am I not helping move the cases of pop for the club picnic or helping put up the shed in the community garden? They don't know that I have a seven-pound lifting limit with the GOOD arm. We have to carry that, and there's no consideration of it in this book.
We also give up the things we used to love. I used to be involved in a number of martial arts, but it eventually became too painful to even maintain a peripheral relationship to my favourite past-time: heavy weapons SCA combat. I tried helping with tournaments and being involved in training, but there comes a point where the desire to throw on the gear and pick up a stick—knowing it is impossible—hurts too much. In time I lost all contact with my friends in that world. I just couldn't do it anymore. I couldn't even listen to them talk about the thing I loved so much, that was now beyond my reach.
When I see this example of Fred, I see someone who is grieving. I see it in my friends who have chronic pain. I see it in their eyes when they look at something that reminds them of the person they've had to leave behind. Chronic illness and disability are no different from a death, except that the reminder of everything you've lost looks back at you in the mirror every day.
In her book It's OK that you're not OK,(Sounds True, 2017) Megan Devine says that most of what we talk about in terms of grief is bullshit. She's right. What we get from our supposed support group, whether it's a death, disability, or chronic illness, are bullshit platitudes, blame, and condescension. I've had people say "but what have you learned from it" and "what must you have done to deserve that?" I've heard so many things and each one of them makes me feel angry.
What we need, when coming to disability and pain, is love and acceptance. We don't need your words of "encouragement" or anything else. What we need is to feel that we still have value in this world when everything by which we defined ourselves has been stripped away. Even the diagnosis and onset of chronic illness can be a traumatic experience. The brain tries to protect us from the news that our old life is over, and now we have to figure out everything again from scratch. Is it any wonder that we get "stuck?"
The entirety of the book on Chronic Pain basically says:
You may never know why you're suffering, but suck it up and try to make the best of it. Here is some shitty advice from people who have never been where you are but who know better than you what you should be doing and how to make the rest of us feel better about the terrifying possibility that we could be next.I have found more value in every page of Megan Devine's It's OK that You're not OK and Bessel Van Der Kolk's book The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma (Penguin, Random House, 2014) than anything I've found in Living a Healthy Life with Chronic Pain. I think the difference is their experience.
Doctor Bessel Van Der Kolk is a psychiatrist, a research scientist, and an expert in trauma. He comes from a place of having healed his own traumas, growing up in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands. He's spent 40 something years studying trauma, putting people into fMRI machines to see how trauma works in the brain and developing tools to access those areas to reintegrate traumatic memories and heal the whole person.
Megan Devine, a trained psychotherapist, quit her private practice the day she saw her husband swept away by a river and failed to rescue him. (In fact, if the dog hadn't rescued her, she wouldn't have survived either.) Since then she's worked with thousands of grieving people, and her book is the result of this research into what works, and what doesn't, from a professionally trained perspective.
Living a Healthy Life with Chronic Pain is written by eight different authors, has an average sentence length of about 10 to 12 words, and reads more like a scolding than a supportive guide towards healthy equilibrium. It's condescending, simplistic, and in my opinion, utterly ignores the reality of what people with chronic pain conditions are experiencing. I honestly think that it's a workbook for people who want to feel proactive about someone else's pain so that they can feel better about themselves. I wrote many years ago about how people try to distance themselves from your disability experience. They need to feel that it can be fixed, or repaired in some way so that it's not terrifying for them to think "shit, that could be me." They always know that they would handle things better, they'd cope, they'd have a great attitude. It's self-protecting behaviour, and it's utterly useless to us.
...as is, I think, this book.
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Why Star Trek:STD and the current Star Wars Fail.
Any good occultist knows that the subconscious responds to all inputs and sees suggestions in images and emotional reactions. This is true on both an individual level as well as on the level of an Egregore, like that of a nation or group.
For decades we've amused ourselves with speculative fiction, and it seems that an undue proportion of that fiction has revolved around visions of a dystopian future. Since our subconscious minds adhere to the GIGO principle, it should not be any wonder that we keep fulfilling those bleak visions of the future.
George Orwell's vision of constant surveillance has come true on many levels, from the official security cameras on every corner and every shop, to the ubiquitous mini TV studio we carry around and call our "phone." Gibson's view of the Internet as a battleground between mega-corporations and individuals has proven true time and time again.
Yet even when our external world was on the brink of destruction I can think of three important exceptions to the dystopian rule: Star Wars, Star Trek, and Babylon 5.
In Babylon 5 we're introduced to a universe in political squabbles. The B5 station is a diplomatic point between several racial and political factions. In the midst of this is the introduction of an overwhelming force of evil, death, and destruction. The result of the Shadow War is a lesson in working together. Even the fierce enemies Londo and G'Kar develop a deep friendship. We're shown how political and racial isolation threatens to destroy us all, and it is only by overcoming our internal strife and joining forces that we are able to overcome the darkness and chaos to find peace.
With talks of a B5 reboot, I hope they don't fall into the trap of modern fiction.
With shows like Walking Dead, World War Z, VanHelsing, and countless others, we are subjected to survival mode apocalypses. The end of everything with no hope for victory or reconciliation. We have nowhere to go, and these images of death and darkness cry out for counterbalance.
So with the new Star Trek:STD (ST:Disco) and films like Star Wars: The Force Awakens there was the potential to give us positive imagery, something to which we can strive.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens was the first to drop the ball. From A New Hope to The Return of the Jedi, and on into the (now defunct) expanded universe, we saw a racist authoritarian regime overthrown by the joining together of many peoples and races. In the Old Canon, it was a matter of pride that the Imperial Army and infrastructure was made up entirely White Male Humans. Other races were fine as slaves, but not Imperial Citizens. When Timothy Zhan introduced Grand Admiral Thrawn, part of his character included the struggles of being the only non-white, non-human officer in the fleet!
On the other hand, the Rebellion, and later the New Republic, included everyone, and as such became an even greater force for overcoming tyranny. The entire structure was a meritocracy, granting us hope and goals. These stories said "it doesn't matter who you are or what field you choose, if you strive to be the best you can be, you will be rewarded. (Yes, The Phantom Menace introduced racist elements with "midichlorions," but most fans ret-conned that out.)
The new films erase the Expanded Universe and tell us that none of that shit mattered.
The idea that the Rebellion toppled a 30-year-old regime by destroying their weapons of mass destruction and terror while taking out the Emperor and his enforcer seemed reasonable. Many of the planets and colonies that had been taken over fought back against the Imperial Remnant, and Thrawn returned from deep space to find himself the highest ranking officer in the fleet.
Now that story of unity is corrupted. Apparently it only takes a few years of occupation to create loyalty in both citizens and slaves. 30 years or so after the Battle of Yavin IV the New Order has built a planet-sized, physics-defying weapon that eats suns and fires steerable, targetable energy beams capable of travelling several light years in seconds to wipe out the primary core planets.
Unity and Meritocracy no longer matter. Mon Mothma planned the attack on the second Death Star because she was a great strategist. Her efforts, in the new timeline, just didn't make that much difference.
Once again, the original Star Trek spoke to us of unity, of hope, of an ideal future for humanity where self improvement was the underlying goal of a meritocratic structure we call Starfleet. The new ST:Disco is bleak, dark, and somehow unrecognizable for a show set between Enterprise and TOS. We don't even get proper Klingons but instead some heavy-handed Muslim Brotherhood/Islamist analogy.
Consider that the vision of the future presented by the first 4 series and their films inspired generations of engineers and scientists (I'm writing on what is basically a PADD right now) that MIT gave an honorary degree to James Doohan (Chief Montgomery Scott or Scotty). Starfleet was a vision of hope, of adventure, of often reconciling conflict with cleverness, understanding, diplomacy, and compassion. It wasn't always about who had the biggest guns and the coolest toys.
The ships and stations we followed were powerful because of their crews. Our stories were about people and interpersonal conflict resolution. They were, ultimately, about love and sacrifice. Their superpowers were competency and compassion!
In Discovery the only thing that makes their ship special is their magical quadrant spanning teleportation drive. It's a Deus ex Machina device. Colony in trouble? Blip, it's there. Squadron overrun? Zwop, here they are. And this cornerstone of their storyline must somehow utterly disappear in the next four years. Every technological reference, every note, every memory that it ever happened must be gone before the commissioning of the NCC-1701. It's not that they have a tough crew that works well together and care about one another, it's their magic ship.
OK, so with all of this, what am I saying? Simply put, it was kids growing up on messages of hope and competency, compassion and fellowship, that gave us actual spaceships that could take a crew of 7 or 8 and do real missions beyond our atmosphere. They gave us residential space stations like the ISS. They gave us the courage to tear down the Soviet Bloc. These messages of hope lodged in the subconscious of the Egregore and made wonderful things happen.
But too many of our beloved franchises are succumbing to the modern dystopia. Our media is teaching us intolerance and isolationism. "Only we few are chosen to stand against the oncoming tide." Whether that tide is Jihadist Proto-Klingons, Zombies, Drug Cartels, or whatever it is, there's no sense of unity. It wasn't one ship or a handful of survivors in X-Wings who took out the first two Death Stars, but whole fleets of people from a hundred worlds. It wasn't one ship that drove back the Dominion or stopped the Borg at Wolf 359, but massive fleets of ships working together.
More importantly, we're being shown survivalist tension without resolution. Our protagonists (I won't say "heroes" because the anti-hero is becoming the norm) scrape through surviving another week, keep that tension up! We'll repeat it again in seven days (or seven seconds if you're streaming).
It's programming like this that passed Brexit and elected Donald Trump. Our Televisions, monitors, and personal devices continually display images that tell us we're under siege, that we're on the brink of death and disaster. Images beget manifestation. The dominant structures of Yetzirah become the reality of Assiah. We need to bring back good sci-fi that charges messages of hope with the emotions of adventure. Otherwise, we're just killing ourselves.
Thursday, January 11, 2018
Tales of Trauma II
The hip injections were a terrible idea.
After the repeated assertions that I would not get any Cortisone in my bloodstream I had clear symptoms within 24 hours. Appetite, insomnia, smell, sense of taste skewed, etc... and of course the associations that go with them. It's been hellish.
Add to this that the pain in those joints is now 10x worse than ever, I'm regretting being talked into that particular treatment.
This week I further discovered another psychic landmine.
After finally getting to sleep (after a week of insomnia) I awoke with a pounding sensation in all of my veins. I got up, dizzy, nauseated, headache, and took my blood pressure.
At 164/105 I had a pain in my chest and the inside of my left arm. Like a responsible adult, I pushed through the anxiety and got a ride up to the hospital for checks.
I was keeping it together until they decided they needed to put in an IV so they could administer a Nitro spray and catch me if I dropped too far.
It didn't matter how much the doctor and nurse tried to explain the necessity, the very idea of getting that IV was too much. I remember being outside of myself, or deep inside, observing as the Lizard Brain cried, sobbed, and screamed.
It was terrifying. The reaction was visceral, involuntary, and instantaneous. I kept trying to calm myself, much like trying to get control of a spooked horse. And like a horse, it kept spooking at the same words.
I'm fortunate to have had some support on hand, someone to tell them that they were witnessing Autism with PTSD. I'm grateful to have had someone to ground me and keep my consciousness trying to re-connect.
They tried me on Ativan to see if I could calm down enough to even talk about it, but the moment the doctor said IV, I switched off and had to struggle back to "here" again.
I'm finding it harder and harder to articulate these experiences, and harder and harder to talk about the trauma that created these problems in the first place. Each time I meet with a new agency I have to start over from scratch, and they invariably tell me that they don't do that kind of treatment, that I need someone with experience in PTSD, and, that there isn't anyone to talk to, or anywhere to go.
The worst part is that unless I find a way to start working on these hard-wired psychic wounds, there's no possible way I can get my joint surgeries done.
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Tales of Trauma I
Poor ignored blog. I suppose, though, that this was intended to be a kind of discussion of my path, my Odyssey so to speak. I think I've tried too hard to avoid discussing anything personal, and so, as a defunct tool it might be worth ressurecting it as a tool for my own well being.
So in October my "primary health care professional" decided to put me on medical Cannabis rather than up my usual pain meds. Of course I've spent my entire life AVOIDING Cannabis, so this made it very difficult for me. What's worse is that this coincided with the 20th anniversary of my death. The fact that I've been having to do a lot of my own medical research has been very triggering for me.
The use of the material, although high in the supposedly pain related CBDs, has been a struggle. Not just finding the right delivery method (which has been tricky) but also finding the right WAY to use the stuff. It's not great, but if I get really stoned I can actually feel distance from the physical pain.
But then it unlocks a lot of emotional pain.
I have no idea how to even articulate the overwhelming sense of loss, anger, frustration, ect... which forcefully bubbles up when I use the Cannabis. There's over 20 years of repression, loss, and personal damage that just has no way to ground. I feel as though doing anything WITH it would be to poison whatever or wherever it goes. There's been a lot of sobbing.
A big part of this feeling is the sense of loss. I feel as though the last 20 years has been utterly stolen from me. From 25 to 45 should have been some of the best years of my life, and they haven't been. That's not to say that some of them weren't pretty good, but I so seldom have my pain in proper control (especially now with a squeamish healthcare practitioner) that I just try to get through each day. I've spent most of these years simply existing, and not actually living. When I look back, I miss my youth and good looks, and feel that they were literally stolen from me. In fact, it's as though my life was irrevocably broken in 1997 because of what those doctors did back then.
It's like, my life went off the rails when my step-father hit me in, what, 1991, and it's never been back on track since. That was the event that made me end up with my first wife, who would have made a better friend than otherwise, but she was pursuing, and I was alone in the world with nowhere to go. I love the boys, but I think we would have had a better relationship if I hadn't been their step-father, but rather a friend of the family. Or something.
Then dead at age 25, evacuated to a northern community, and the subsequent shit and abuse and just horrors that I've been through since.
I'm so afraid of burning out the one light I have in my life. She's pretty much everything to me, which is patently unfair to her. And yet, no matter how many times I've tried to build a broader network up here, it never works out. I have different views on life, I have different interests, I'm a very different person from the norm up here, and I generally lack inspiration. I'm lonely and I don't see it getting much better any time soon. Those with whom I do click are, of course, all too ready and willing to get the hell out of this town and to go somewhere civilized. It hurts to see them go, but at the same time, I cannot blame them.
Most people who live here are from here. They have common experiences growing up that I don't. It's very hard to fit in to a foreign place.
But it was after a severe panic attack while I was up at the hospital for X-rays on my degenerating hips that I realized there are depths to trauma that the Occultist cannot necessarily work through on their own. The entire system is built on psychodrama, subconscious programming, and meta analysis, which are fantastic tools, but even the most talented surgeon relies on radiologists and medical doctors to feed them good information. Making the best incision is pointless if you don't know where to cut.
It's become very clear to me that I don't know where to cut, at least when it comes to working through my own trauma. It's becoming something I cannot ignore because I expect to have a number of surgeries over the next five to ten years, and having the very hospital itself as a trauma trigger is not conducive to successful surgical treatment.
So I decided to go looking for help.
Our Mental Health Care System is worse than our Medical Health Care System. Nowhere else is the two-tier system more clearly defined than in the cases where one needs therapy. Perhaps part of it is that I never seem to have normal problems. A dubious way in which to be "special."
That is not to say that advances have not been made. If I'd been sexually assaulted as a child, there are now supports for men as well as women, something that didn't exist before. If I was struggling with work and employment, there are groups where men can talk about, whatever it is... I assume it has much to do with the way society has programmed us to equate our self-worth with our careers.
If I were an addict, there's help. If I had a mental illness and was in trouble with the law, there's advocacy. There are many, many programs available, and I don't feel in any way slighted by them as I see the necessity for those programs on a social level. But when we get right down to it... I seem to fall between the supports finding the cracks where nobody is waiting to help. I'm getting a little tired of hearing sympathetic people tell me that, although they see that I need help, they're not the ones qualified to help me, maybe I can try x or y service.
For Simple PTSD, there is apparently nothing. I have an appointment with someone who deals with Complex PTSD, and since my Simple PTSD is not unrelated there might be some help there. At the very least I hope I can root out and burn some of the bad programming that resulted from my first marriage. I absolutely know that this must be done, but after the panic attack at the hospital, I really feel as though the Iatrogenic PTSD needs to be a priority. I have 2 weeks before I need to go back up to get needles in my hips, and who knows how long before I actually have to go for full replacement surgery.
I feel it is a testament to the Occult training that I've not turned into a bitter asshole over any of this. Pain and trauma often erode the personality leaving people acting more like wounded animals than representing the better angels of their nature. Equally, it has allowed me to identify clues as to my own mental state. Getting angry about the Medical Cannabis was a good signal that something was wrong, and from there I made the connection to the Anniversary Date. The panic at the hospital was a surprise, but I can see it from a larger perspective. I'm also very aware of the anxiety I feel any time I encounter men on this journey. I honestly don't know how honest I can be with a male counsellor/therapist. My experience is that they tend to be competitive and judgemental and I instantly feel defensive. At the very least, the process of navigating the system is pointing out mile markers on the roadmap of the Shadow.
In Western Occultism we build something called the Magical Personality, a separate "self" which is used during the Work of magic, meditation, ritual, etc... This personality is supposed to be free of the random baggage which is attached to our primary personality which is formed at the whims of external forces. It's the difference between a cultivated formal Bonsai tree and one that's grown on a windswept hill.
One has to be careful not to corrupt the magical personality, so it cannot be used, say, for undergoing a medical procedure. On the other hand, if one is in an hospital waiting room and they take out a mala in order to practice ZaZen, well that's a perfectly normal use of that secondary personality. The Magical Personality tends to be "detached from results" and focuses on the work at hand. Perhaps one could call it a fine line between Mindfulness and Mindlessness.
Friday, November 17, 2017
Cultural Appropriation
In Canada right now there is a huge explosion in media around cultural appropriation. This relates to major media outlets having had important employees speak about things about which they are ignorant, and that is the hardest thing of all.
I will admit, when I moved to a city near a Native reserve, my knowledge of Native culture and the role Europeans had in trying to destroy it utterly. I was unfamiliar with systemic racism having come from a rather cosmopolitan city. I knew nothing about the Native Residential School System, and had no idea what Cultural Appropriation is all about.
I find the subject particularly concerning because one of my major fields of study, and passions, is anthropology. I love cultures. I love getting inside of them, seeing the world through their eyes, exploring their spirituality and relationship to the universe. Unlike some anthropologists of the past, I'm not interested out of a kind of sterile curiosity as were the colonial researchers of the past, but out of a desire to learn and discover.
Our Western Mysteries, and other traditions, teach us that we are all ONE, and that we are permutations of a single Limitless Light that refracts infinitely as we manifest in the universe. If we only ever look at that universe from a single point of view then it's like looking at a sculpture with a single light, through a hole in the wall. It might as well be a painting. Exploring and celebrating other cultures allows us to take that sculpture and rotate it around, shine different lights on it, and discover completely new wonders and joys.
So how does appropriation work then? We'll take a moment to cover this.
To the casual observer I'm sure my home, and my closet, look like a massive shrine to appropriation. I think what we have to ask ourselves is, what is the intent?
When I was young I'd go to the big Canadian tourist places with my Grandparents. It's one of the things you do. I remember a particular image that would pop up all of the time: an Indian man in profile, facing to the viewer's right, wearing a huge feathered headdress. This image was on nearly everything. I particularly remember wooden nickles and a drum I was given. A drum with a cardboard barrel (printed up like birch bark) and a kind of rubbery head with this guy's face on it. The drum was made in Taiwan or China, or somewhere, and it came with a beater, complete with fake feathers attached.
So here are products, sold by white people, made by Asian people, and sold on the power of the likeness of the Canadian Indian. In that exchange, the only people who didn't get a cut of the money were... yes the Native Canadian. That drum was made to look as Native as possible. It looked a lot like the one on the right, but with that "Indian Chief" image emblazoned across the "skin." Yes... to use this toy I had to figuratively beat a Native Canadian in the face... with a stick. How insane is that?
On the other hand, when I buy something now, I look into the source. I own some lovely Dashiki shirts, made in Africa, and sold at a booth by a self-employed African-Canadian woman. All of the money I spent on that piece is going to members of the culture from whence it came. Similarly if you buy Native Indian crafts on reserve, and not from Hot Topic or American Apparel, your money is going to the people of origin, as opposed to white millionaires who profit on the backs of other people.
The difference of intent is important to the Occultist. Are you truly supporting and celebrating a culture by purchasing a T-Shirt with a Cultural Design from a big company? Do you know if they had the legal rights to publish that design? Where is the money going? Knowing and planning are important. As Priests and Priestesses of the Universe we must strive to leave the world of Assiah somewhat better than it was when we entered.
Now the current debate comes down to Native Appropriation in Art. Here the lines get even less rigid. Toronto painter Amanda PL had her gallery show pulled when they they had a backlash because her paintings, inspired by the Woodlands Style, were not painted by a Native Canadian. Suddenly we come up against freedom of speech and expression, but also political history and social perception.
On one hand, we have a woman who has honed her craft to create beautiful paintings. On the other we have one more white person taking something away from Native Canadians and presenting it as her own. Yes, the paintings are her own, but the style is not.
In Canada during the 20th Century White People took Native Canadians, stole them away from their families, locked them in residential schools to "Civilize and Christianize" the savage barbarians. Children were beaten for speaking "the devil's tongue" and severely punished for trying to wear their own clothing from home. Many children never made it out alive, their parents waiting at airplanes for children who would never come home. I've known Res School survivors and they are all psychologically damaged in some way, by MY people, in MY lifetime.
Since the 1990's when the schools were finally shut down, Native Canadians have been striving to rebuild their culture and identity. It's been a hard road for them, and they've had to fight a lot of ignorance and racism along the way. It's only in 2017 that schools in Ontario are getting history curriculum units covering the Native Residential Schools, the '60s Scoop, and other atrocities Canada has inflicted upon its Native population. Ignorance in this area is so bad, many teachers ask why they have to learn and teach these units. They don't see the point.
So that's the political climate in which a white woman planned to have a huge gallery show, filled with Native inspired art, which—if sold—would not benefit a single Native Canadian.
What's the intent here? Most gallery shows are designed to make money. The gallery and the artists are in a position to benefit financially and socially from a culturally appropriated style in a political environment where many Native artists, doing the exact same work, cannot get even a single wall, let alone an entire gallery, on which to showcase their work. I've seen beautiful stuff rolled up in the hands of poor "Indians" who were going door to door trying to sell their work for a few bucks. In that situation, how can it be OK for a non-Native to show comparable work in a high-end art gallery?
The problem, I feel, with the current debate is that it seems to be scaring off the allies of indigenous peoples. If I write a book, does it mean everyone has to be White, or Whitish conforming to a singular culture? Am I allowed, as a White Author to include other cultures and peoples in my writing? That's not reductio ad absurdum, it happens all of the time right now where a white author writing a non-white character catches hell from the media. The problem is that you cannot represent an entire culture in a few characters.
For example, if I sit with my Native friends and build a Native character for a book or story, that character is only going to be representative of the experience of those people. Millions of other people will have a different experience of that culture, and they might, reasonably, feel that I was misrepresenting them in my writing.
Again, I come to intent. Does someone include non-White characters trying to capitalize on a culture? Does one put Black or African characters in a book hoping to tap into the "Black Market?" Or is the intent to be inclusive, to recognize that not everyone has the same backgrounds and the same skin colour? Different cultures include different motivations, different focuses in their education, and different ideologies. It took me forever to realize that a friend of mine was showing AFFECTION by poking fun at me. I was genuinely hurt because I didn't understand that, amongst the Anishnaabe, this was normal, affectionate behaviour one used towards good friends. I've learned to understand their humour, and often, prefer their company to those of my own culture with its hardened edges.
Coming to a clear point, as Occultists of the Western Tradition we are given one clear rule "we profess only to heal, and that freely." Healing means understanding the illness, and approaching it armed with knowledge, understanding, and empathy. We need to bring together all of the attributes of the six middle sephiroth and apply them to the world in Malkuth.
Remember, the first step to wisdom is admitting ignorance. If you're ever unsure about whether or not something is appropriation, find people of that ethnicity (it's not hard on the Internet) and approach them humbly and ask them for help.
"Hi, I'm writing/painting/doing this project, and I'm trying to be inclusive/celebratory/whatever of your culture, but do not know at what point I cross into appropriation and would like your help and input in making sure that the work I'm doing remains respectful."
Or something like that. You'll always run into some people who are too angry to be really helpful because you resemble an oppressor and a combination of projection and PTSD will make it impossible for them to help. Bless them in your heart and hope for their healing, and move on until you find someone who will help. I've known many people who would be happy to be asked, and help, if it meant seeing a familiar face in a book, or a familiar heart in art.
I will admit, when I moved to a city near a Native reserve, my knowledge of Native culture and the role Europeans had in trying to destroy it utterly. I was unfamiliar with systemic racism having come from a rather cosmopolitan city. I knew nothing about the Native Residential School System, and had no idea what Cultural Appropriation is all about.
I find the subject particularly concerning because one of my major fields of study, and passions, is anthropology. I love cultures. I love getting inside of them, seeing the world through their eyes, exploring their spirituality and relationship to the universe. Unlike some anthropologists of the past, I'm not interested out of a kind of sterile curiosity as were the colonial researchers of the past, but out of a desire to learn and discover.
Our Western Mysteries, and other traditions, teach us that we are all ONE, and that we are permutations of a single Limitless Light that refracts infinitely as we manifest in the universe. If we only ever look at that universe from a single point of view then it's like looking at a sculpture with a single light, through a hole in the wall. It might as well be a painting. Exploring and celebrating other cultures allows us to take that sculpture and rotate it around, shine different lights on it, and discover completely new wonders and joys.
So how does appropriation work then? We'll take a moment to cover this.
To the casual observer I'm sure my home, and my closet, look like a massive shrine to appropriation. I think what we have to ask ourselves is, what is the intent?
When I was young I'd go to the big Canadian tourist places with my Grandparents. It's one of the things you do. I remember a particular image that would pop up all of the time: an Indian man in profile, facing to the viewer's right, wearing a huge feathered headdress. This image was on nearly everything. I particularly remember wooden nickles and a drum I was given. A drum with a cardboard barrel (printed up like birch bark) and a kind of rubbery head with this guy's face on it. The drum was made in Taiwan or China, or somewhere, and it came with a beater, complete with fake feathers attached.
 |
| Appropriation Drum. |
On the other hand, when I buy something now, I look into the source. I own some lovely Dashiki shirts, made in Africa, and sold at a booth by a self-employed African-Canadian woman. All of the money I spent on that piece is going to members of the culture from whence it came. Similarly if you buy Native Indian crafts on reserve, and not from Hot Topic or American Apparel, your money is going to the people of origin, as opposed to white millionaires who profit on the backs of other people.
The difference of intent is important to the Occultist. Are you truly supporting and celebrating a culture by purchasing a T-Shirt with a Cultural Design from a big company? Do you know if they had the legal rights to publish that design? Where is the money going? Knowing and planning are important. As Priests and Priestesses of the Universe we must strive to leave the world of Assiah somewhat better than it was when we entered.
Now the current debate comes down to Native Appropriation in Art. Here the lines get even less rigid. Toronto painter Amanda PL had her gallery show pulled when they they had a backlash because her paintings, inspired by the Woodlands Style, were not painted by a Native Canadian. Suddenly we come up against freedom of speech and expression, but also political history and social perception.
On one hand, we have a woman who has honed her craft to create beautiful paintings. On the other we have one more white person taking something away from Native Canadians and presenting it as her own. Yes, the paintings are her own, but the style is not.
In Canada during the 20th Century White People took Native Canadians, stole them away from their families, locked them in residential schools to "Civilize and Christianize" the savage barbarians. Children were beaten for speaking "the devil's tongue" and severely punished for trying to wear their own clothing from home. Many children never made it out alive, their parents waiting at airplanes for children who would never come home. I've known Res School survivors and they are all psychologically damaged in some way, by MY people, in MY lifetime.
Since the 1990's when the schools were finally shut down, Native Canadians have been striving to rebuild their culture and identity. It's been a hard road for them, and they've had to fight a lot of ignorance and racism along the way. It's only in 2017 that schools in Ontario are getting history curriculum units covering the Native Residential Schools, the '60s Scoop, and other atrocities Canada has inflicted upon its Native population. Ignorance in this area is so bad, many teachers ask why they have to learn and teach these units. They don't see the point.
So that's the political climate in which a white woman planned to have a huge gallery show, filled with Native inspired art, which—if sold—would not benefit a single Native Canadian.
What's the intent here? Most gallery shows are designed to make money. The gallery and the artists are in a position to benefit financially and socially from a culturally appropriated style in a political environment where many Native artists, doing the exact same work, cannot get even a single wall, let alone an entire gallery, on which to showcase their work. I've seen beautiful stuff rolled up in the hands of poor "Indians" who were going door to door trying to sell their work for a few bucks. In that situation, how can it be OK for a non-Native to show comparable work in a high-end art gallery?
The problem, I feel, with the current debate is that it seems to be scaring off the allies of indigenous peoples. If I write a book, does it mean everyone has to be White, or Whitish conforming to a singular culture? Am I allowed, as a White Author to include other cultures and peoples in my writing? That's not reductio ad absurdum, it happens all of the time right now where a white author writing a non-white character catches hell from the media. The problem is that you cannot represent an entire culture in a few characters.
For example, if I sit with my Native friends and build a Native character for a book or story, that character is only going to be representative of the experience of those people. Millions of other people will have a different experience of that culture, and they might, reasonably, feel that I was misrepresenting them in my writing.
Again, I come to intent. Does someone include non-White characters trying to capitalize on a culture? Does one put Black or African characters in a book hoping to tap into the "Black Market?" Or is the intent to be inclusive, to recognize that not everyone has the same backgrounds and the same skin colour? Different cultures include different motivations, different focuses in their education, and different ideologies. It took me forever to realize that a friend of mine was showing AFFECTION by poking fun at me. I was genuinely hurt because I didn't understand that, amongst the Anishnaabe, this was normal, affectionate behaviour one used towards good friends. I've learned to understand their humour, and often, prefer their company to those of my own culture with its hardened edges.
Coming to a clear point, as Occultists of the Western Tradition we are given one clear rule "we profess only to heal, and that freely." Healing means understanding the illness, and approaching it armed with knowledge, understanding, and empathy. We need to bring together all of the attributes of the six middle sephiroth and apply them to the world in Malkuth.
Remember, the first step to wisdom is admitting ignorance. If you're ever unsure about whether or not something is appropriation, find people of that ethnicity (it's not hard on the Internet) and approach them humbly and ask them for help.
"Hi, I'm writing/painting/doing this project, and I'm trying to be inclusive/celebratory/whatever of your culture, but do not know at what point I cross into appropriation and would like your help and input in making sure that the work I'm doing remains respectful."
Or something like that. You'll always run into some people who are too angry to be really helpful because you resemble an oppressor and a combination of projection and PTSD will make it impossible for them to help. Bless them in your heart and hope for their healing, and move on until you find someone who will help. I've known many people who would be happy to be asked, and help, if it meant seeing a familiar face in a book, or a familiar heart in art.
Perhaps like most people I ignore my blogs. Mostly it's because I'm never sure what I should bother writing in public rather than putting in my personal journal.
The path has been a meandering thing over the last few years. Of late I've been struggling with what I enjoy about the Hermetic Path and frustration with the Wiccan Path. Perhaps Gardnerian doesn't fit well with my temperament or something, I don't know. But whatever it is, I'm not feeling it, you know?
The problem is that throughout my life people have told me I'd make a great Priest. Ever since about 1=10, I've thought of myself, and other Occultists, as "Priests of the Universe," We work with energy and forces which connect to the primary Force of the universe, and as such should cultivate compassion and love for all things. I know too many systems in the Occult community that think the opposite of this, and that's why I often complain that we're missing Alchemical Salt in our training methods. We're short on the Green Ray, so to speak.
In my life, I did try to go a more traditional route to becoming a Priest. I considered it as an Anglican (Church of England) but there were parts of the catechism I couldn't handle. "We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. " Every time I heard that I shuddered. I couldn't imagine a God who fit the criteria of my understanding of the Divine, treating people like that. I imagined what would happen to someone who approached Odin in that fashion. He'd stomp on them and boot them out the door. Humility and humble access can be achieved while maintaining pride in one's self.
The problem was that I'd had experience of the Gods when I was young. About 15 or 16 maybe? And I had studied the Hermetic Qabalah for far too long not to notice that the "Christian" God was unbalanced on the Tree.
But there was always encouragement. For a while I studied at an Orthodox Synagogue, and they thought I'd make a great Rabbi. At the United Church I even had a mentor, and elderly minister who thought I'd be brilliant. The Conference (like a Diocese) said my disabilities were too severe because they couldn't place me anywhere they wanted.
From time to time I've looked at Wicca. Often there was some barrier. Usually distance, or a spouse with only the veneer of support (she's a Christian now, or so I've heard). And that brings me back to now.
The other night someone told me how much they appreciated what I did for their son. I didn't understand, so they explained. Their son was going through a pretty severe breakup. Some of the other, more macho, neighbours were giving him a hard time about it for whatever reason. I talked to him. We just talked. We talked about computers and work, and life, and whatever, and he felt better. I treated him like a fellow human being and somehow that meant the world to him at the time.
It struck me that I have to figure something out. It's time.
For the last few years I've had people bugging me to "put on the Elder hat." Even strangers at psychic fairs have said "So why haven't you put on the hat?" I suppose that equally asks, "why aren't you living as a Priest?" I suppose the answer comes down to: "I'm an Hermeticist brought up as a High Church Anglican, and I need the paper. I need the ritual to make it real." Priest and Elder seem to me titles conferred by a community or tradition. I've not done specific work towards those things, though much of my other work is likely incidentally or tangentially the same.
These are titles that change the way you interact with people. So I think people need to give them to you in a formalized way. They affect community, and the community should confer them.
I was complaining to a friend about what I see as a lack of interesting stuff to do in Gardnerian. She's an expert astrologer and said that, between what she knows about me, and my chart, I'd make an amazing High Priest. I've already walked through the gates of Death, so there's that Initiation, as well as the various initiations I've had elsewhere. The problem is that I cannot figure out how to make it to the Third Degree in Gardnerian when all I really want to focus upon is Second Order work from the Hermetic perspective. When I try to answer the "official questions" for Gardnerian advancement, they're not things I can get out of the written materials, and I cannot seem to get them out of anyone else either. So either the questions are poorly compiled, or there's a breakdown in communication. Either way, it's not helpful.
The path has been a meandering thing over the last few years. Of late I've been struggling with what I enjoy about the Hermetic Path and frustration with the Wiccan Path. Perhaps Gardnerian doesn't fit well with my temperament or something, I don't know. But whatever it is, I'm not feeling it, you know?
The problem is that throughout my life people have told me I'd make a great Priest. Ever since about 1=10, I've thought of myself, and other Occultists, as "Priests of the Universe," We work with energy and forces which connect to the primary Force of the universe, and as such should cultivate compassion and love for all things. I know too many systems in the Occult community that think the opposite of this, and that's why I often complain that we're missing Alchemical Salt in our training methods. We're short on the Green Ray, so to speak.
In my life, I did try to go a more traditional route to becoming a Priest. I considered it as an Anglican (Church of England) but there were parts of the catechism I couldn't handle. "We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. " Every time I heard that I shuddered. I couldn't imagine a God who fit the criteria of my understanding of the Divine, treating people like that. I imagined what would happen to someone who approached Odin in that fashion. He'd stomp on them and boot them out the door. Humility and humble access can be achieved while maintaining pride in one's self.
The problem was that I'd had experience of the Gods when I was young. About 15 or 16 maybe? And I had studied the Hermetic Qabalah for far too long not to notice that the "Christian" God was unbalanced on the Tree.
But there was always encouragement. For a while I studied at an Orthodox Synagogue, and they thought I'd make a great Rabbi. At the United Church I even had a mentor, and elderly minister who thought I'd be brilliant. The Conference (like a Diocese) said my disabilities were too severe because they couldn't place me anywhere they wanted.
From time to time I've looked at Wicca. Often there was some barrier. Usually distance, or a spouse with only the veneer of support (she's a Christian now, or so I've heard). And that brings me back to now.
The other night someone told me how much they appreciated what I did for their son. I didn't understand, so they explained. Their son was going through a pretty severe breakup. Some of the other, more macho, neighbours were giving him a hard time about it for whatever reason. I talked to him. We just talked. We talked about computers and work, and life, and whatever, and he felt better. I treated him like a fellow human being and somehow that meant the world to him at the time.
It struck me that I have to figure something out. It's time.
For the last few years I've had people bugging me to "put on the Elder hat." Even strangers at psychic fairs have said "So why haven't you put on the hat?" I suppose that equally asks, "why aren't you living as a Priest?" I suppose the answer comes down to: "I'm an Hermeticist brought up as a High Church Anglican, and I need the paper. I need the ritual to make it real." Priest and Elder seem to me titles conferred by a community or tradition. I've not done specific work towards those things, though much of my other work is likely incidentally or tangentially the same.
These are titles that change the way you interact with people. So I think people need to give them to you in a formalized way. They affect community, and the community should confer them.
I was complaining to a friend about what I see as a lack of interesting stuff to do in Gardnerian. She's an expert astrologer and said that, between what she knows about me, and my chart, I'd make an amazing High Priest. I've already walked through the gates of Death, so there's that Initiation, as well as the various initiations I've had elsewhere. The problem is that I cannot figure out how to make it to the Third Degree in Gardnerian when all I really want to focus upon is Second Order work from the Hermetic perspective. When I try to answer the "official questions" for Gardnerian advancement, they're not things I can get out of the written materials, and I cannot seem to get them out of anyone else either. So either the questions are poorly compiled, or there's a breakdown in communication. Either way, it's not helpful.
Friday, May 19, 2017
Force for Good?
The tradition into which I am initiated gives two instructions. They are similar to those given in the old Golden Dawn rituals. The one is to respect the form of religion professed by another because it is not up to us to define what is sacred to them. The other is to balance Severity and Mercy. Excess Severity is cruelty, excess Mercy is weakness which would allow evil to go unchecked.
The same tradition teaches us that evil (both Positive and Negative evil) is that which retards the evolution of mankind.
So herein lies the problem, when these three are in conflict, what is our job as Priests of the Universe and Servants of Light?
In a number of recent conversations I've been challenged when I've said negative things about the Roman Catholic Church and other branches of Christianity. Now I'll say, yes, there are some very good, spiritual and loving Christians, but even if you take entire denominations into account they are less than 5% of all Christian sects... in some countries much less. I do not speak of them.
The problem, as I see it, is that these organisations are doing, and have done, great harm to both individuals and nations. Crusades aside, the Native Residential Schools were a form of sanctioned cultural genocide which included physical, emotional and even sexual abuse, sometimes even outright murder. So horrifying was this that everyone and their dog has issued an apology in the last 5 or 10 years (even though the system wasn't finally shut down until about the mid 1990's).
The Catholic School Experience is not a positive one, and I've heard graduates, separated by decades in age, relate very, VERY similar experiences. The physical, psychological and spiritual abuse can take a lifetime to overcome. It is frightening. Yet, they are a "religion" and I should be respectful and nice to them.
What is "religion" then? Religion, in my definition, is any strongly held, codified set of beliefs. They do not have to include a "God" in their beliefs (such as political movements) but in the minds of the followers, they do not seem very different from the surity which accompanies religion. Spirituality is different. The religion is the code, the cultus (proscribed actions) and the scripture. The mind, body and soul, together. But what in this is truly "sacred?"
In Catholicism, for example, I would argue that the ideas of redemption, ressurection and forgiveness are sacred. I would also argue that demanding 12 year old children go to confession on threat of eternal damnation is not. Nor is surrounding small children with torture porn images of Jesus. Catholic children are not taught the religion, nor even the sacred, but trained based on behaviour. You go to confession, even if you have to make things up to tell the Priest. You pray daily, you go to mass, you go through the motions, because if you don't YOU'LL BURN IN ETERNAL TORMENT! Terrifying children does not, in my mind, promote the evolution of humanity, nor shall I consider it "sacred."
How about the myriad sects who preach that you're going to Hell if you're not a member. Some are mangnamonious enough to allow that ALL Christians will get to heaven, but a large percentage are of the opinion that only the RIGHT KIND of Christian is allowed into Eternal Paradise. And you don't even have to be a good person, all of your sins are washed away because you accept Jesus as Lord and do his work "saving" humanity. At least, psychologically, there is something to be said for belonging to the "One and only true way" and being able to look down your nose at everyone else. It's false pride and community, but it's something.
In fact, I would argue that the entire industry of brain-washing young children into being afraid of Hell, believing they are the only ones going to Heaven and having nothing but distain and loathing for everyone else is, in it self, retarding human development. And this is not limited to Christianity. No, it has a brother, just as bad.
See, not all religions are like this. Not all religions conform to the Christian/Islam model of self-righteous condemnation of the world as a whole. The problem is that when one has respect for others, the other without respect has the power. "You're welcome to believe as you will, and follow the image of God you see fit" is a wonderful, beautiful sentiment. It does not fare so well when faced with "...and my God says you must all be wiped from the Earth in order to hasten his coming and stop you from condemning our children to hell with your lies."
We have seen this time and time again. A Native religion, such as that of the UK and Northern Europe is all but wiped out by Christian influence. Those who worshipped the Old Gods allowed them in, embraced them as brothers, and then got stabbed in the back. Hinduism, which sees all people as manifestations of the Godhead has been struggling for its very survival while Muslims burn Hindu temples and desecrate their sacred places.
Does not respect go two ways? If they respect other religions, than I believe we must respect them as well. But a religion of conversion, of hate, of violence cannot be included. It is true, an Occultist should be able to kneel at any Altar of Light. What I'm asking is, should we not exercise discrimmination and separate the Light from the Dark? Shall we treat Satanism, Coercive Cults, Scientology, and those who desecrate the sacred (like the "Kabbalah Center") in the same way that we treat Hinduism, Judaism, Shinto, Buddhism, Taoism, and Native Reconstructionsit Movements (Modern Paganism, Asatru, Greek and Roman reconstructionists, etc...)??? Should we not, as Magicians, as Priests of Light, say to some: "No, Thou art not one of us, thou hast forsaken the Light?"
Recently the Bishop in charge of making new laws and procedures for catching Paedophiles in the Roman Catholic Church was charged with Paedophelia. 16 was too old for him. 14 was the upper limit and some he paid in cash, others in coccaine. And yet, we shall not say that the Roman Catholic Church is corrupt right to its very core. No, we shall defend them as doing good in the world! Well I'm afraid I simply cannot agree.
I feel that the problem with the teaching outlined at the beginning of this post is incomplete and vague. What does it mean by "form of religion?" What does it mean by "sacred?" When are the religion and the church two separate entities? How can truly egalitarian and spiritual people respect such rigid, hateful and harmful religions? I believe it is incumbent upon us to call them out when we see them. And though we have true Brethren who follow Jesus and Mohammud, they are such a small minority that I wonder how we can even include them in the words "Christian" and "Muslim."
If we are to move forward as a race we need to break down the hate and fear of these religions. Perhaps they started as religions of Light, but they have fallen, fallen very far from their founding ideology. They have become corrupt. And we cannot simply blame "organised religion" as so many are wont to do. Other religions are organised, and they have no dreams of global conquest and the damnation of their fellows. Shinto and Buddhism, both organised in Japan, exist side by side. Some things have beld, one into the other, and yet they are more like a married couple than adversaries. Some people consider themselves belonging to both religions. Shinto itself has no funeral rites, Shinto funerals are performed by Buddhists. Judaism is structured and organised yet they have a tradition of refusing people three times if they want to convert. Most Jews just want to be allowed to live in peace, make a living, love God.
What we need to do is re-focus our attention on "Corporatised Religion!" The Roman Catholic Church is the greatest corporation in the world. It has a pan-global hierarchical structure unheard of in most of the world's religions. Christian denominations are companies, and their Priests and Ministers, employees. I know one case where a prospective minister was denied ordination in the United Church because his health precluded him from coverage under their insurance policy. It had nothing to do with his abilities, his sincerity nor his religion, but because the corporation could not hire him as an employee.
Jews have no such hierarchy. A Rabbi goes to school, graduates and gets his credentials. He then has to apply for positions with Synagouges which are independantly run by their communities. They have organisations to help in this process and a few that are dedicated to networking and communications, more associations than anything else. They have no chief Rabbi who is in charge of all Jews (regardless of denomination/sect) though an individual country might have a posting for "Chief Rabbi," they are not authoritarians in the same way of a Bishop or a Pope. Organisation has not turned into corporatisation.
Corporate Religion needs to be addressed. Religions that harm others need to be calle
The same tradition teaches us that evil (both Positive and Negative evil) is that which retards the evolution of mankind.
So herein lies the problem, when these three are in conflict, what is our job as Priests of the Universe and Servants of Light?
In a number of recent conversations I've been challenged when I've said negative things about the Roman Catholic Church and other branches of Christianity. Now I'll say, yes, there are some very good, spiritual and loving Christians, but even if you take entire denominations into account they are less than 5% of all Christian sects... in some countries much less. I do not speak of them.
The problem, as I see it, is that these organisations are doing, and have done, great harm to both individuals and nations. Crusades aside, the Native Residential Schools were a form of sanctioned cultural genocide which included physical, emotional and even sexual abuse, sometimes even outright murder. So horrifying was this that everyone and their dog has issued an apology in the last 5 or 10 years (even though the system wasn't finally shut down until about the mid 1990's).
The Catholic School Experience is not a positive one, and I've heard graduates, separated by decades in age, relate very, VERY similar experiences. The physical, psychological and spiritual abuse can take a lifetime to overcome. It is frightening. Yet, they are a "religion" and I should be respectful and nice to them.
What is "religion" then? Religion, in my definition, is any strongly held, codified set of beliefs. They do not have to include a "God" in their beliefs (such as political movements) but in the minds of the followers, they do not seem very different from the surity which accompanies religion. Spirituality is different. The religion is the code, the cultus (proscribed actions) and the scripture. The mind, body and soul, together. But what in this is truly "sacred?"
In Catholicism, for example, I would argue that the ideas of redemption, ressurection and forgiveness are sacred. I would also argue that demanding 12 year old children go to confession on threat of eternal damnation is not. Nor is surrounding small children with torture porn images of Jesus. Catholic children are not taught the religion, nor even the sacred, but trained based on behaviour. You go to confession, even if you have to make things up to tell the Priest. You pray daily, you go to mass, you go through the motions, because if you don't YOU'LL BURN IN ETERNAL TORMENT! Terrifying children does not, in my mind, promote the evolution of humanity, nor shall I consider it "sacred."
How about the myriad sects who preach that you're going to Hell if you're not a member. Some are mangnamonious enough to allow that ALL Christians will get to heaven, but a large percentage are of the opinion that only the RIGHT KIND of Christian is allowed into Eternal Paradise. And you don't even have to be a good person, all of your sins are washed away because you accept Jesus as Lord and do his work "saving" humanity. At least, psychologically, there is something to be said for belonging to the "One and only true way" and being able to look down your nose at everyone else. It's false pride and community, but it's something.
In fact, I would argue that the entire industry of brain-washing young children into being afraid of Hell, believing they are the only ones going to Heaven and having nothing but distain and loathing for everyone else is, in it self, retarding human development. And this is not limited to Christianity. No, it has a brother, just as bad.
See, not all religions are like this. Not all religions conform to the Christian/Islam model of self-righteous condemnation of the world as a whole. The problem is that when one has respect for others, the other without respect has the power. "You're welcome to believe as you will, and follow the image of God you see fit" is a wonderful, beautiful sentiment. It does not fare so well when faced with "...and my God says you must all be wiped from the Earth in order to hasten his coming and stop you from condemning our children to hell with your lies."
We have seen this time and time again. A Native religion, such as that of the UK and Northern Europe is all but wiped out by Christian influence. Those who worshipped the Old Gods allowed them in, embraced them as brothers, and then got stabbed in the back. Hinduism, which sees all people as manifestations of the Godhead has been struggling for its very survival while Muslims burn Hindu temples and desecrate their sacred places.
Does not respect go two ways? If they respect other religions, than I believe we must respect them as well. But a religion of conversion, of hate, of violence cannot be included. It is true, an Occultist should be able to kneel at any Altar of Light. What I'm asking is, should we not exercise discrimmination and separate the Light from the Dark? Shall we treat Satanism, Coercive Cults, Scientology, and those who desecrate the sacred (like the "Kabbalah Center") in the same way that we treat Hinduism, Judaism, Shinto, Buddhism, Taoism, and Native Reconstructionsit Movements (Modern Paganism, Asatru, Greek and Roman reconstructionists, etc...)??? Should we not, as Magicians, as Priests of Light, say to some: "No, Thou art not one of us, thou hast forsaken the Light?"
Recently the Bishop in charge of making new laws and procedures for catching Paedophiles in the Roman Catholic Church was charged with Paedophelia. 16 was too old for him. 14 was the upper limit and some he paid in cash, others in coccaine. And yet, we shall not say that the Roman Catholic Church is corrupt right to its very core. No, we shall defend them as doing good in the world! Well I'm afraid I simply cannot agree.
I feel that the problem with the teaching outlined at the beginning of this post is incomplete and vague. What does it mean by "form of religion?" What does it mean by "sacred?" When are the religion and the church two separate entities? How can truly egalitarian and spiritual people respect such rigid, hateful and harmful religions? I believe it is incumbent upon us to call them out when we see them. And though we have true Brethren who follow Jesus and Mohammud, they are such a small minority that I wonder how we can even include them in the words "Christian" and "Muslim."
If we are to move forward as a race we need to break down the hate and fear of these religions. Perhaps they started as religions of Light, but they have fallen, fallen very far from their founding ideology. They have become corrupt. And we cannot simply blame "organised religion" as so many are wont to do. Other religions are organised, and they have no dreams of global conquest and the damnation of their fellows. Shinto and Buddhism, both organised in Japan, exist side by side. Some things have beld, one into the other, and yet they are more like a married couple than adversaries. Some people consider themselves belonging to both religions. Shinto itself has no funeral rites, Shinto funerals are performed by Buddhists. Judaism is structured and organised yet they have a tradition of refusing people three times if they want to convert. Most Jews just want to be allowed to live in peace, make a living, love God.
What we need to do is re-focus our attention on "Corporatised Religion!" The Roman Catholic Church is the greatest corporation in the world. It has a pan-global hierarchical structure unheard of in most of the world's religions. Christian denominations are companies, and their Priests and Ministers, employees. I know one case where a prospective minister was denied ordination in the United Church because his health precluded him from coverage under their insurance policy. It had nothing to do with his abilities, his sincerity nor his religion, but because the corporation could not hire him as an employee.
Jews have no such hierarchy. A Rabbi goes to school, graduates and gets his credentials. He then has to apply for positions with Synagouges which are independantly run by their communities. They have organisations to help in this process and a few that are dedicated to networking and communications, more associations than anything else. They have no chief Rabbi who is in charge of all Jews (regardless of denomination/sect) though an individual country might have a posting for "Chief Rabbi," they are not authoritarians in the same way of a Bishop or a Pope. Organisation has not turned into corporatisation.
Corporate Religion needs to be addressed. Religions that harm others need to be calle
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Holy Crowley, Can we give it a rest?
I'm convinced that Aleister Crowley is a folk hero. It is the only way I can reconcile the dissonance between his continued influence in Western Occultism and the fact that he was a terrible example of a magician. It seems to me that he single-handedly obfuscated over 100 years of occultism and occult study, becoming the very "Ape of Thoth" he saw in others.
The reason I bring this up is that I've been reading a new (2016) book on magic, and find the influence of Crowley still overshadows the writings and work of far superior 20th century occultists. The author derides 19th century occult schools (calling them Victorian swingers' clubs) while still using old man Crowley as an authority. The book is about abandoning outmoded thinking in the 21st century!
It seems as though authors would rather lean on this wealthy rebellious Victorian rather than brave the remote possibility of being seen as a Christian sympathizer by referencing the work of other occultists. This is just as personally dogmatic as the doctrines against which they are supposedly rebelling in the first place. It's the exact same blinders to which they are pointing in mainstream society.
Yet, authors like Dion Fortune, Paul Foster Case, W.E. Butler, Dolores Ashcroft-Nowicki, and others, are only superficially Christian at best. Some are down right Pagan! Butler was a Liberal Catholic priest, sure, but Crowley formed at Gnostic Catholic Church! In both cases, Catholic means "Universal," and the Roman Catholic Church was the Universal Church of Rome, the official state religion of the empire. If you push past that and read Butler, you'll see he's far more Gnostic than Roman, and in fact more Gnostic than Crowley's "Gnostic" church. (Crowley never lived to know about the Nag Hammidi texts, this discovery coming only two years before his death while Crowley was in poor health.)
Quite possibly the most frustrating part about reading modern "occultists" is "Chaos Magic" and certain Wiccan approaches to Western Occultism. I get that Wicca is basically stripped down for export. Crowley thought it was "Thelema for the masses" or some such. So I can be a little more forgiving of its lack of sound theory, but the Chaos Magic writers seem to have found only half of the keys, and somehow continually miss the point.
The thing is, I keep reading Chaotes at the insistence of a good friend, but continually find my opinion reinforced. On one hand, they may have a strong grasp of modern economics, but then give a practical instruction that could only come from someone without a solid theoretical basis in magic or ceremonial. They will quote quantum theory on one page and then seem to miss how it's connected to ritual theory on another. They'll discuss the importance of magic's psychological impact, but then miss how that impact can best be applied.
One thing that got me was a ritual instruction that referred to candles and incense as "mere theatrics." This completely misses the point of magical work in the first place. Certainly, in today's age, candles are theatrical, but the psychological impact is to trigger our subconscious mind in order to make it receptive to the work we are undertaking. We have innumerable cultural images of candle-lit rituals and even the experience of candles as ritual and magical tools (regardless of religious tradition) that to discount them outright is to miss a valuable tool.
To dismiss theatrics is equally poor theory. The power of psychodrama is a cornerstone of all occult work as it implants images and suggestions into the subconscious mind, the place where magic really happens. And do dismiss the well documented power of scent as tied to mental and psychological processes is, beyond words.
Often the things about which they write are internally inconsistent. On one hand an author might suggest that the best way to be initiated is through a ritual using psychotropic drugs as administered ritually by a trained Shamen or Priest. Yet at another point dismiss other initiatory traditions. In my understanding of occult theory, there is no difference. Both methods require the administration of initiation by an external initiator. Regardless of method, the initiatory experience is dependant upon the power and experience of the initiator. It is up to them to prepare you for the initiatory experience, to plug you in and turn you on so that the initiatory experience can manifest.
Both types of initiation only prepare you for the experience which then manifests separately. Even the most powerful initiatory experience can still take years to properly ground out and manifest in the personality regardless of the presence of presently illegal psychotropics. Furthermore, the incenses that are traditionally used in these initiatory traditions are, themselves, psychoactive in nature. Dittany of Crete, Myrrh, Sandalwood, Frankincense, Aloeswood, etc... Dion Fortune writes about using the Fire of Azrael—using Juniper, Sandlewood, and Cedar—as a magical tool.
Psychodrama itself, when used properly, can have very similar effects on the brain as various psychoactive plants. Include the psychological impact of a well written ceremonial combined with appropriate lighting and copious amounts of the traditional incenses, and a legitimate initiator, and you have everything necessary to plug in and turn on anyone who is ready to be turned on.
I say "ready to be turned on" because it doesn't matter what methods you use, if the individual is not ready, the initiation simply will not occur. Even if you're using a heavy-handed method like LSD or peyote, you're more likely to just have a "good trip" than an initiatory experience.
Further, it seems to me that most people don't understand what initiation is about anyway.
Although this "turning on" is important, it is only one part of the process. The other parts include impressing on the subconscious the keys that access the particular current into which you are being initiated, and to welcome you to an ingroup of some description. This is why, regardless of experience or education, you must be "initiated" into every different group with which you wish to work. Initiation also connects you to an egregore and a current of force specific to that group. I cannot imagine much benefit to being "turned on" without having a current or egregore with which to connect. To my mind, initiating a person simply to initiate them, and then leave them to their own devices, is unethical.
In may ways, I do agree with some of the things these guys are writing. Yes, we need to break out of the societal moulds into which we are placed. We need to rebel against the barrage of advertising that constantly tries to make us conform. But I often wonder if these writers are conflating Ethics and Morals. One has to do with conforming to social customs, the other has to do with causing harm to self and others.
Perhaps the most important thing I take away from reading modern occult writers is that I've been extremely fortunate in my occult career. Perhaps it is not their fault that they lack a good foundation in magical theory. In many ways, this seems a self-fulfilling cycle. Authors who don't have a good foundation in occult theory inspire other writers to work from the same position.
The cool kids all reject formal occult education, and so they perpetrate a lack of understanding when it comes to occult and magical theory. They then end up falling back onto the rock-star attitudes of a certain extremely wealthy Victorian madman who, more than anything else, loved to see his name in print. He thumbed his nose at authority, and got angry when anyone said no to him. He's the perfect folk hero for an age where we're seeing our Post-WWII economy fail, and feel some of his ideas on religion are being vindicated.
But here's my problem. Crowley died destitute, addicted to heroin, alone, and quite possibly insane. He either drove all of his wives and partners mad, or was only attracted to women who suffered from mental illness in the first place. He utterly wasted a massive fortune while thinking he was both a Gnostic Saint and the new Messiah, delivering the Word of the Gods unto humanity. From all reports, he was an abusive megalomaniac, and is, in my opinion, the perfect example of a failed magician. His should be a cautionary tale, a fate to avoid at all costs. Someone to avoid.
The problem with other occult authors is that most of them lived quite, fulfilling lives surrounded by friends, family, and beloved students. They wrote, not for shock value, not to get their names in papers, but because they felt they had something worth sharing with the world. The best of them were always humble, seeing themselves as servants of the greater good, whatever they might call it in their personal cosmology. In short, they lived the Great Work. Maybe that's not sexy enough for the post-modern era, I don't know. What I do know is that the world about which the Chaotes write is not one with which I can relate. The occultists to whom they refer are not representative of those with whom I've worked.
...And once again, I'm reminded how lucky I've been.
Regardless of my feelings towards the Order's administration, the Work has given me an excellent education.
The reason I bring this up is that I've been reading a new (2016) book on magic, and find the influence of Crowley still overshadows the writings and work of far superior 20th century occultists. The author derides 19th century occult schools (calling them Victorian swingers' clubs) while still using old man Crowley as an authority. The book is about abandoning outmoded thinking in the 21st century!
It seems as though authors would rather lean on this wealthy rebellious Victorian rather than brave the remote possibility of being seen as a Christian sympathizer by referencing the work of other occultists. This is just as personally dogmatic as the doctrines against which they are supposedly rebelling in the first place. It's the exact same blinders to which they are pointing in mainstream society.
Yet, authors like Dion Fortune, Paul Foster Case, W.E. Butler, Dolores Ashcroft-Nowicki, and others, are only superficially Christian at best. Some are down right Pagan! Butler was a Liberal Catholic priest, sure, but Crowley formed at Gnostic Catholic Church! In both cases, Catholic means "Universal," and the Roman Catholic Church was the Universal Church of Rome, the official state religion of the empire. If you push past that and read Butler, you'll see he's far more Gnostic than Roman, and in fact more Gnostic than Crowley's "Gnostic" church. (Crowley never lived to know about the Nag Hammidi texts, this discovery coming only two years before his death while Crowley was in poor health.)
Quite possibly the most frustrating part about reading modern "occultists" is "Chaos Magic" and certain Wiccan approaches to Western Occultism. I get that Wicca is basically stripped down for export. Crowley thought it was "Thelema for the masses" or some such. So I can be a little more forgiving of its lack of sound theory, but the Chaos Magic writers seem to have found only half of the keys, and somehow continually miss the point.
The thing is, I keep reading Chaotes at the insistence of a good friend, but continually find my opinion reinforced. On one hand, they may have a strong grasp of modern economics, but then give a practical instruction that could only come from someone without a solid theoretical basis in magic or ceremonial. They will quote quantum theory on one page and then seem to miss how it's connected to ritual theory on another. They'll discuss the importance of magic's psychological impact, but then miss how that impact can best be applied.
One thing that got me was a ritual instruction that referred to candles and incense as "mere theatrics." This completely misses the point of magical work in the first place. Certainly, in today's age, candles are theatrical, but the psychological impact is to trigger our subconscious mind in order to make it receptive to the work we are undertaking. We have innumerable cultural images of candle-lit rituals and even the experience of candles as ritual and magical tools (regardless of religious tradition) that to discount them outright is to miss a valuable tool.
To dismiss theatrics is equally poor theory. The power of psychodrama is a cornerstone of all occult work as it implants images and suggestions into the subconscious mind, the place where magic really happens. And do dismiss the well documented power of scent as tied to mental and psychological processes is, beyond words.
Often the things about which they write are internally inconsistent. On one hand an author might suggest that the best way to be initiated is through a ritual using psychotropic drugs as administered ritually by a trained Shamen or Priest. Yet at another point dismiss other initiatory traditions. In my understanding of occult theory, there is no difference. Both methods require the administration of initiation by an external initiator. Regardless of method, the initiatory experience is dependant upon the power and experience of the initiator. It is up to them to prepare you for the initiatory experience, to plug you in and turn you on so that the initiatory experience can manifest.
Both types of initiation only prepare you for the experience which then manifests separately. Even the most powerful initiatory experience can still take years to properly ground out and manifest in the personality regardless of the presence of presently illegal psychotropics. Furthermore, the incenses that are traditionally used in these initiatory traditions are, themselves, psychoactive in nature. Dittany of Crete, Myrrh, Sandalwood, Frankincense, Aloeswood, etc... Dion Fortune writes about using the Fire of Azrael—using Juniper, Sandlewood, and Cedar—as a magical tool.
Psychodrama itself, when used properly, can have very similar effects on the brain as various psychoactive plants. Include the psychological impact of a well written ceremonial combined with appropriate lighting and copious amounts of the traditional incenses, and a legitimate initiator, and you have everything necessary to plug in and turn on anyone who is ready to be turned on.
I say "ready to be turned on" because it doesn't matter what methods you use, if the individual is not ready, the initiation simply will not occur. Even if you're using a heavy-handed method like LSD or peyote, you're more likely to just have a "good trip" than an initiatory experience.
Further, it seems to me that most people don't understand what initiation is about anyway.
Although this "turning on" is important, it is only one part of the process. The other parts include impressing on the subconscious the keys that access the particular current into which you are being initiated, and to welcome you to an ingroup of some description. This is why, regardless of experience or education, you must be "initiated" into every different group with which you wish to work. Initiation also connects you to an egregore and a current of force specific to that group. I cannot imagine much benefit to being "turned on" without having a current or egregore with which to connect. To my mind, initiating a person simply to initiate them, and then leave them to their own devices, is unethical.
In may ways, I do agree with some of the things these guys are writing. Yes, we need to break out of the societal moulds into which we are placed. We need to rebel against the barrage of advertising that constantly tries to make us conform. But I often wonder if these writers are conflating Ethics and Morals. One has to do with conforming to social customs, the other has to do with causing harm to self and others.
Perhaps the most important thing I take away from reading modern occult writers is that I've been extremely fortunate in my occult career. Perhaps it is not their fault that they lack a good foundation in magical theory. In many ways, this seems a self-fulfilling cycle. Authors who don't have a good foundation in occult theory inspire other writers to work from the same position.
The cool kids all reject formal occult education, and so they perpetrate a lack of understanding when it comes to occult and magical theory. They then end up falling back onto the rock-star attitudes of a certain extremely wealthy Victorian madman who, more than anything else, loved to see his name in print. He thumbed his nose at authority, and got angry when anyone said no to him. He's the perfect folk hero for an age where we're seeing our Post-WWII economy fail, and feel some of his ideas on religion are being vindicated.
But here's my problem. Crowley died destitute, addicted to heroin, alone, and quite possibly insane. He either drove all of his wives and partners mad, or was only attracted to women who suffered from mental illness in the first place. He utterly wasted a massive fortune while thinking he was both a Gnostic Saint and the new Messiah, delivering the Word of the Gods unto humanity. From all reports, he was an abusive megalomaniac, and is, in my opinion, the perfect example of a failed magician. His should be a cautionary tale, a fate to avoid at all costs. Someone to avoid.
The problem with other occult authors is that most of them lived quite, fulfilling lives surrounded by friends, family, and beloved students. They wrote, not for shock value, not to get their names in papers, but because they felt they had something worth sharing with the world. The best of them were always humble, seeing themselves as servants of the greater good, whatever they might call it in their personal cosmology. In short, they lived the Great Work. Maybe that's not sexy enough for the post-modern era, I don't know. What I do know is that the world about which the Chaotes write is not one with which I can relate. The occultists to whom they refer are not representative of those with whom I've worked.
...And once again, I'm reminded how lucky I've been.
Regardless of my feelings towards the Order's administration, the Work has given me an excellent education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)