There are many taboos in society. They are always changing, I suppose, like everything; and they tend to be centred around real heavy shit—I mean real, heavy, shit. Like sex, like death, like incest and suicide. The kind of stuff you find yourself thinking about with a rapid heart beat, and fifteen minutes later you realise that you’re sweating and have been staring at a wall for the duration of that time, so involved in the terrorising thought of death or sex or (etc.) that you have indeed temporarily ceased to exist as a physical person. You are, rather, for a time, horrifying waves of thought.
Good times, of course (patronising chuckle).
But what about the not-so-wrenching taboos? What about taboos that may not have been discovered yet, or which perhaps exist but have not yet reached the forefront of human fear or thought in general? There are many, to be sure. But one recently arrived at my mental door step, and I could not stop thinking about it: initially, not in fear, but in a more contemplative way which in turn led to theorising which in turn led to—well, yes—to fear. But no such a simple fear, as will be discussed.
At this stage you’re itching to know what the fuck I’m talking about, no doubt. It is worth the wait, I assure you. And here it is.
Pig People.
Purposefully capitalised.
For the Pig People are, in a sense, a people; they are not a clan or a unified group of any sort, but they are a commonly perceived “type”, if you will. What is the author talking about? you find yourself asking ( me too!). But somewhere, I venture to assume, lurking in the back of most minds, is a notion of an archetype that is “the Pig Person”.
What is a Pig Person?
A Pig Person is the title I have chosen to denote the evidently noticeable amount of people in this world who resemble the common farmyard animal mentioned in their very title.
Immediately I cower in fear. There are rocks being thrown at me and people screaming obscenities at just how insensitive I could possibly be. I run and try to hide, but they find me, legions of them, pointing accusingly at the sinner: “How dare you!” they whine, “how dare you propose that there are human beings, human beings, on this earth who you could possibly term ‘Pig People’! Away with you and your esteem-crushing ideas!”
But I have as yet said nothing insulting about these beings. Of course, they are human; of course, they aren’t actually pigs. Both the former and latter suggestions are to me absolutely preposterous, and for that matter, far from the point.
My point is that there are Pig People. Each and every one of us knows it. Even those who chased me just now, threw objects at me in rage and denounced even my mention of such an idea—these people, perhaps, know it most. For in their hasty rage—far too hasty not to be questioned—they give their little secret away. They know, most of all, that the Pig People exist; it is not surprising (perhaps it is even usual) that those who are most afraid of a taboo are the first to pounce on it, sinking their conservative claws into its flesh and essentially doing all they can to prevent its being addressed by anyone ever.
But I have gone off track: a further explanation of the Pig People is due.
We all know them. We see them and we take note of them in our minds, consciously or subconsciously. Some of us may even know a few, be friends with a few—but we do not explicitly mention their appearance in our social groups, of course. The latter would be too daring. It would perhaps be akin to arriving at a table of friends and announcing, without phase, “Hello, my friends! I have decided it best for personal reasons to commit suicide tomorrow at dusk. I have indeed had a grand time with most, though of course not all of you, throughout my mediocre life and wish now to depart on personal grounds which I shall not detail right now—and certainly won’t detail any time after dusk tomorrow morning. (Beat). So…what’s for lunch?” Though this example is but a little ridiculous, I think it perhaps approximates the message I am attempting, very slowly, very dragged-out-edly, to, well, approximate.
The Pig People are, of course, people who resemble pigs in their physical appearance. Having said this, as mentioned before they do not really look like pigs; their features merely resemble pigs: the upturned nose, the characteristic chubbiness of the face and sometimes other parts of the body; and sometimes even the posture. Of course, the first two characteristics mentioned are the cardinal ones. They are what usually, I conjecture, cause one to think to themselves, “My God. This person resembles a pig!”
Immediately, this comes across as an insult. No one would ever, under any circumstances, mention this resemblance to one of the Pig People themselves: for they are, of course, human, and such a remark is certain to crush any human’s self esteem, their physical self awareness, and so forth. I oftentimes wonder whether the Pig People are aware of themselves as resembling pigs. Surely, one would think, these people have some inkling. But this, of course, I cannot say for sure, for I am fairly confident that I am free of all pig-like characteristics, what with my scrawny physique, my large-but-not-upturned nose, and rather drawn, if anything horse-like, face. Hmm.
And so what now? The observation has been made. Many, I’m sure, feel somewhat awkward now, what with being faced with the explicit description of the Pig Person phenomena. It is a strange thing, aye. Indeed. Indubitably. Intuitively. Indelibly.
I have lost my trail of thought, just now, right at this moment…
There it is!
Yes, there is one other thing. The Pig People are necessarily a minority. They are a small group of people, scattered about the Earth, who presumably have not amassed as a distinct sub-culture yet. Maybe they have, I am not of course sure. But they have not, I am sure, amassed in such a way that is as yet identifiable, or particularly evident in the global community (like, say, the radical UFO societies around the globe).
Are the Pig People a threat? Well, if I were one of them, I would want to find others. See, the fact of the matter is that pigs are looked down upon by most humans, like most animals really. They are seen as disgusting because of how they behave, despite that such behaviour is of course relative to the lifestyle of the pig. Of course we find it disgusting, but this is just because we ourselves see rolling around in the hot mud, lazing about and eating profusely, snorting, etc. as disgusting (oddly enough, humans are prone to do pretty much all of those things, with perhaps the exception of…no, wait—we snort, too.). So, really, there is nothing to it. Being deemed a Pig Person is only insulting to the prejudiced masses of this world. But of course, such features are perhaps not seen as physically attractive in the human realm. A problem, to be sure. Undeniably. Indubitably. Indeed. But, there is a solution to this.
Beauty is also relative, and for humans involves also a hugely complex and wide array of emotions and associated phenomena (you could insert a billion words here, but I’ll just stick to these particular approximations, for they approximate what I am ultimately trying to approximate in an approximately approximating way, so as the approximations themselves should become self-evident enough to outline my main approximation—approximately, of course). And so, there really are no reasons to fear these people. They are but people, like you and I; they merely resemble pigs in very vague ways, and are not in any way pigs themselves (unless it is meant metaphorically, in that the particular person is in fact a Pig person whose behaviour resembles that of a pig so emphatically that they are deemed disgusting, unhygienic, or what not, so on and so forth, ad infinitum).
The only real fear we have is of the Pig People becoming fearful themselves. We cannot afford for this to happen. If they become too self-conscious about the way others perceive them—that is, as Pig People—then they will form minorities and they will eventually unite, perhaps even march the Earth in an advance of war. This sounds farfetched, but if they begin to feel themselves to be outcasts, to be looked upon as repulsive and even as lower forms of being (even worse, as inhuman), then a counter-culture is sure to ensue.
This is, perhaps, preventable, if we just give them a little mud to wallow in, and some mounds of food.
Just kidding!
The moral of this story: Don’t write a piece describing Pig People which concludes with a prescription not to point out Pig People in order to prevent such people becoming fearful and thus forging armies that march the Earth in some whacky form of the End of Days.
END.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Dream Reflection: Exploring the Dreamscape and its Figures (the Dreamer)
A few nights ago I dreamt that I was a little boy again. I was on a large sports field, which seemed to be surrounded by other fields beyond which I think was a forest, or at least many trees. As a little boy in the dream (first-person), I had a friend with me on the field—a little girl. We were the only two people present.
Everything I have thought about since the dream has probably reshaped my recollection, that is, changed the way I presently look at it (as opposed to the way I first experienced it); though I hope enough of its essential features remain for a relatively honest, in-depth reflection, which I will now write.
I remember next to nothing about this dream other than the aforementioned dreamscape, the fact that there was a little girl there with me, and perhaps most importantly the intense feelings I experienced both during the dream as well as retrospectively, concerning the figure of the girl and the environment. I was very fond of the girl; she was extremely benevolent in ways I cannot describe through any of her actions, seeing as there were no such actions— at least any which were retained in my memory upon waking. There was something pure and fascinating about her; she seemed to emanate, evoking feeling from me without really doing anything. The fact that I somehow knew I was a little boy again in the dream, as opposed to the adolescent I am in waking life, makes this facet of the dream even more enigmatic.
I’m fairly sure the dream came to me in first-person, i.e. through my own eyes as a little boy in the dream. The girl was sitting somewhere around the middle of the field, I think. I am unsure whether any contact was made at all, really; but the impressions I received from the girl were strong both during the dream and when I awoke, and remain with me even now. She was a force I could trust; a guiding and benevolent figure, there to let me know that things were alright and that there was nothing to worry about (“benevolent” is the word that came to mind immediately after recalling the dream, and so will be used inordinately throughout this reflection). There isn’t much more I can write about her exact character, as there isn’t much other than how I felt. With this in mind, I came to look at the little girl as some aspect of myself, seeing as her presence alone evoked such intense and unambiguous impressions from both the little me in the dream as well as from my waking, reflective self. For that matter, the “little me” in the dream can also be viewed as an aspect, too, as will be later speculated.
It can only be assumed that this figure, the little girl, is, in some sense, a part of me; obviously a product of my mind. This is more or less undeniable, even under paradigms like Jung’s where the collective unconscious can produce archetypal dream figures, common the world over. The latter are still products of one’s own psyche; they merely contain ubiquitous archetypes which fit into collective templates, which relate to the individual in important ways anyway. Anyhow, I think it is fair to say that, at least for the purposes of this reflection, the girl was indeed some amplified aspect of myself (or more than one, combined?)—and that this also applies to the child version of me, through whose eyes I experienced the dream. (What I think is contentious is exactly what “an aspect” of oneself is; the idea is widely interpretable, and so a lengthy discussion on this notion will, for now at least, be avoided. Hopefully the way the idea is used in context here will give an idea of what such an aspect could possibly be).
So, in this light, who really is the little girl and what does she symbolise? I was interacting with an angelic, amorous, utterly benevolent and benign figure in this dream, who made me feel safe in some very intense way, even in waking life (the feelings, like many dreams, emanated into my waking life, and even now I can incite a nostalgic, peaceful feeling, just by recalling the dream and, particularly, the figure of the little girl).
In Jung’s paradigm, the function of dreams is compensation; that is, dreams compensate for psychical forces which lack in waking life, forces which work to bring equilibrium to the psyche, or healing (much like a wound works at healing itself after the damage has been done). Generally speaking, the little girl could represent some part of myself that is lacking, which, in this case, would seem to be a benevolence towards others, or perhaps even a benevolent attitude toward something within myself. It could indeed be that I lack a certain benevolence towards others, which in turn suggests a lack of benevolence towards myself which I merely project onto others.
But of course, there is more to be observed here, and even such speculative conclusions might be a little premature (but interesting, nonetheless).
The dream, first of all, takes place in a vast green sports field—rectangular, if I remember correctly (which is now almost impossible to say for sure). I get the feeling there may have even been soccer goals at each end (the idea of competition?). Anyhow, this vast, green expanse was surrounded by other vast, green expanses. So, it can perhaps be said that we—the little girl and my “little self”—are “out in the open”. We are exposed and visible. There is nowhere to hide, because even the thresholds of the outer fields are quite far away; and beyond them, of course, are the “dark woods” (the trees, of course; but for the sake of speculation and reflection, they can be seen to represent the archetypal, ubiquitous forest: the unlit, unknown region of oneself). I name them so certainly due to my influences from dream interpretation literature (notably and obviously Jung), but also because I am convinced of the idea that dark forests, in some sense, appear ubiquitously as “nether-regions”; places where people are generally frightened to go and where, in myth, folklore, etc., very mysterious and strange things happen, which of course reflect something deeper than that observed on the surface-level. This is a very widely-made observation, which doesn’t necessarily make it unquestionable but, again for the purposes of this reflection, the general assumption will be made.
So, there I was: a little boy, exposed in an open field, with this wondrous little girl; and beyond us, far away and thus not immanently threatening, laid the darkness.
Without any remembered interaction, or any action at all for that matter, it is admittedly quite difficult to speculate as to what this dream could be saying, or what it could have been showing me about myself (or even if, as the extreme skeptic says, the dream has anything to express at all). As such, I will venture to interpret it based on the reasonably clear imagery and feelings which I do possess. Nothing conclusive will appear, however, and none of the aforementioned should be considered in any way concrete.
With the malevolent forces so far beyond us (the girl and I), the feeling of being safe and warm comes as no surprise. There is simply nothing immediately threatening here; it is far away; though, I think importantly, it is still there. The fact that we are both young—somewhere between five and ten would be my estimate—suggests a certain type of innocence. We are far from the darkness, perhaps, because we are still so young: at such an age, there is little concern for “serious” matters, nor is there any of the existential anxiety which I assume, based solely on my own casual observations, tends to spawn and proliferate during adolescence. Generally speaking, at this age kids are still enveloped in the simple and innocent joys and thrills of childhood. Perhaps—as so crucially emphasised in Freudian theory—the underlying developments in this stage of life are pivotal in determining one’s being in future years; but nonetheless, there remains that purity, that ignorance of the anxieties of life and of its pressures, hardships, etc., which come about at the onset of adolescence. (The vagueness of terms like “puberty” and “adolescence” are to be noted. I dislike using the terms in any concrete sense, so bear in mind that I try to use them in a very general, non-concrete sense; that is, they tend to cover so much ground that any fixed conception of them does not do justice to the complexities of individuals. Furthermore, the diversities which such terms signify are themselves constantly in flux.).
But what could all this point to, if it indeed points to anything at all? Perhaps the dream is showing me my still-innocent, unexposed aspect; the side of me that remains far, far away from danger—from my “unenlightened” aspects. But why the benevolent little girl, intuited as a guiding-type spirit? Even now I can recall her as a guiding force, a playful but comforting figure, there as my companion, friend and perhaps even caretaker. Could this girl be the babysitter for the part of myself which chooses not to go forth into the darkness; the part which now stands alone on the playing field, having removed all other players, both friends and rivals, out of fear or personal insecurity of some kind—who needlessly chooses to wander alone before the darkness? She is there to help me, but she does not force me or even urge me to do anything; she merely tends to me in this no-man’s-land (the field).
The little boy in the dream suggests to me a blissful quasi-ignorance; a knowing, but choosing not to face just yet—and this latter idea is, as well as being fairly plausible, perhaps not as ominous as it appears. I felt no pressure of any kind in the dream or in recalling it; only peace and calm. The little girl, as guide, does not tell me that I have to, but rather takes care of me presently, exposed as I am in the open sports field which is, presumably, where I have chosen to be; and chosen, notably, to be alone. It is just me and my helper, who is in essence a part of me, thus deeming me in a sense completely isolated from others.
It cannot be emphasised enough that what has been said thus far is but one possible interpretation—and a biased one, at that, for I am undeniably free to extrapolate from my own self-knowledge, for good or for worse. Nor is it comprehensive, but rather looks at the salient parts of the dream and tries humbly to interpret them.
So, in sum:
There is within me, in some sense, a still-ignorant childlike aspect—an attitude of willing naivety—which chooses to lurk around, out in the open, rather than facing up to certain things (the distant, not-yet-threatening darkness) which are at very least known, but perhaps not fully grasped. It—the journeying aspect—has chosen, for complex reasons, to do this alone. This part of myself is not forced into doing anything; it is childlike and treated as such in that it can roam about playfully, lovingly and with a caretaker, without feeling forced to take a peak into the darker regions just yet. This could suggest immaturity, or being ill-prepared for such things presently. The girl is another part of myself, who in an explicit way explains the “little me”’s unequivocal comfort and contentedness. She is feminine, which suggests that she might be from the darkness (in the Jungian sense that every male contains an often neglected feminine side, which, being that which remains unseen, resides in “the darkness”). If this were so, she might be a peaceful taste of what’s to come: a figure who the little boy obviously has no reason to fear; in fact, quite the opposite: she makes the little boy feel safe, tells him that everything is okay and that right there and then, they are far enough away from the darkness not to have to care too much about it at present. Importantly, the little boy might not know that she is from the darkness; perhaps the peace he is experiencing is a taste of what the darkness has to offer. It is noteworthy to repeat that there are no others present; to me, this suggests that, despite not even facing up to the darkness, the “little me” has chosen to go it alone, to neglect the need for others in this particular quest (whatever it may be…).
But before this goes too far, it must be restrained; for these are, of course, speculations built upon many other speculations, and to go so far and perhaps even as far as I have at all, other dreams are needed as well as a deeper understanding of and exposition of my personality and life-situation. For now, despite it appearing to be an interpretation cut short, I will rest content in having reflected on and explored the dream as far as I have been presently able, and hopefully offered the reader some kind of insight into the possible ways of looking at and reflecting on the dream-world.
All speculation is tentative, and where conviction seems evident I urge the reader to disregard this impression. Beliefs are not my concern and this reflection is merely an attempt at divulging my personal interpretations, not an attempt to put forth fixed ways of looking at dreams. The latter, as Carl Jung pointed out, is not possible; each dream must be recognised as inextricably linked with the complex life of the individual who dreams it. This is, I think, common even to popular ideas on dreams, and I hope the above reflection has made this point self-evident.
Everything I have thought about since the dream has probably reshaped my recollection, that is, changed the way I presently look at it (as opposed to the way I first experienced it); though I hope enough of its essential features remain for a relatively honest, in-depth reflection, which I will now write.
I remember next to nothing about this dream other than the aforementioned dreamscape, the fact that there was a little girl there with me, and perhaps most importantly the intense feelings I experienced both during the dream as well as retrospectively, concerning the figure of the girl and the environment. I was very fond of the girl; she was extremely benevolent in ways I cannot describe through any of her actions, seeing as there were no such actions— at least any which were retained in my memory upon waking. There was something pure and fascinating about her; she seemed to emanate, evoking feeling from me without really doing anything. The fact that I somehow knew I was a little boy again in the dream, as opposed to the adolescent I am in waking life, makes this facet of the dream even more enigmatic.
I’m fairly sure the dream came to me in first-person, i.e. through my own eyes as a little boy in the dream. The girl was sitting somewhere around the middle of the field, I think. I am unsure whether any contact was made at all, really; but the impressions I received from the girl were strong both during the dream and when I awoke, and remain with me even now. She was a force I could trust; a guiding and benevolent figure, there to let me know that things were alright and that there was nothing to worry about (“benevolent” is the word that came to mind immediately after recalling the dream, and so will be used inordinately throughout this reflection). There isn’t much more I can write about her exact character, as there isn’t much other than how I felt. With this in mind, I came to look at the little girl as some aspect of myself, seeing as her presence alone evoked such intense and unambiguous impressions from both the little me in the dream as well as from my waking, reflective self. For that matter, the “little me” in the dream can also be viewed as an aspect, too, as will be later speculated.
It can only be assumed that this figure, the little girl, is, in some sense, a part of me; obviously a product of my mind. This is more or less undeniable, even under paradigms like Jung’s where the collective unconscious can produce archetypal dream figures, common the world over. The latter are still products of one’s own psyche; they merely contain ubiquitous archetypes which fit into collective templates, which relate to the individual in important ways anyway. Anyhow, I think it is fair to say that, at least for the purposes of this reflection, the girl was indeed some amplified aspect of myself (or more than one, combined?)—and that this also applies to the child version of me, through whose eyes I experienced the dream. (What I think is contentious is exactly what “an aspect” of oneself is; the idea is widely interpretable, and so a lengthy discussion on this notion will, for now at least, be avoided. Hopefully the way the idea is used in context here will give an idea of what such an aspect could possibly be).
So, in this light, who really is the little girl and what does she symbolise? I was interacting with an angelic, amorous, utterly benevolent and benign figure in this dream, who made me feel safe in some very intense way, even in waking life (the feelings, like many dreams, emanated into my waking life, and even now I can incite a nostalgic, peaceful feeling, just by recalling the dream and, particularly, the figure of the little girl).
In Jung’s paradigm, the function of dreams is compensation; that is, dreams compensate for psychical forces which lack in waking life, forces which work to bring equilibrium to the psyche, or healing (much like a wound works at healing itself after the damage has been done). Generally speaking, the little girl could represent some part of myself that is lacking, which, in this case, would seem to be a benevolence towards others, or perhaps even a benevolent attitude toward something within myself. It could indeed be that I lack a certain benevolence towards others, which in turn suggests a lack of benevolence towards myself which I merely project onto others.
But of course, there is more to be observed here, and even such speculative conclusions might be a little premature (but interesting, nonetheless).
The dream, first of all, takes place in a vast green sports field—rectangular, if I remember correctly (which is now almost impossible to say for sure). I get the feeling there may have even been soccer goals at each end (the idea of competition?). Anyhow, this vast, green expanse was surrounded by other vast, green expanses. So, it can perhaps be said that we—the little girl and my “little self”—are “out in the open”. We are exposed and visible. There is nowhere to hide, because even the thresholds of the outer fields are quite far away; and beyond them, of course, are the “dark woods” (the trees, of course; but for the sake of speculation and reflection, they can be seen to represent the archetypal, ubiquitous forest: the unlit, unknown region of oneself). I name them so certainly due to my influences from dream interpretation literature (notably and obviously Jung), but also because I am convinced of the idea that dark forests, in some sense, appear ubiquitously as “nether-regions”; places where people are generally frightened to go and where, in myth, folklore, etc., very mysterious and strange things happen, which of course reflect something deeper than that observed on the surface-level. This is a very widely-made observation, which doesn’t necessarily make it unquestionable but, again for the purposes of this reflection, the general assumption will be made.
So, there I was: a little boy, exposed in an open field, with this wondrous little girl; and beyond us, far away and thus not immanently threatening, laid the darkness.
Without any remembered interaction, or any action at all for that matter, it is admittedly quite difficult to speculate as to what this dream could be saying, or what it could have been showing me about myself (or even if, as the extreme skeptic says, the dream has anything to express at all). As such, I will venture to interpret it based on the reasonably clear imagery and feelings which I do possess. Nothing conclusive will appear, however, and none of the aforementioned should be considered in any way concrete.
With the malevolent forces so far beyond us (the girl and I), the feeling of being safe and warm comes as no surprise. There is simply nothing immediately threatening here; it is far away; though, I think importantly, it is still there. The fact that we are both young—somewhere between five and ten would be my estimate—suggests a certain type of innocence. We are far from the darkness, perhaps, because we are still so young: at such an age, there is little concern for “serious” matters, nor is there any of the existential anxiety which I assume, based solely on my own casual observations, tends to spawn and proliferate during adolescence. Generally speaking, at this age kids are still enveloped in the simple and innocent joys and thrills of childhood. Perhaps—as so crucially emphasised in Freudian theory—the underlying developments in this stage of life are pivotal in determining one’s being in future years; but nonetheless, there remains that purity, that ignorance of the anxieties of life and of its pressures, hardships, etc., which come about at the onset of adolescence. (The vagueness of terms like “puberty” and “adolescence” are to be noted. I dislike using the terms in any concrete sense, so bear in mind that I try to use them in a very general, non-concrete sense; that is, they tend to cover so much ground that any fixed conception of them does not do justice to the complexities of individuals. Furthermore, the diversities which such terms signify are themselves constantly in flux.).
But what could all this point to, if it indeed points to anything at all? Perhaps the dream is showing me my still-innocent, unexposed aspect; the side of me that remains far, far away from danger—from my “unenlightened” aspects. But why the benevolent little girl, intuited as a guiding-type spirit? Even now I can recall her as a guiding force, a playful but comforting figure, there as my companion, friend and perhaps even caretaker. Could this girl be the babysitter for the part of myself which chooses not to go forth into the darkness; the part which now stands alone on the playing field, having removed all other players, both friends and rivals, out of fear or personal insecurity of some kind—who needlessly chooses to wander alone before the darkness? She is there to help me, but she does not force me or even urge me to do anything; she merely tends to me in this no-man’s-land (the field).
The little boy in the dream suggests to me a blissful quasi-ignorance; a knowing, but choosing not to face just yet—and this latter idea is, as well as being fairly plausible, perhaps not as ominous as it appears. I felt no pressure of any kind in the dream or in recalling it; only peace and calm. The little girl, as guide, does not tell me that I have to, but rather takes care of me presently, exposed as I am in the open sports field which is, presumably, where I have chosen to be; and chosen, notably, to be alone. It is just me and my helper, who is in essence a part of me, thus deeming me in a sense completely isolated from others.
It cannot be emphasised enough that what has been said thus far is but one possible interpretation—and a biased one, at that, for I am undeniably free to extrapolate from my own self-knowledge, for good or for worse. Nor is it comprehensive, but rather looks at the salient parts of the dream and tries humbly to interpret them.
So, in sum:
There is within me, in some sense, a still-ignorant childlike aspect—an attitude of willing naivety—which chooses to lurk around, out in the open, rather than facing up to certain things (the distant, not-yet-threatening darkness) which are at very least known, but perhaps not fully grasped. It—the journeying aspect—has chosen, for complex reasons, to do this alone. This part of myself is not forced into doing anything; it is childlike and treated as such in that it can roam about playfully, lovingly and with a caretaker, without feeling forced to take a peak into the darker regions just yet. This could suggest immaturity, or being ill-prepared for such things presently. The girl is another part of myself, who in an explicit way explains the “little me”’s unequivocal comfort and contentedness. She is feminine, which suggests that she might be from the darkness (in the Jungian sense that every male contains an often neglected feminine side, which, being that which remains unseen, resides in “the darkness”). If this were so, she might be a peaceful taste of what’s to come: a figure who the little boy obviously has no reason to fear; in fact, quite the opposite: she makes the little boy feel safe, tells him that everything is okay and that right there and then, they are far enough away from the darkness not to have to care too much about it at present. Importantly, the little boy might not know that she is from the darkness; perhaps the peace he is experiencing is a taste of what the darkness has to offer. It is noteworthy to repeat that there are no others present; to me, this suggests that, despite not even facing up to the darkness, the “little me” has chosen to go it alone, to neglect the need for others in this particular quest (whatever it may be…).
But before this goes too far, it must be restrained; for these are, of course, speculations built upon many other speculations, and to go so far and perhaps even as far as I have at all, other dreams are needed as well as a deeper understanding of and exposition of my personality and life-situation. For now, despite it appearing to be an interpretation cut short, I will rest content in having reflected on and explored the dream as far as I have been presently able, and hopefully offered the reader some kind of insight into the possible ways of looking at and reflecting on the dream-world.
All speculation is tentative, and where conviction seems evident I urge the reader to disregard this impression. Beliefs are not my concern and this reflection is merely an attempt at divulging my personal interpretations, not an attempt to put forth fixed ways of looking at dreams. The latter, as Carl Jung pointed out, is not possible; each dream must be recognised as inextricably linked with the complex life of the individual who dreams it. This is, I think, common even to popular ideas on dreams, and I hope the above reflection has made this point self-evident.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
The Psychology (Theology) of War
I have not crawled through mud, under fire. I have not trekked a barren desert for days, sweating under an assailant’s eye. There are no troops under my command, and I have no marks of war. But I have seen war. I see war all around, always; and there seems to be no end to war and nor, perhaps, a beginning. War is raw. It complements peace in a non-dual manner. Civilisation, as we know it, is war; God is war; social status is war. All is war; and war is raw. No one escapes it, because it is ubiquitous in the mind, or the brain, or some such pseudo-centre. There is a plurality of wars, because no one war can exist without its preceding and proceeding counterparts; for war is in perspective, at all times—there are no solitary wars. When the individual sacrifices for the collective, there is war; when the collective forgets the individual, there are wars. When humans first looked deep into each other’s eyes, perhaps there was war then too. The working lives of men and women—they, too, birth wars. Inside oneself, civil war rages. God is within as well as without; and as the Greeks taught—the gods make war with one another. My enemy is my lover in war; we are like the protagonist and antagonist an epic film—our opposition is delusion. We are intrinsically One force, following our own tail… Our embrace is eternal, despite being internecine. Like a man and a woman, we complement one another; we fight and we fuck, both violently. One may chase the other and the other may chase the one, but both are always engaging in bloodthirsty war. War is Man, but manifests metamorphosed as woman—for example, this piece is woman, yet it is also an offensive. Woman’s war is curvaceous, gentle, but it also has the malevolence of natural disaster. She sleeps only as long as Luna crosses the sky; once morning has come, Father Sun sees no peace. War prevails. My enemy is the object I cannot fathom beyond my senses; war is our cosmic battle, incessant and infinite. Gods we stand, enlightened, insightful, erudite and strong—and united, we are ever at war.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Dream Reflection: 'Manifesting the East'
26/9/2011
Last night’s dream was a perfect example of a dream that defies any dream theory suggesting arbitrariness, or random memory imaging (i.e. the brain kind of ‘shorting out’). I find such theories unreasonable and extremely unpalatable (admitting my bias…); in fact, I would go as far as to say that they reflect an ulterior motive, a kind of academic defence against something that contains too much mystery to be treated ‘scientifically’, or methodologically in any way. It’s strange; I can’t say the dream was linear per se—I don’t think any I have are— but it was linear in the context of a dream and its perhaps common perception as a bundle of garbled memory/imagery. Dreams are known to be erratic, confusing and difficult to grasp in any conventional way. But this merely marginalises seemingly inexplicable elements; it does not address them in any way.
This dream was almost a hero’s journey type dream. I arrived at a distinct destination, a place where I was expected to be and where people knew me: a speech night of some sort at my old school, Mentone Grammar. But I left this place. I decided that I wanted to get away, and one of the people I had to avoid in leaving the place was a figure of my past who could no more resemble authority than anyone else—a former Vice Headmaster at Mentone Grammar. The man was intimidating: huge, broad-chested and with a potentially explosive temperament. Among others, he stood for everything I hated and probably still do hate about the world, convention, authority, conditioning and other such social elements. Anyhow, I slipped away, eventually arriving at a large Coliseum-like set of steps—very Roman indeed. Very monolithic and epic. I sat on these steps and was addressed by a God-like figure. I do not remember what the figure said, but when I left I began to ascend a huge set of (this time more regular) stairs. I struggled to endure the seemingly endless steps, but was eventually helped by a group of young Asian men. They were so benevolent in their manner; it was strikingly obvious that they posed no threat, and would only prove to be helpful to me. They even spoke in a gentle way. I remember very little from after this point in the dream, however.
In looking back on this dream I see a bundle of interconnected metaphors. I think, perhaps, that I could interpret this dream in many ways; but this is my initial interpretation. The night before I watched the movie Platoon. I think this is where the Asian men came from. The way I interpreted the movie (thus far) very much emphasised the rejection of the east by the west, in many senses. Among the arguably multiple dichotomies in the film, the central one in the protagonist’s platoon obviously stuck out: half was Man and half was Woman. That is, one half of them represented a feminine aspect, which sympathised with the enemy, the easterners, far more than the other side, whose attitude was far more brutal and whose acts reflected this. I plan to write a piece focusing on Elias, the leader of the feminine (or pot-smoking, ‘hippie’) side, because this side appears to be the side breaking through, but which is perhaps defeated in the film by the Barnes-led, masculine half. Anyhow, to continue with the dream: the Asian men were solicitous and helped me in such an amiable, respectful way; I couldn’t help but see them as an element of the Suppressed Feminine. I had just received some form of word, some logos, from a God figure on some ancient steps. This suggests to me, among other things, ancient knowledge: contemporarily suppressed knowledge. Something long forgotten, buried beneath the death-mounds of Man. Initially, I had arrived at my old high school, Mentone Grammar. This school was an all boys school and instilled patriarchal values in a very rigid, classical way; it shaped its subjects in a stereotypically Man-like fashion. After receiving the word, I was met by easterners at the foot of a huge ascent. Enlightened in some way, I was beginning a new journey back up to the grey, cold world of Mentone Grammar (the guys I knew from Mentone waited above, ready for some speech night). This could simply be seen as society, put vaguely. I was struggling to go back to this society after having been spoken to by the God figure, but was aided by the east, by the solicitous Asian men, who even appeared effeminate in their physique¬: not queer, or ‘girly’, but gentle and nurturing, like mothers. There were about three or four of them, all pushing me up these stairs, with no qualms about helping me. Going back to a patriarchal society after direct contact with some form of suppressed knowledge, or aspect, or perhaps just pure energy, was extremely difficult. But there were (are) aides. What is suppressed is not gone; it manifests in other ways and is even prominent in other cultures; it is always there, playing some role in some form—just as it manifested itself in Elias’ camp in Platoon, the latter being in the almost quintessential atmosphere of manliness: war.
And so, this is one way of looking at the dream. I cannot say there is a fixed meaning to dreams, or cause; and this is probably why it is often marginalised by the strictly methodised scientific method. But just because there are layers and layers of potential meaning, each perhaps buried in a different corner of the dream to be later excavated, this does not deem the dream devoid of value. Perhaps the dream is merely reflecting, as opposed to telling; perhaps it has a homeostatic effect, as (I think) Jung suggested, keeping the dreamer’s psyche in some form of balance; and perhaps, at times, the dream represents all that is marginalised in the human psychical life. I see no reason why it can’t be all these things, and more. Any formulaic approach to such vastly mysterious phenomena is, I think, bound to fail; nonetheless, a lot has been gathered from dream theories, and as such they cannot be blindly dismissed. And as an aside, I think that perhaps, at times, the dream is not so mysterious it all: it overtly displays something of significance, be it a conflict or what have you, from the dreamer’s life.
And this was but one dream, from a cornucopia of dreams and dream experiences. If this holds so much potential thought, so much significance but with no rigid meaning—what of the entirety of my dream life, of anyone’s dream life?
*thoughts continue as overlapping waves*
Last night’s dream was a perfect example of a dream that defies any dream theory suggesting arbitrariness, or random memory imaging (i.e. the brain kind of ‘shorting out’). I find such theories unreasonable and extremely unpalatable (admitting my bias…); in fact, I would go as far as to say that they reflect an ulterior motive, a kind of academic defence against something that contains too much mystery to be treated ‘scientifically’, or methodologically in any way. It’s strange; I can’t say the dream was linear per se—I don’t think any I have are— but it was linear in the context of a dream and its perhaps common perception as a bundle of garbled memory/imagery. Dreams are known to be erratic, confusing and difficult to grasp in any conventional way. But this merely marginalises seemingly inexplicable elements; it does not address them in any way.
This dream was almost a hero’s journey type dream. I arrived at a distinct destination, a place where I was expected to be and where people knew me: a speech night of some sort at my old school, Mentone Grammar. But I left this place. I decided that I wanted to get away, and one of the people I had to avoid in leaving the place was a figure of my past who could no more resemble authority than anyone else—a former Vice Headmaster at Mentone Grammar. The man was intimidating: huge, broad-chested and with a potentially explosive temperament. Among others, he stood for everything I hated and probably still do hate about the world, convention, authority, conditioning and other such social elements. Anyhow, I slipped away, eventually arriving at a large Coliseum-like set of steps—very Roman indeed. Very monolithic and epic. I sat on these steps and was addressed by a God-like figure. I do not remember what the figure said, but when I left I began to ascend a huge set of (this time more regular) stairs. I struggled to endure the seemingly endless steps, but was eventually helped by a group of young Asian men. They were so benevolent in their manner; it was strikingly obvious that they posed no threat, and would only prove to be helpful to me. They even spoke in a gentle way. I remember very little from after this point in the dream, however.
In looking back on this dream I see a bundle of interconnected metaphors. I think, perhaps, that I could interpret this dream in many ways; but this is my initial interpretation. The night before I watched the movie Platoon. I think this is where the Asian men came from. The way I interpreted the movie (thus far) very much emphasised the rejection of the east by the west, in many senses. Among the arguably multiple dichotomies in the film, the central one in the protagonist’s platoon obviously stuck out: half was Man and half was Woman. That is, one half of them represented a feminine aspect, which sympathised with the enemy, the easterners, far more than the other side, whose attitude was far more brutal and whose acts reflected this. I plan to write a piece focusing on Elias, the leader of the feminine (or pot-smoking, ‘hippie’) side, because this side appears to be the side breaking through, but which is perhaps defeated in the film by the Barnes-led, masculine half. Anyhow, to continue with the dream: the Asian men were solicitous and helped me in such an amiable, respectful way; I couldn’t help but see them as an element of the Suppressed Feminine. I had just received some form of word, some logos, from a God figure on some ancient steps. This suggests to me, among other things, ancient knowledge: contemporarily suppressed knowledge. Something long forgotten, buried beneath the death-mounds of Man. Initially, I had arrived at my old high school, Mentone Grammar. This school was an all boys school and instilled patriarchal values in a very rigid, classical way; it shaped its subjects in a stereotypically Man-like fashion. After receiving the word, I was met by easterners at the foot of a huge ascent. Enlightened in some way, I was beginning a new journey back up to the grey, cold world of Mentone Grammar (the guys I knew from Mentone waited above, ready for some speech night). This could simply be seen as society, put vaguely. I was struggling to go back to this society after having been spoken to by the God figure, but was aided by the east, by the solicitous Asian men, who even appeared effeminate in their physique¬: not queer, or ‘girly’, but gentle and nurturing, like mothers. There were about three or four of them, all pushing me up these stairs, with no qualms about helping me. Going back to a patriarchal society after direct contact with some form of suppressed knowledge, or aspect, or perhaps just pure energy, was extremely difficult. But there were (are) aides. What is suppressed is not gone; it manifests in other ways and is even prominent in other cultures; it is always there, playing some role in some form—just as it manifested itself in Elias’ camp in Platoon, the latter being in the almost quintessential atmosphere of manliness: war.
And so, this is one way of looking at the dream. I cannot say there is a fixed meaning to dreams, or cause; and this is probably why it is often marginalised by the strictly methodised scientific method. But just because there are layers and layers of potential meaning, each perhaps buried in a different corner of the dream to be later excavated, this does not deem the dream devoid of value. Perhaps the dream is merely reflecting, as opposed to telling; perhaps it has a homeostatic effect, as (I think) Jung suggested, keeping the dreamer’s psyche in some form of balance; and perhaps, at times, the dream represents all that is marginalised in the human psychical life. I see no reason why it can’t be all these things, and more. Any formulaic approach to such vastly mysterious phenomena is, I think, bound to fail; nonetheless, a lot has been gathered from dream theories, and as such they cannot be blindly dismissed. And as an aside, I think that perhaps, at times, the dream is not so mysterious it all: it overtly displays something of significance, be it a conflict or what have you, from the dreamer’s life.
And this was but one dream, from a cornucopia of dreams and dream experiences. If this holds so much potential thought, so much significance but with no rigid meaning—what of the entirety of my dream life, of anyone’s dream life?
*thoughts continue as overlapping waves*
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
The Liberty of John Stuart Mill and its relevance to Recreational Drug Use
This short essay will briefly outline some of the ideas of John Stuart Mill pertaining to individual freedom and liberty, as well his general approach to truth/knowledge. Following this, these ideas will be considered in relation to some of the present issues surrounding recreational drug use. Taking Mill’s general approach, it will be assumed that a complete, holistic truth on matters pertaining to individual freedom, communal wellbeing, and so forth, is not attainable; but rather, that only the ongoing refinement of such issues can serve as an adequate and prudent approach. Concrete truths, claimed to be whole, are detrimental to the ongoing function of knowledge; or, in Mill’s words:
Popular opinions, in subjects not palpable to sense, are often true, but seldom or never the whole truth. They are part of the truth; sometimes a greater, sometimes a smaller part, but exaggerated, distorted, and disjointed from the truths by which they ought to be accompanied and limited.
And furthermore:
…the new fragment of truth is more wanted, more adapted to the needs of the time, than that which it displaces…
Marx’s notion of ideological rule will also be briefly considered, as its relation to popular conceptions and majority opinion is relevant to the concluding discussion on drug use.
But first, an outline of the relevant aspects of Mill’s thought.
Mill was largely concerned with individual freedom and the threat of its being encroached by the state or—more emphatically—the majority, the latter being, in essence, dominant popular opinions. Contra Rousseau’s notion of the general will (in which “the vote of the majority binds the minority” , and which is “always rightful and always tends to the public good”, disregarding “private interests” ), Mill repeatedly stresses that the general will must be kept in check. If it is not, there is danger of society itself becoming tyrannical, of the “tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling”. Essentially, Mill’s concern lies in the notion that majority opinions can pull in and intimidate minorities, hindering minority opinions which are essential to the refinement of truth, and to the expression of free thought in general. The force of majority opinion can be observed all over the world, where all kinds of minority groups—from sub-cultures to political parties—are seen to hold ideas considered “perverse”, but which are often of far more value than is popularly considered. Without said consideration, many opposing opinions are thoughtlessly written off and disregarded, which not only damages the victorious opinion through exposing its inability to defend itself against an opposing view, but augments that popular opinion in such a way that it is in danger of growing into a ruling dogma.
Here we can make a slight comparison with some of Marx’s ideas.
Marx put forth the proposition that people are subjected to the ideas of the ruling classes because they do not have the means to express powerful counter-ideologies. The ruling ideology represents “the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas” ; that is, “The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.” Similarly, Mill recognises that “wherever there is an ascendant class, a large portion of the morality of the country emanates from its class interests, and its feelings of class superiority.”
Both Mill and Marx recognise the ideological domination of the upper classes, though perhaps to different extents. The popular conceptions of drug use in the modern age are no exception to the rule of majority opinion. Generally, it seems that the lower classes are seen to be more associated with substance abuse than the middle to upper classes; furthermore, this is generally interpreted as a decadent trait, frowned upon by those who believe they know better, but who, of course, are often addicted to legal drugs like coffee, alcohol and cigarettes, but do not consider themselves so. As will be discussed later, this is largely due to a lack of information available on the specifics of drug culture.
But to continue: Mill stresses that one must be responsible for any actions that are seen to affect society, but concerning oneself “independence is, of right, absolute…” Essentially, one is sovereign over one’s own body and mind. Mill later qualifies this statement, noting that others may be affected through one’s individual actions. This slight ambiguity proves difficult in the case of recreational drug use, as the point where personal use can be seen to affect others has not been clearly defined and such a definition is no easy task; nonetheless, it is not a task which should be neglected or overlooked, especially considering the prevalence of many drugs in the modern world. It seems that consciousness-altering substances—which have been in use for time immemorial—and the human propensity to alter consciousness, which is arguably as natural as eating or sleeping , are not something that can be easily stricken from the list of basic human liberties.
It is important that Mill sees knowledge as relative and as such rejects universal ideals and divinely inspired morality, or dogma. Humans are “progressive beings”, whereby external forces are only necessary when there is a concern for others. As a utilitarian, he is largely concerned with pleasures and pains, arguing that these, as well as the means by which they are required, eventually become peoples’ primary ends. Such pleasures are found in societies that exercise a comprehensive form of liberty, whereby there is “absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological.” Furthermore, in such a society there is no silencing of opinion whatever; such silencing is “robbing the human race”, including the silencers themselves in that a portion of the truth may be lost in the very act of suppressing opinion. In sum: “All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.”
Mill also declares ages “no more fallible than individuals” and considers truth to be perpetually affected by persecution. The modern age, it appears, is no exception. Rarely today do arguments consider extreme cases, as Mill would have had it ; but rather, many laws and general societal issues presently seem directed towards a lowest common denominator. This, of course, has some prudential merit, but has been excessively and blindly applied to many areas of law. Societal opinion reflects this attitude and has grown customary and uncritical in many matters, including recreational drug use; it is rarely considered that, as Mill states, “He who does anything because it is the custom, makes no choice.” Rather, it seems that custom is not only vigorously defended and aimed for, but has even become an accepted part of developmental education: rarely is questioning custom in order to refine one’s opinions and progress as a human being—as part of a progressive society—an accepted aspect of healthy learning.
According to Mill’s paradigm, it must be assumed that a safe form of personal drug use should be allowed. This, of course, must take into consideration any form of drug use which affects others, and there is certainly a complexity to this issue which calls for much consideration; nonetheless, one should be free to experiment under the right circumstances. Unfortunately, not only have “the right circumstances” been stricken from consideration in many cases—that is, through legislation—but the illegality of many drugs has stripped individuals of their freedom to experiment with their own bodies and minds, or deemed them criminals for doing so. Obviously, an argument advocating the free use of mind-altering substances is laden with complexities well beyond the scope of this essay, but in short: every drug should be treated in its own right, with consideration for the various relevant properties pertaining not only to the drug itself, but to the user. Like alcohol and cigarettes, which are both legal killers, many illegal substances should be treated objectively and with the relevant scientific, medicinal and spiritual research firmly in mind.
It is important not to bypass Mill’s statement that actions should not be as free as opinions regarding other people; but it is also important, in this topic, to stress that he advocated practical diversity and the application of “different modes of life”. It is evident in modern Australian society that recreational drug culture is not accepted as a way of life, but rather is frowned upon by the majority as unquestionably perverse, dangerous and to be treated as an illness to be cured—and, of course, criminal. But consider Mill’s account of human genius, whereby the genius is considered “more individual than any other people” and is of utmost importance in the progress of society. Many people admire genius in their day-to-day lives, particularly artistic genius; and it goes without saying just how many artists have been inspired by drug experiences (the 1960s counterculture movement epitomises this). Many people, it seems, have been drawn in to the majority view that the generic category “drugs” is and always will be detrimental, despite being ignorant admirers of drug-infused creativity. The actions arising from such drug use has produced creations that will likely be forever admired.
The stigma surrounding drug use seems to derive from one of Mill’s primary concerns: a lack of fierce discussion and debate. As such, the general public’s attitude toward drug use has taken the form of dogma. Of course, like many other issues such as alcohol and tobacco ingestion, there are elements of potential harm to drug use. However, the very fact that “drug use” is frowned upon is evidence that the issue has not been comprehensively discussed; that is, the epithet “drug” has been blindly applied, rather than each substance being separately addressed and perhaps most importantly, conveyed to the public in such a way.
Considering the fact that many people harm themselves and others with legal drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes (the latter being, essentially, the sanctioned poisoning of populations of people, seeing as it is commonly understood that poisonous chemicals are in the product), it is completely inconsistent that other drugs are so ruthlessly outlawed due to the same fears. Furthermore, the prevention of information and scientific research heightens the potential for irresponsible use by those who choose to use these drugs. And again, the fact that these substances are forced into underground markets creates not only the loss of tax revenue (on the money being illegally circulated), but also the loss of taxpayers’ money in law enforcement costs arising from the underground criminal drug trade.
Mill states that the whole meaning of truths “cannot be realised until personal experience has brought it home.” How many of those who legislate have any more than a vague, biased notion of what, for example, psilocybin (“magic”) mushrooms actually do to a human being? It is easy for conservatives to stand back and condemn substances; their opinions are, of course, set in stone—there is simply no need to re-address the legal status of something which has been, largely due to ignorance and naivety, deemed “dangerous” to the user and those around them. But this is exactly the kind of embedded dogma that Mill warns us of. Unless information is gathered and made public, there will forever be a naïve attitude towards substances and the laws will inevitably reflect this closed approach. Advocates for the prohibition of substances simply have not taken on the counter arguments, leaving the issue in limbo while populations grow increasingly misinformed or ill-informed about psychoactive substances.
A slight revival in psychedelic research perhaps tells us that there are in fact benefits in this field. For example, the first scientific study of LSD with human subjects in thirty-five years (since Albert Hoffman’s work) was recently undertaken in the UK with the aide of private funding. The subject of the experiments was the nature of the creative process in relation to brain chemistry, as well as the possibility of use in psychotherapy. Again, LSD, cannabis and ecstasy have been used to treat conditions ranging from anorexia to anxiety, as well as psilocybin to treat those with chronic substance addictions. The organisation MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) has looked into the use of LSD to treat anxiety related to terminal illness, as well as MDMA for psychotherapeutic benefits. Although these studies have proved completely safe when undertaken with care, there have still been considerable bureaucratic pains in establishing them.
Even if there were absolutely no usefulness for such substances (which I would argue is simply not true), there should still be ongoing discussion in order to strengthen and refine existing ideas. It is becoming a well-known fact that legal drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes are bigger killers than many street drugs, which exemplifies the ignorance inherent in present authorities’ attitudes towards drug use in its entirety. There can be no strong contention and thus no refined knowledge of substances if they are banned outright, even for medicinal and scientific purposes. Furthermore, the aforementioned legality and consequential proliferation of legal substances like alcohol and cigarettes, which are arguably more addictive than, for example, psychedelic drugs, points to ulterior motives within the parties that control drug legislation. Again, the concept of Marxian ideological rule comes to mind here.
The issue of recreational drug use and individual liberty has only been briefly addressed here, and much needs to be discussed in order for progress to be made. Perhaps what is most important about Mill’s thought in general is that, regarding any given societal issue, he sees progress in the reconciling of opposite ideas to form a fuller, more comprehensive and updated truth. This is reminiscent of the basic form of Hegel’s dialectic—thesis, antithesis, synthesis —, of Marx’s seemingly fallacious account of historical progress. The idea remains highly relevant, especially in a world where opinions are so ruthlessly pitched against one another, without the consideration that a portion of the truth is likely inherent on both sides; a world where egos tend to block the way to a reasonable, open and pluralistic approach to the pursuit of dynamic knowledge. None should be shunned due to popular conceptions deeming their ideas perverse. Society still strives to free individuals from limitations placed upon them by both the state and popular custom, both of which remain formidable forces barring the way to true and ongoing individual liberty and societal development.
Bibliography
Campbell, D, ‘Scientists study possible health benefits of LSD and ecstasy’, The Guardian, October 23, 2009
Ebenstein, A, Introduction to Political Thinkers, 2nd edition, Thomson Wadsworth, 2002
Engels, F & Marx, K, The Communist Manifesto, trans. S. Moore, Penguin Books, London, 1967
Frood, A, ‘Can Illegal Drugs Help Depression?’, The Sunday Times, August 23, 2008
Hencken, R & Yazar-Klosinski, B, ‘MAPS International Clinical Research: the Year in Review’, Entheogenesis Australis, no. 2, 2011, pp. 7-10
Jacquette, D, Cannabis: Philosophy for Everyone, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010
Marx, K, ‘The German Ideology’, in J Rivkin & M Ryan, Literary Theory: An Anthology, Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1998, pp. 250-255
Mill, JS, The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill: On Liberty, The Subjection of Women & Utilitarianism, The Modern Library, New York, 2002
Mill, JS, Utilitarianism (Including Mill’s On Liberty and Essay on Bentham and Selections from the Writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin), William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd., 1962
Rousseau, J-J, The Social Contract, trans. M Cranston, Penguin Books, London, 1968
Russell, B, A History of Western Philosophy, Touchstone, New York, 1945
Wilson, F, ‘John Stuart Mill’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007, retrieved 1 June, 2011,
Popular opinions, in subjects not palpable to sense, are often true, but seldom or never the whole truth. They are part of the truth; sometimes a greater, sometimes a smaller part, but exaggerated, distorted, and disjointed from the truths by which they ought to be accompanied and limited.
And furthermore:
…the new fragment of truth is more wanted, more adapted to the needs of the time, than that which it displaces…
Marx’s notion of ideological rule will also be briefly considered, as its relation to popular conceptions and majority opinion is relevant to the concluding discussion on drug use.
But first, an outline of the relevant aspects of Mill’s thought.
Mill was largely concerned with individual freedom and the threat of its being encroached by the state or—more emphatically—the majority, the latter being, in essence, dominant popular opinions. Contra Rousseau’s notion of the general will (in which “the vote of the majority binds the minority” , and which is “always rightful and always tends to the public good”, disregarding “private interests” ), Mill repeatedly stresses that the general will must be kept in check. If it is not, there is danger of society itself becoming tyrannical, of the “tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling”. Essentially, Mill’s concern lies in the notion that majority opinions can pull in and intimidate minorities, hindering minority opinions which are essential to the refinement of truth, and to the expression of free thought in general. The force of majority opinion can be observed all over the world, where all kinds of minority groups—from sub-cultures to political parties—are seen to hold ideas considered “perverse”, but which are often of far more value than is popularly considered. Without said consideration, many opposing opinions are thoughtlessly written off and disregarded, which not only damages the victorious opinion through exposing its inability to defend itself against an opposing view, but augments that popular opinion in such a way that it is in danger of growing into a ruling dogma.
Here we can make a slight comparison with some of Marx’s ideas.
Marx put forth the proposition that people are subjected to the ideas of the ruling classes because they do not have the means to express powerful counter-ideologies. The ruling ideology represents “the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas” ; that is, “The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.” Similarly, Mill recognises that “wherever there is an ascendant class, a large portion of the morality of the country emanates from its class interests, and its feelings of class superiority.”
Both Mill and Marx recognise the ideological domination of the upper classes, though perhaps to different extents. The popular conceptions of drug use in the modern age are no exception to the rule of majority opinion. Generally, it seems that the lower classes are seen to be more associated with substance abuse than the middle to upper classes; furthermore, this is generally interpreted as a decadent trait, frowned upon by those who believe they know better, but who, of course, are often addicted to legal drugs like coffee, alcohol and cigarettes, but do not consider themselves so. As will be discussed later, this is largely due to a lack of information available on the specifics of drug culture.
But to continue: Mill stresses that one must be responsible for any actions that are seen to affect society, but concerning oneself “independence is, of right, absolute…” Essentially, one is sovereign over one’s own body and mind. Mill later qualifies this statement, noting that others may be affected through one’s individual actions. This slight ambiguity proves difficult in the case of recreational drug use, as the point where personal use can be seen to affect others has not been clearly defined and such a definition is no easy task; nonetheless, it is not a task which should be neglected or overlooked, especially considering the prevalence of many drugs in the modern world. It seems that consciousness-altering substances—which have been in use for time immemorial—and the human propensity to alter consciousness, which is arguably as natural as eating or sleeping , are not something that can be easily stricken from the list of basic human liberties.
It is important that Mill sees knowledge as relative and as such rejects universal ideals and divinely inspired morality, or dogma. Humans are “progressive beings”, whereby external forces are only necessary when there is a concern for others. As a utilitarian, he is largely concerned with pleasures and pains, arguing that these, as well as the means by which they are required, eventually become peoples’ primary ends. Such pleasures are found in societies that exercise a comprehensive form of liberty, whereby there is “absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological.” Furthermore, in such a society there is no silencing of opinion whatever; such silencing is “robbing the human race”, including the silencers themselves in that a portion of the truth may be lost in the very act of suppressing opinion. In sum: “All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.”
Mill also declares ages “no more fallible than individuals” and considers truth to be perpetually affected by persecution. The modern age, it appears, is no exception. Rarely today do arguments consider extreme cases, as Mill would have had it ; but rather, many laws and general societal issues presently seem directed towards a lowest common denominator. This, of course, has some prudential merit, but has been excessively and blindly applied to many areas of law. Societal opinion reflects this attitude and has grown customary and uncritical in many matters, including recreational drug use; it is rarely considered that, as Mill states, “He who does anything because it is the custom, makes no choice.” Rather, it seems that custom is not only vigorously defended and aimed for, but has even become an accepted part of developmental education: rarely is questioning custom in order to refine one’s opinions and progress as a human being—as part of a progressive society—an accepted aspect of healthy learning.
According to Mill’s paradigm, it must be assumed that a safe form of personal drug use should be allowed. This, of course, must take into consideration any form of drug use which affects others, and there is certainly a complexity to this issue which calls for much consideration; nonetheless, one should be free to experiment under the right circumstances. Unfortunately, not only have “the right circumstances” been stricken from consideration in many cases—that is, through legislation—but the illegality of many drugs has stripped individuals of their freedom to experiment with their own bodies and minds, or deemed them criminals for doing so. Obviously, an argument advocating the free use of mind-altering substances is laden with complexities well beyond the scope of this essay, but in short: every drug should be treated in its own right, with consideration for the various relevant properties pertaining not only to the drug itself, but to the user. Like alcohol and cigarettes, which are both legal killers, many illegal substances should be treated objectively and with the relevant scientific, medicinal and spiritual research firmly in mind.
It is important not to bypass Mill’s statement that actions should not be as free as opinions regarding other people; but it is also important, in this topic, to stress that he advocated practical diversity and the application of “different modes of life”. It is evident in modern Australian society that recreational drug culture is not accepted as a way of life, but rather is frowned upon by the majority as unquestionably perverse, dangerous and to be treated as an illness to be cured—and, of course, criminal. But consider Mill’s account of human genius, whereby the genius is considered “more individual than any other people” and is of utmost importance in the progress of society. Many people admire genius in their day-to-day lives, particularly artistic genius; and it goes without saying just how many artists have been inspired by drug experiences (the 1960s counterculture movement epitomises this). Many people, it seems, have been drawn in to the majority view that the generic category “drugs” is and always will be detrimental, despite being ignorant admirers of drug-infused creativity. The actions arising from such drug use has produced creations that will likely be forever admired.
The stigma surrounding drug use seems to derive from one of Mill’s primary concerns: a lack of fierce discussion and debate. As such, the general public’s attitude toward drug use has taken the form of dogma. Of course, like many other issues such as alcohol and tobacco ingestion, there are elements of potential harm to drug use. However, the very fact that “drug use” is frowned upon is evidence that the issue has not been comprehensively discussed; that is, the epithet “drug” has been blindly applied, rather than each substance being separately addressed and perhaps most importantly, conveyed to the public in such a way.
Considering the fact that many people harm themselves and others with legal drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes (the latter being, essentially, the sanctioned poisoning of populations of people, seeing as it is commonly understood that poisonous chemicals are in the product), it is completely inconsistent that other drugs are so ruthlessly outlawed due to the same fears. Furthermore, the prevention of information and scientific research heightens the potential for irresponsible use by those who choose to use these drugs. And again, the fact that these substances are forced into underground markets creates not only the loss of tax revenue (on the money being illegally circulated), but also the loss of taxpayers’ money in law enforcement costs arising from the underground criminal drug trade.
Mill states that the whole meaning of truths “cannot be realised until personal experience has brought it home.” How many of those who legislate have any more than a vague, biased notion of what, for example, psilocybin (“magic”) mushrooms actually do to a human being? It is easy for conservatives to stand back and condemn substances; their opinions are, of course, set in stone—there is simply no need to re-address the legal status of something which has been, largely due to ignorance and naivety, deemed “dangerous” to the user and those around them. But this is exactly the kind of embedded dogma that Mill warns us of. Unless information is gathered and made public, there will forever be a naïve attitude towards substances and the laws will inevitably reflect this closed approach. Advocates for the prohibition of substances simply have not taken on the counter arguments, leaving the issue in limbo while populations grow increasingly misinformed or ill-informed about psychoactive substances.
A slight revival in psychedelic research perhaps tells us that there are in fact benefits in this field. For example, the first scientific study of LSD with human subjects in thirty-five years (since Albert Hoffman’s work) was recently undertaken in the UK with the aide of private funding. The subject of the experiments was the nature of the creative process in relation to brain chemistry, as well as the possibility of use in psychotherapy. Again, LSD, cannabis and ecstasy have been used to treat conditions ranging from anorexia to anxiety, as well as psilocybin to treat those with chronic substance addictions. The organisation MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) has looked into the use of LSD to treat anxiety related to terminal illness, as well as MDMA for psychotherapeutic benefits. Although these studies have proved completely safe when undertaken with care, there have still been considerable bureaucratic pains in establishing them.
Even if there were absolutely no usefulness for such substances (which I would argue is simply not true), there should still be ongoing discussion in order to strengthen and refine existing ideas. It is becoming a well-known fact that legal drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes are bigger killers than many street drugs, which exemplifies the ignorance inherent in present authorities’ attitudes towards drug use in its entirety. There can be no strong contention and thus no refined knowledge of substances if they are banned outright, even for medicinal and scientific purposes. Furthermore, the aforementioned legality and consequential proliferation of legal substances like alcohol and cigarettes, which are arguably more addictive than, for example, psychedelic drugs, points to ulterior motives within the parties that control drug legislation. Again, the concept of Marxian ideological rule comes to mind here.
The issue of recreational drug use and individual liberty has only been briefly addressed here, and much needs to be discussed in order for progress to be made. Perhaps what is most important about Mill’s thought in general is that, regarding any given societal issue, he sees progress in the reconciling of opposite ideas to form a fuller, more comprehensive and updated truth. This is reminiscent of the basic form of Hegel’s dialectic—thesis, antithesis, synthesis —, of Marx’s seemingly fallacious account of historical progress. The idea remains highly relevant, especially in a world where opinions are so ruthlessly pitched against one another, without the consideration that a portion of the truth is likely inherent on both sides; a world where egos tend to block the way to a reasonable, open and pluralistic approach to the pursuit of dynamic knowledge. None should be shunned due to popular conceptions deeming their ideas perverse. Society still strives to free individuals from limitations placed upon them by both the state and popular custom, both of which remain formidable forces barring the way to true and ongoing individual liberty and societal development.
Bibliography
Campbell, D, ‘Scientists study possible health benefits of LSD and ecstasy’, The Guardian, October 23, 2009
Ebenstein, A, Introduction to Political Thinkers, 2nd edition, Thomson Wadsworth, 2002
Engels, F & Marx, K, The Communist Manifesto, trans. S. Moore, Penguin Books, London, 1967
Frood, A, ‘Can Illegal Drugs Help Depression?’, The Sunday Times, August 23, 2008
Hencken, R & Yazar-Klosinski, B, ‘MAPS International Clinical Research: the Year in Review’, Entheogenesis Australis, no. 2, 2011, pp. 7-10
Jacquette, D, Cannabis: Philosophy for Everyone, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010
Marx, K, ‘The German Ideology’, in J Rivkin & M Ryan, Literary Theory: An Anthology, Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1998, pp. 250-255
Mill, JS, The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill: On Liberty, The Subjection of Women & Utilitarianism, The Modern Library, New York, 2002
Mill, JS, Utilitarianism (Including Mill’s On Liberty and Essay on Bentham and Selections from the Writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin), William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd., 1962
Rousseau, J-J, The Social Contract, trans. M Cranston, Penguin Books, London, 1968
Russell, B, A History of Western Philosophy, Touchstone, New York, 1945
Wilson, F, ‘John Stuart Mill’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007, retrieved 1 June, 2011,
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Divine Verses
Who would have thought
that a time would come
when I could only communicate
in verse?
Yet here I am, trapped,
alone, forgotten;
in verse.
—have I lost my Reason?
I float everyday;
I am fluidic,
dynamic and in flux;
never any thing,
I am the wisp of air
that leaves the dead
—because how could it be otherwise,
when I have seen the stars?
This-morning, upon waking,
I remembered that I had left my body
and hovered vertically above it;
I thought I was stuck.
But I am stuck only in verse
—and how onerous it is,
to be so stuck.
What a concept!
A good author, surely,
would have been inspired
to create a fitting prose piece…
May. As-well. Be. The. Town. Fucking. Drunk.
Hear ye, hear ye!
I am inebriate, eternal;
I have realised my oneness with all things
and now, I will drink to it.
Such sorrow from he, who is stuck
in verse.
I always wrote so well this way,
and was proud because
there was never delay.
The hands would work magnificently,
irrespective of state of mind.
But then, at dawn on that dire day,
I was no longer charmed
by alliteration…
These days are an ongoing sigh,
short-lived high after short-lived high.
No one external to the poet,
really knows; and my doubts
have all become certainties.
I am lost, sick, intoxicated:
by verse;
I am alone, torn, isolated and elated:
by verse;
I am The Dynamic God, embodied within:
in verse;
I am the calmer days, before I was stuck,
in verse…
My brother and sister
—already blessed in this, the ultimate moment—
what should they think?
They will see me always,
tangible as a glass jar,
each tick of a tick-tock clock,
diminished and disposed of
by real moments;
by that which is,
and always is so.
I am now only words, well-ordered;
Divine Verses, sprawled out
across the bed, the mind afloat
above the body,
yet both the same, as always;
and both with endless hands,
holding endless hands,
holding endless…hands.
We are all stuck,
in verse;
for we are all,
Divine Verses.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Dry Vine
The confines of a dry vine,
to view the world as a dying kind
while revelling in sacrifices that are
so blind to the mind's eye.
Not a call to arms,
just a reminder: you do have two,
and a mind that melts like hot glue
when that big hand squeezes that big trigger
and ejaculates slowly into your head,
so you feel cosy and neat on the inside
and fall asleep in absent euphoria;
in a dream until (if ever) you wake up...
Is there a reason that I cannot help
- despite my best efforts to switch to 'optimistic mode' -
but see, all around me, as if in glee,
people who could have been (so much) more?
Scrap the tags: the years, the months,
the milliseconds, career-driven monks ;
something is so surely amiss.
I swear; could it be; surely it is:
a vast, vast, gross, gross
THWARTING OF HUMAN POTENTIAL;
automatons shuffling around and about the place,
believing with such vehemence
that they're O-so free!
and O-so not in need of a sharp tool,
(used only by fools)
to cut away that great, beastly portion
of "fucked-by-the-great-game"
(a joke, of course, but you know it by some such name)
'Don't tell me, no, don't ever tell me, that I am not free;
who are you to see, with your eyes so squeaky-clean?
Fuck you, little boy; there is a consensus here,
and who are you to wash my shoes?'
Like an over-battered fish,
but still squirming around on the inside;
a great body of water gurgling
at the back of many a mind.
Taken aback by such contempt, such marvellous pre-emption,
the hippies, queers and other circus clowns
fold back up into that square;
the smallest one, before you can simply fold no more...
C.E
© 2011
to view the world as a dying kind
while revelling in sacrifices that are
so blind to the mind's eye.
Not a call to arms,
just a reminder: you do have two,
and a mind that melts like hot glue
when that big hand squeezes that big trigger
and ejaculates slowly into your head,
so you feel cosy and neat on the inside
and fall asleep in absent euphoria;
in a dream until (if ever) you wake up...
Is there a reason that I cannot help
- despite my best efforts to switch to 'optimistic mode' -
but see, all around me, as if in glee,
people who could have been (so much) more?
Scrap the tags: the years, the months,
the milliseconds, career-driven monks ;
something is so surely amiss.
I swear; could it be; surely it is:
a vast, vast, gross, gross
THWARTING OF HUMAN POTENTIAL;
automatons shuffling around and about the place,
believing with such vehemence
that they're O-so free!
and O-so not in need of a sharp tool,
(used only by fools)
to cut away that great, beastly portion
of "fucked-by-the-great-game"
(a joke, of course, but you know it by some such name)
'Don't tell me, no, don't ever tell me, that I am not free;
who are you to see, with your eyes so squeaky-clean?
Fuck you, little boy; there is a consensus here,
and who are you to wash my shoes?'
Like an over-battered fish,
but still squirming around on the inside;
a great body of water gurgling
at the back of many a mind.
Taken aback by such contempt, such marvellous pre-emption,
the hippies, queers and other circus clowns
fold back up into that square;
the smallest one, before you can simply fold no more...
C.E
© 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)