Translated to the world stage, this amounts to a seemingly endless replay of the same patterns over and over. One is contaminated as a child, one internalizes the contamination and accepts it as “the way it is,” and repeats the contagion throughout one’s life without questioning it (substituting instead a recipe for greed and accumulation) – and one wonders why one’s life is not better; has not turned out to be the bright promise one originally felt way back when?
Governments and religions take full advantage of this regressive stunting. Both treat individuals as if they were still essentially children – in loco parentis. As if, having achieved adult stature, one has not yet attained adult mental status. And usually because one has not, in fact, done so. Crippled by the internalized learning patterns of one’s first 3 years, and acting as if those earliest mandates were still true and operative, one re-creates the world demanded by the intrusive manipulations and coercions insinuated into the very cells of one’s brain by one’s earliest (ostensible) caregivers.
It is for this very reason that we live in a society that promotes the permanent war economy: “a semi-command economy, run mostly by corporate executives, geared to military production” (Wilson, 1944, cited in Chomsky, 2004). Through fear, citizens are asked to turn to our so-called leaders for protection, much as a child turns to his or her parents for protection. The major difference here is that it is the government itself that is creating the circumstances that encourage war as an economic pursuit. Much the same can be said for religions as mechanisms of social control, with their hell and damnation rhetoric.
If one is treated as a fearful child, it is only because one is, in fact, fearful; and may have seriously unresolved issues dating back to one’s childhood; issues created by being reared in a fearful manner, often replete with violence, abuse, and neglect – the memories of such treatment that resonate deep in the hollows of one’s brain, seething with rage, fear, and hurt; hungering for protection, expiation, and ultimately fulfillment of one’s vast potential beyond the fear and angst-driven conventions with which one was reared and had instilled. Repetition of any sort has the effect of embedding whatever material is presented. How much more so when the material is presented by one’s authority figures upon whom one is utterly dependent for subsistence? The context in which material is presented, especially repetitively, is extremely important as well. When one is coerced into abandoning one’s own felt-sense of self in order to honor the demands and mandates of one’s caregiver, there must be a certain sense of loss.
It is this lost sense that one carries throughout one’s life, until and unless it is redeemed (L., “to buy back”) by the only agent who can, may, and should do so – oneself. One must ultimately become the agent of one’s own successful rehabilitation, as it were – rehabilitation from wretched bad habits such as inappropriate dependence on the words and actions of others. Unless one can redeem the lost child within oneself, one may never function as a true adult. One will otherwise function only a caricature, a facsimile, the shadow of a truly definitive adult – because one re-enacts the situations of one’s childhood in analog fashion, as if one were still that lost and lonely child needing guidance and direction from an adult; as if one were still at the behest of one’s “superiors” in intelligence and learning, as government and religious figures attempt to appear – and fail miserably when one looks closely at their personal lives.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
We as humans are constantly exploited, and allow ourselves to be by an extant system that is bent on exploiting us. There is a deeper purpose to all of this, of course. I really believe that all of that which one finds to be deficient may ultimately drive one to become a better person through driving one to seek the inner life instead of the outer one. In this, one may find the love and value one seeks. In this, one may finally stop blaming the external (created by the internal anyway), and find a way of healing oneself – not by excusing or ignoring the external, but by more deeply loving and embracing that internal which is well and truly oneself. As one does so, the external will change in a more or less permanent way in accord with one’s innerness. (Some of the richest people I have ever known have been among the unhappiest and most addicted. They have never had a sense of peace of mind).
The drive to acquire and own is reinforced by the hunger and anxiety of feeling oneself to be separate and alone in the Universe (i.e., a discrete individual). It is this sense of separation that lends itself to the hunger for other (all of the external) in order to seemingly fill up the internal emptiness. Yet it never really works. No amount of food, money, cocaine can ever compensate for or soothe the dysregulated affect that drives the obsessions of addiction and acquisition. As long as one feels and believes oneself to be an eternally separate being, cut off from the benevolence and comfort of the Universal whole, so long will the desperate and wild desires of longing torment one. One is, in effect, always craving wholeness and a sense of connection. The temporary effects of fulfillment available through saturation of the senses only lasts a certain period of tome. The awakened realization of true connection and wholeness, even if only realized in moments of satori, are inspiring and fulfilling far beyond the momentary satiation of euphoric intoxication of any sort.
The question still remains: Why would one continue to practice a behavior that one finds to either be self-harmful in and of itself, or damaging in its effects (i.e., compulsive overeating). I am addressing this from the viewpoint of overeating as that particular addiction has been the bane of my life since I was 4 years old; and it is the only one remaining after all the years I spent addicted to various substances and processes. Therefore I consider it to be the keystone addiction for myself. (It may be related to the dream I had, one that I am now beginning to consider was actually a memory.)
My mother was squatting down behind me, right knee forward, with her right hand on the small of my back. She had a pair of khaki colored slacks in a very 1940’s style and a white or off-white colored blouse. Her hair was shoulder length and untied. She is smiling. We were outside in the sunshine, late spring in St. Louis. My father was dressed in dark-colored clothing, maybe even a suit (no tie). I raise my arms in the air, smile, and cry out: “Look at me, Daddy! I’m a big boy!” My father looks at me, and scowls.
One possible answer to my question might be that one continues self-harming or self-defeating behaviors because one feel that one deserves to be punished, or does not deserve to be treated well. One possibility might be what Bradshaw (1988a) called "Turning against the Self":
An ego defense whereby a person deflects hostile aggression from another person and directs it onto self. This defense is extremely common with people who have been abandoned through severe abuse. Because a child so desperately needs his parents for survival, he will turn his aggressive rage about his abuse into abuse of himself. The extreme form of this is suicidality. In such cases (the French call it self-murder), the person so identifies with the offender that he is killing the offender by killing himself.
Common, but less intense examples include nail-biting, head-banging, accident proneness and self-mutilation. In later life, people may injure themselves socially or financially. In all cases, the rage at the offender is so fearful and shameful it is turned against self (p. 81).
I believe that this definition strikes very close to the heart of the truth of the matter. If one feels inclined to do damage to one’s self, it must be related to one or more internalized judgments one has made against oneself. Self-injury does not appear out of nowhere. It very likely is a toxic sequel to poor or disorganized attachment, in which one’s reflections on or to self are distorted by ostensible caregivers in such a way that one feels the necessity to punish or otherwise impugn oneself. One then receives feedback based on the energy or imaging one transmits. If one feels depressed or downtrodden or oppressed, one will naturally get feedback in accord with this transmission. If one does not genuinely feel that one deserves to be treated with love and respect, one will not be.
If one undertakes a program of improvement with the goal being something external (e.g., looking thinner) rather than something internal (e.g., feeling better), it is very likely, almost certain, that it will fail. On the other hand, if one works on oneself assiduously, and finds a place to stand wherein one genuinely and truly cares for oneself (dare I say love?), then net result of a program of improvement will more likely succeed. If one is operating from a stance of genuine self-care, then one will automatically do things that are healthy and helpful to and for the self – and it will be easy and natural. (This is the reason most diets fail: the person has not done the inner work to provide a foundation for “goodness,” therefore all efforts at improvement are doomed to failure because there is no fundament upon which they might rest and find root).
Dieting is yet another example of externalizing: focusing on the outer, and utilizing it as a source for both blame and praise; ultimately making the external responsible for the internal. In this example, one blames one’s body for one’s pain, fears, shame, and depression (“If only I were thin…”). The same might be said of a client who told me, with full emphasis and belief, that she only needed “more money to cure her depression.” The belief in the external is incredibly strong, and has been reinforced in our society that externalizes costs routinely to inflate profit by “passing along costs to the consumer”. This kind of thinking is based on the same principle that there is an out there, an external to one’s personal internal. This kind of thinking promotes dualistic thinking and action; supports the idea that one can do to a seeming other without harm coming to oneself; in essence makes one blameless if one can “get away with it,” whatever the action or crime might be.
All of the environmental damage, and all with which I find the greatest fault in this neo-Darwinian world we have created (Civilization and its Discontents revisited) stem from the Cartesian principle that relegated thinking, cognition, and separateness (the head) above that of feeling, compassion, and connectedness of the heart. In one simple phrase: cogito ergo sum, Descartes crystallized what has become the path of technological humanity for the past centuries, though as Eisenstein (2007) has so succinctly noted, we have been on this path for at least 10,000 years – since moving from hunter-gatherer tribal groups to agrarian societies. But I digress.
I am sticking with my dual examples of compulsive overeating and money as addictions for the simple reason that I am well acquainted with them. I have been a food addict all of my life; and I have assiduously pushed away money and opportunities for “success” because I have both felt unworthy of them, and because I knew that they were inimical to spiritual progress. My eating and body image issues have, on the other hand, driven me to such depths of despair and contemplation of suicide, that I have been forced to confront myself and that which underlay my repugnance for my body (especially my size). As in the dream/memory noted above, I believe that my compulsive eating has been fed, if you will, by two parallel track of thinking that have led to the behaviors: I wanted to be “big” (seen, heard, validated); and I wanted to be comforted and satisfied (filled and content). Both of these idea tracks are metaphorical, of course, but both have “real world” consequences.
In attempting to be validated in the face of what I clearly remember as an unrelenting and caustic barrage of recrimination, insults, reprobation, and sarcasm from my father from the time I was born, I chose, as a child, to become “big” literally in a vain attempt to be “seen” emotionally, psychologically, and ultimately ontologically. I was experiencing what Laing (1959) described as “primary ontological insecurity” (p. 39), a condition in which I did not feel that I had any right to live. It is easy to see how this is related to deep shaming; and how I might have arrived at the conclusion that I did not deserve to have anything good happen to/for me; and further how I might have decided to keep money and resources away (and later women too, further deepening my sense of separation, isolation, and cupidity) from myself in an effort to make spiritual progress as an antidote to my psychologically-induced ennui. (In this sense, I consider my desire to have been a form of denial and perhaps even delusion).
In suppressing the dark, shadow material generated by trauma, one must also suppress the bright gold. They seem to be paired such that healing the shadow allows one access to the previously hidden gold. This is, again, in keeping with one aspect of my original thesis that what at first might appear to be one’s greatest enemy (or worst character trait), may, with healing, turn out to be one’s best ally. This entails the willingness and ability to stand in the pain and endure it with an eye to healing, somehow holding the vision of wholeness while still enduring the pain of separateness.
An example of this might be holding on to one’s vision of better self-love, self-care and weight reduction – and not continuing to despise one’s body – while going through the process of dropping the weight and attaining a more pleasing form. I am addressing this from the external point of view (“more pleasing form”) though it actually requires a commitment to the internal work (“better self-love”). It seems to me, at this point in my process, that the desire to attain a more pleasing form is actually stronger than the desire to love myself more. Since I feel that I have been judged (and continue to be, both by others and myself) on the form and shape of my body, developing a pleasing exterior is important. I want women to find me pleasing and sexy. I want them to want to touch me.
Yet I know that somewhere behind the façade of otherness lays self. There is, there must be, some level on which my own (even if introjected) sense of self is keeping me apart from women and their charms – even if only in the belief that women do not want me because I am fat. (I admit I am not attracted to fat women. Perhaps this is only a projection too – not liking them because I do not like me). I know that I have internalized a great deal of oppression, especially from my father’s persecution of me when I was young, and continuing throughout my life as well. In that sense, I am my own perpetrator. This is the point at which the agony of the individual hooks one into the larger context of ideological hegemony with the oppression and manipulation of the masses through misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda. It is precisely when one learns to perpetrate oneself that the larger cultural and societal mechanisms kick in. The oppression becomes more diffuse yet more intense simultaneously.
The drive to acquire and own is reinforced by the hunger and anxiety of feeling oneself to be separate and alone in the Universe (i.e., a discrete individual). It is this sense of separation that lends itself to the hunger for other (all of the external) in order to seemingly fill up the internal emptiness. Yet it never really works. No amount of food, money, cocaine can ever compensate for or soothe the dysregulated affect that drives the obsessions of addiction and acquisition. As long as one feels and believes oneself to be an eternally separate being, cut off from the benevolence and comfort of the Universal whole, so long will the desperate and wild desires of longing torment one. One is, in effect, always craving wholeness and a sense of connection. The temporary effects of fulfillment available through saturation of the senses only lasts a certain period of tome. The awakened realization of true connection and wholeness, even if only realized in moments of satori, are inspiring and fulfilling far beyond the momentary satiation of euphoric intoxication of any sort.
The question still remains: Why would one continue to practice a behavior that one finds to either be self-harmful in and of itself, or damaging in its effects (i.e., compulsive overeating). I am addressing this from the viewpoint of overeating as that particular addiction has been the bane of my life since I was 4 years old; and it is the only one remaining after all the years I spent addicted to various substances and processes. Therefore I consider it to be the keystone addiction for myself. (It may be related to the dream I had, one that I am now beginning to consider was actually a memory.)
My mother was squatting down behind me, right knee forward, with her right hand on the small of my back. She had a pair of khaki colored slacks in a very 1940’s style and a white or off-white colored blouse. Her hair was shoulder length and untied. She is smiling. We were outside in the sunshine, late spring in St. Louis. My father was dressed in dark-colored clothing, maybe even a suit (no tie). I raise my arms in the air, smile, and cry out: “Look at me, Daddy! I’m a big boy!” My father looks at me, and scowls.
One possible answer to my question might be that one continues self-harming or self-defeating behaviors because one feel that one deserves to be punished, or does not deserve to be treated well. One possibility might be what Bradshaw (1988a) called "Turning against the Self":
An ego defense whereby a person deflects hostile aggression from another person and directs it onto self. This defense is extremely common with people who have been abandoned through severe abuse. Because a child so desperately needs his parents for survival, he will turn his aggressive rage about his abuse into abuse of himself. The extreme form of this is suicidality. In such cases (the French call it self-murder), the person so identifies with the offender that he is killing the offender by killing himself.
Common, but less intense examples include nail-biting, head-banging, accident proneness and self-mutilation. In later life, people may injure themselves socially or financially. In all cases, the rage at the offender is so fearful and shameful it is turned against self (p. 81).
I believe that this definition strikes very close to the heart of the truth of the matter. If one feels inclined to do damage to one’s self, it must be related to one or more internalized judgments one has made against oneself. Self-injury does not appear out of nowhere. It very likely is a toxic sequel to poor or disorganized attachment, in which one’s reflections on or to self are distorted by ostensible caregivers in such a way that one feels the necessity to punish or otherwise impugn oneself. One then receives feedback based on the energy or imaging one transmits. If one feels depressed or downtrodden or oppressed, one will naturally get feedback in accord with this transmission. If one does not genuinely feel that one deserves to be treated with love and respect, one will not be.
If one undertakes a program of improvement with the goal being something external (e.g., looking thinner) rather than something internal (e.g., feeling better), it is very likely, almost certain, that it will fail. On the other hand, if one works on oneself assiduously, and finds a place to stand wherein one genuinely and truly cares for oneself (dare I say love?), then net result of a program of improvement will more likely succeed. If one is operating from a stance of genuine self-care, then one will automatically do things that are healthy and helpful to and for the self – and it will be easy and natural. (This is the reason most diets fail: the person has not done the inner work to provide a foundation for “goodness,” therefore all efforts at improvement are doomed to failure because there is no fundament upon which they might rest and find root).
Dieting is yet another example of externalizing: focusing on the outer, and utilizing it as a source for both blame and praise; ultimately making the external responsible for the internal. In this example, one blames one’s body for one’s pain, fears, shame, and depression (“If only I were thin…”). The same might be said of a client who told me, with full emphasis and belief, that she only needed “more money to cure her depression.” The belief in the external is incredibly strong, and has been reinforced in our society that externalizes costs routinely to inflate profit by “passing along costs to the consumer”. This kind of thinking is based on the same principle that there is an out there, an external to one’s personal internal. This kind of thinking promotes dualistic thinking and action; supports the idea that one can do to a seeming other without harm coming to oneself; in essence makes one blameless if one can “get away with it,” whatever the action or crime might be.
All of the environmental damage, and all with which I find the greatest fault in this neo-Darwinian world we have created (Civilization and its Discontents revisited) stem from the Cartesian principle that relegated thinking, cognition, and separateness (the head) above that of feeling, compassion, and connectedness of the heart. In one simple phrase: cogito ergo sum, Descartes crystallized what has become the path of technological humanity for the past centuries, though as Eisenstein (2007) has so succinctly noted, we have been on this path for at least 10,000 years – since moving from hunter-gatherer tribal groups to agrarian societies. But I digress.
I am sticking with my dual examples of compulsive overeating and money as addictions for the simple reason that I am well acquainted with them. I have been a food addict all of my life; and I have assiduously pushed away money and opportunities for “success” because I have both felt unworthy of them, and because I knew that they were inimical to spiritual progress. My eating and body image issues have, on the other hand, driven me to such depths of despair and contemplation of suicide, that I have been forced to confront myself and that which underlay my repugnance for my body (especially my size). As in the dream/memory noted above, I believe that my compulsive eating has been fed, if you will, by two parallel track of thinking that have led to the behaviors: I wanted to be “big” (seen, heard, validated); and I wanted to be comforted and satisfied (filled and content). Both of these idea tracks are metaphorical, of course, but both have “real world” consequences.
In attempting to be validated in the face of what I clearly remember as an unrelenting and caustic barrage of recrimination, insults, reprobation, and sarcasm from my father from the time I was born, I chose, as a child, to become “big” literally in a vain attempt to be “seen” emotionally, psychologically, and ultimately ontologically. I was experiencing what Laing (1959) described as “primary ontological insecurity” (p. 39), a condition in which I did not feel that I had any right to live. It is easy to see how this is related to deep shaming; and how I might have arrived at the conclusion that I did not deserve to have anything good happen to/for me; and further how I might have decided to keep money and resources away (and later women too, further deepening my sense of separation, isolation, and cupidity) from myself in an effort to make spiritual progress as an antidote to my psychologically-induced ennui. (In this sense, I consider my desire to have been a form of denial and perhaps even delusion).
In suppressing the dark, shadow material generated by trauma, one must also suppress the bright gold. They seem to be paired such that healing the shadow allows one access to the previously hidden gold. This is, again, in keeping with one aspect of my original thesis that what at first might appear to be one’s greatest enemy (or worst character trait), may, with healing, turn out to be one’s best ally. This entails the willingness and ability to stand in the pain and endure it with an eye to healing, somehow holding the vision of wholeness while still enduring the pain of separateness.
An example of this might be holding on to one’s vision of better self-love, self-care and weight reduction – and not continuing to despise one’s body – while going through the process of dropping the weight and attaining a more pleasing form. I am addressing this from the external point of view (“more pleasing form”) though it actually requires a commitment to the internal work (“better self-love”). It seems to me, at this point in my process, that the desire to attain a more pleasing form is actually stronger than the desire to love myself more. Since I feel that I have been judged (and continue to be, both by others and myself) on the form and shape of my body, developing a pleasing exterior is important. I want women to find me pleasing and sexy. I want them to want to touch me.
Yet I know that somewhere behind the façade of otherness lays self. There is, there must be, some level on which my own (even if introjected) sense of self is keeping me apart from women and their charms – even if only in the belief that women do not want me because I am fat. (I admit I am not attracted to fat women. Perhaps this is only a projection too – not liking them because I do not like me). I know that I have internalized a great deal of oppression, especially from my father’s persecution of me when I was young, and continuing throughout my life as well. In that sense, I am my own perpetrator. This is the point at which the agony of the individual hooks one into the larger context of ideological hegemony with the oppression and manipulation of the masses through misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda. It is precisely when one learns to perpetrate oneself that the larger cultural and societal mechanisms kick in. The oppression becomes more diffuse yet more intense simultaneously.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Economic Theory of Trauma
In some part, this has led to the development of what I am calling my “economic theory of trauma” (Malecek, 2010). What I have done is transposed psychological theory into economic theory in the following manner. Suppose one has only a limited amount of money ($100) to spend on daily activities, including eating, sleeping, etc. Let us further suppose that of that set amount, one must use a certain portion thereof to maintain, obviate, or obfuscate the memories of past trauma, or the sequelae thereof (via habits, addictions, and defense mechanisms of every stripe). Let us say that this last costs $50 per day. Therefore one must carefully expend the other half of one’s daily endowment to maintain one’s beingness – eating, sleeping, etc.
I envision healing in this context to be the equivalent of gaining greater vitality and power through healing the vicious metastasis of old shame, shame-avoidance (created to hide, obviate, or deflect the effects of the shame), and the usual variety of addictions most individuals practice. (I include in this category all manner of fundamentalism, personality rigidity, and other fear-driven responses that suppress full vitality in an individual). The net result of healing old traumas would be an increase in one’s daily income of $50 (in this example) – actually and effectively doubling the amount of money one has to spend in pursuit of one’s chosen desire and interests.
One does not draw money in a healthy manner by obsessing over it. One draws money by actually embracing one’s own value, by embodying a sense of value, of feeling valuable and worthwhile. Otherwise money is just another addiction like any other. Most of the people on this planet (especially the ultra-rich oligarchs) are obsessed with money and temporal power as symbols of worth and value. To the extent that they lack self-worth, they acquire money through manipulation and deceit, through some “authorized” mechanism built into the current system of disparity and delusion. It may be the biggest delusion of all that most of humanity is trapped into the belief that value or self-worth, Reality itself, is located outside of one’s self – and therefore obtainable through manipulation and greed. The extremely classist system in which we live is, in fact, nothing more than a re-creation of the medieval system of nobles and serfs. It is funded by the same manner of thinking, which is neo-Darwinian and posits social worth and value on possessions; and further, makes the ownership of private property the basis upon which to place value. There is no inherent value to any human (or for that matter, animal or any other) life. The only value is in ownership and the power to manipulate the system for one’s personal gain.
To the extent that one fails to value oneself (and the reasons are legion), one may live a life of penury and misery. This may be especially so if (more usually when) on defends one’s perpetrators as having been “good parents” (or any similar excuse). Most people live their lives defending their disabilities or inabilities; or living in such a way as to defend or ameliorate the damage wrought by abusive and damaging childrearing. Shame avoidance spreads across the spectrum, and includes all addictions, which are, in turn, exploited by the exploiters of the system – which in turn has been set up and manipulated by those who seek power over others through exploiting their weaknesses and addictions, all the while claiming that they themselves are morally superior, hence their higher social and financial position (neo-Darwinism).
The same I have said of money may easily apply to other addictions. To the extent I lack personal value, real and true love and empathic understanding and forgiveness for myself and my position in life, I will devalue and sabotage myself and my life in various (and often subtle ways) so that I seem to not have that which I desire (e.g., money, thinness, etc). I will then blame my lack of having what I want on not having what I want (“If I only had enough money”). Whereas in actuality, having what one wants must accord with being what one wants! This includes a deeply working sense of well-being and self-esteem that mirrors an examined and thoroughly cleansed life path history. If one does not truly feel valuable, it will be impossible for one to be valued by the Universe. One may obsessively seek money, or bemoan one’s lack of it, but, unless one genuinely feels valuable and worthy of receiving valuables, one will only do so under extraordinary circumstances and by manipulation. Money, and more importantly valuing, will not and cannot come to one. It is impossible in the holographic Universe (in which everything is a mirror for everything). One draws to oneself what one is magnetically. Therefore one always has what one wants despite the appearance or disavowal to the contrary. One’s inner state is always reflected in one’s outer state.
It is quite easy for one who is overweight, for example, to bemoan this fact, and blame all of one’s life difficulties on this condition. But, if one were to deeply examine one’s inner drives and expiate the inner forces that contribute to the need for the extra weight, one would eventually lose the weight as unnecessary. It cannot be accomplished from the outside in. This is why diets always fail, and statistically 99% of people who lose weight gain it back (and more) (citation?). This accounts for the vast advertising of and exploitation by the manufacturers of various diet programs, pills, machines et cetera – all of them guaranteeing that their product will work and one will lose weight. Bullshit!
The desire to lose weight is driven by the desire to be (or at least appear to be) sexy and desirable – ultimately the desire to feel worthy, beautiful and accepted by others – shame! This also feeds the cosmetic surgical industry. Individuals who feel an inner lack are constantly attempting to ameliorate it through external means. This may in fact constitute the greatest delusion of humanity: that Reality is outside of the self rather than inside.
This does, of course, assume some fundamental ideas that are not in the common lexicon, if you will – especially since most people believe in the externality of reality, the value of money, and outer appearance generally. If one obviates these, one is relegated to the position of being called a fool at best, or delusional oneself! The simple and obvious question is: How well is your belief system working? This is where the shame and the blame of the external as cause begin: “If only I had more money” versus “If only I had more self-worth.” The latter position points to one examining oneself and utilizing what one finds to be deficient as a springboard to self-healing. Net worth does not equal self-worth. It never will, yet most of humanity has been convinced that the former is so, or at least possible.
In some part, this has led to the development of what I am calling my “economic theory of trauma” (Malecek, 2010). What I have done is transposed psychological theory into economic theory in the following manner. Suppose one has only a limited amount of money ($100) to spend on daily activities, including eating, sleeping, etc. Let us further suppose that of that set amount, one must use a certain portion thereof to maintain, obviate, or obfuscate the memories of past trauma, or the sequelae thereof (via habits, addictions, and defense mechanisms of every stripe). Let us say that this last costs $50 per day. Therefore one must carefully expend the other half of one’s daily endowment to maintain one’s beingness – eating, sleeping, etc.
I envision healing in this context to be the equivalent of gaining greater vitality and power through healing the vicious metastasis of old shame, shame-avoidance (created to hide, obviate, or deflect the effects of the shame), and the usual variety of addictions most individuals practice. (I include in this category all manner of fundamentalism, personality rigidity, and other fear-driven responses that suppress full vitality in an individual). The net result of healing old traumas would be an increase in one’s daily income of $50 (in this example) – actually and effectively doubling the amount of money one has to spend in pursuit of one’s chosen desire and interests.
One does not draw money in a healthy manner by obsessing over it. One draws money by actually embracing one’s own value, by embodying a sense of value, of feeling valuable and worthwhile. Otherwise money is just another addiction like any other. Most of the people on this planet (especially the ultra-rich oligarchs) are obsessed with money and temporal power as symbols of worth and value. To the extent that they lack self-worth, they acquire money through manipulation and deceit, through some “authorized” mechanism built into the current system of disparity and delusion. It may be the biggest delusion of all that most of humanity is trapped into the belief that value or self-worth, Reality itself, is located outside of one’s self – and therefore obtainable through manipulation and greed. The extremely classist system in which we live is, in fact, nothing more than a re-creation of the medieval system of nobles and serfs. It is funded by the same manner of thinking, which is neo-Darwinian and posits social worth and value on possessions; and further, makes the ownership of private property the basis upon which to place value. There is no inherent value to any human (or for that matter, animal or any other) life. The only value is in ownership and the power to manipulate the system for one’s personal gain.
To the extent that one fails to value oneself (and the reasons are legion), one may live a life of penury and misery. This may be especially so if (more usually when) on defends one’s perpetrators as having been “good parents” (or any similar excuse). Most people live their lives defending their disabilities or inabilities; or living in such a way as to defend or ameliorate the damage wrought by abusive and damaging childrearing. Shame avoidance spreads across the spectrum, and includes all addictions, which are, in turn, exploited by the exploiters of the system – which in turn has been set up and manipulated by those who seek power over others through exploiting their weaknesses and addictions, all the while claiming that they themselves are morally superior, hence their higher social and financial position (neo-Darwinism).
The same I have said of money may easily apply to other addictions. To the extent I lack personal value, real and true love and empathic understanding and forgiveness for myself and my position in life, I will devalue and sabotage myself and my life in various (and often subtle ways) so that I seem to not have that which I desire (e.g., money, thinness, etc). I will then blame my lack of having what I want on not having what I want (“If I only had enough money”). Whereas in actuality, having what one wants must accord with being what one wants! This includes a deeply working sense of well-being and self-esteem that mirrors an examined and thoroughly cleansed life path history. If one does not truly feel valuable, it will be impossible for one to be valued by the Universe. One may obsessively seek money, or bemoan one’s lack of it, but, unless one genuinely feels valuable and worthy of receiving valuables, one will only do so under extraordinary circumstances and by manipulation. Money, and more importantly valuing, will not and cannot come to one. It is impossible in the holographic Universe (in which everything is a mirror for everything). One draws to oneself what one is magnetically. Therefore one always has what one wants despite the appearance or disavowal to the contrary. One’s inner state is always reflected in one’s outer state.
It is quite easy for one who is overweight, for example, to bemoan this fact, and blame all of one’s life difficulties on this condition. But, if one were to deeply examine one’s inner drives and expiate the inner forces that contribute to the need for the extra weight, one would eventually lose the weight as unnecessary. It cannot be accomplished from the outside in. This is why diets always fail, and statistically 99% of people who lose weight gain it back (and more) (citation?). This accounts for the vast advertising of and exploitation by the manufacturers of various diet programs, pills, machines et cetera – all of them guaranteeing that their product will work and one will lose weight. Bullshit!
The desire to lose weight is driven by the desire to be (or at least appear to be) sexy and desirable – ultimately the desire to feel worthy, beautiful and accepted by others – shame! This also feeds the cosmetic surgical industry. Individuals who feel an inner lack are constantly attempting to ameliorate it through external means. This may in fact constitute the greatest delusion of humanity: that Reality is outside of the self rather than inside.
This does, of course, assume some fundamental ideas that are not in the common lexicon, if you will – especially since most people believe in the externality of reality, the value of money, and outer appearance generally. If one obviates these, one is relegated to the position of being called a fool at best, or delusional oneself! The simple and obvious question is: How well is your belief system working? This is where the shame and the blame of the external as cause begin: “If only I had more money” versus “If only I had more self-worth.” The latter position points to one examining oneself and utilizing what one finds to be deficient as a springboard to self-healing. Net worth does not equal self-worth. It never will, yet most of humanity has been convinced that the former is so, or at least possible.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
I have lived most of my life in shame and emotional penury. I have only very rarely felt valuable, worthy, or deserving of anything good or wonderful. In the context of the magnetic (or holographic) universe, I, of course, have always attracted influences that reinforced that which I though myself to be. The next result of my learning and reinforcement has been such that I have always felt justified in feeling worthless and shitty – especially in feeling that I did not deserve any better. When something wonderful did happen, it was always overshadowed by the sense that I did not deserve it, or I would immediately taint the experience in some way (i.e., demeaning the value of my accomplishment, or slopping gravy on my brand-new silk tie).
What has developed in more recent years is gratitude. Being grateful for my life, my life experiences, my suffering – ultimately for each and every experience I have had that has shaped and enriched me – has given me numerous opportunities to mourn my losses and grieve my past. This process has allowed me to “clear the decks,” as it were, making room for new growth. It is only through letting go of the past that I have managed to stay alive (i.e., not commit suicide) in the face of the otherwise overwhelming mass of decimating negative data and the encumbering weight of my own heartfelt invalidation and unworthiness.
Greed Addiction
I believe that the addiction to greed is the most pervasive and least discussed addiction on the planet. If one were to ask 100 people what single thing would improve their lives, the greatest majority would give some form of answer relating to money. Because, for most people, acquiring more money means having more power, more ability to control and manipulate the world, an increased sense of well-being related to an enhanced ownership of material goods and command of services. Usually though, the acquisition of more money is seen or felt to give an increased sense of self-esteem, as if having more money would make one a better person.
An addiction is a sort of self-replicating virus that once set in motion needs no further inducement to replicate. In this it is linked to the idea of ideological hegemony. If one can be induced into believing that a particular action is beneficial (or even self-serving, if not beneficial; or that one deserves to participate or indulge in such an action or substance), then one will repeat it without further induction or reinforcement. In fact, it will likely become self-reinforcing, even if the action or substance may ultimately be viewed as self-destructive or harmful. One will continue to use even if one “objectively” notes the destructiveness; because the addiction is taking place, is living, as it were, on an emotional level. No amount of cogitation or intellectual discourse will ever effect a lasting change. (The intellectual understanding of addiction only makes it more frustrating in some ways because one believes one may [delusionally] believe that one may think one’s way out of it. I use the word “delusionally” purposefully because one may develop a fixed idea that one may think one’s way out when all indicators are to the contrary. Indeed, the intellectual understanding of addictions should rightly only come long after one has successfully stopped the using, and has some relatively long period of abstinence. It is then that the intellectual understanding may become useful in giving a context to what one has already experienced and hopefully begun to integrate.
And what better “business” to be in for a profit-oriented organization (all the way up to and including the corporate state) than one in which one’s adherents willingly consume whatever product they are hooked on, do not question the origin of the addiction itself, and will actually pay money to one in order to maintain it? This is the “perfect plan” that is being executed by the US Government and its ties to large corporations, especially banks. Such horrendous activities as the bailout of the savings and loans in the 1980s and the bailout of the major banks in the 2000’s are just typical examples of the utter bamboozlement and addiction of the American people who have stood still and been raped repeatedly while being told that what is occurring is for “our own good.”
The process of being blinded begins with socialization, wherein one is taught through repeated instruction to abandon one’s own autonomy and put one’s faith in external authority; to vest one’s decision making in the outer, the other; and to forego one’s questioning of authority in order to be further wrapped in the dubious blanket of “security.” One is taught from the very beginning that one’s parents (and other adults) have one’s own best interests in mind – and that one must surrender one’s will and one’s desires, interests and opinions in order to bask in this pseudo-certainly of collective will manifesting through authority figures who represent the system as a whole. It is rarely, if ever, revealed that these seemingly sterling citizens are simply furthering their own self-interests while ostensibly serving as representatives of the “people’s power.” An entire disinformation system (much of it hidden under the aegis of “national security”) has become devoted to convincing people of the massive lies and misinformation being fed to us, in order that we might blindly keep working and feed the system. Meanwhile, the cultural elites bask in ever greater sunshine and personal resources. These cultural elites further delude themselves in the belief that they have a divine right to rule and control vast resources because they were born to money or power. This is, in fact, the social Darwinist position.
What has developed in more recent years is gratitude. Being grateful for my life, my life experiences, my suffering – ultimately for each and every experience I have had that has shaped and enriched me – has given me numerous opportunities to mourn my losses and grieve my past. This process has allowed me to “clear the decks,” as it were, making room for new growth. It is only through letting go of the past that I have managed to stay alive (i.e., not commit suicide) in the face of the otherwise overwhelming mass of decimating negative data and the encumbering weight of my own heartfelt invalidation and unworthiness.
Greed Addiction
I believe that the addiction to greed is the most pervasive and least discussed addiction on the planet. If one were to ask 100 people what single thing would improve their lives, the greatest majority would give some form of answer relating to money. Because, for most people, acquiring more money means having more power, more ability to control and manipulate the world, an increased sense of well-being related to an enhanced ownership of material goods and command of services. Usually though, the acquisition of more money is seen or felt to give an increased sense of self-esteem, as if having more money would make one a better person.
An addiction is a sort of self-replicating virus that once set in motion needs no further inducement to replicate. In this it is linked to the idea of ideological hegemony. If one can be induced into believing that a particular action is beneficial (or even self-serving, if not beneficial; or that one deserves to participate or indulge in such an action or substance), then one will repeat it without further induction or reinforcement. In fact, it will likely become self-reinforcing, even if the action or substance may ultimately be viewed as self-destructive or harmful. One will continue to use even if one “objectively” notes the destructiveness; because the addiction is taking place, is living, as it were, on an emotional level. No amount of cogitation or intellectual discourse will ever effect a lasting change. (The intellectual understanding of addiction only makes it more frustrating in some ways because one believes one may [delusionally] believe that one may think one’s way out of it. I use the word “delusionally” purposefully because one may develop a fixed idea that one may think one’s way out when all indicators are to the contrary. Indeed, the intellectual understanding of addictions should rightly only come long after one has successfully stopped the using, and has some relatively long period of abstinence. It is then that the intellectual understanding may become useful in giving a context to what one has already experienced and hopefully begun to integrate.
And what better “business” to be in for a profit-oriented organization (all the way up to and including the corporate state) than one in which one’s adherents willingly consume whatever product they are hooked on, do not question the origin of the addiction itself, and will actually pay money to one in order to maintain it? This is the “perfect plan” that is being executed by the US Government and its ties to large corporations, especially banks. Such horrendous activities as the bailout of the savings and loans in the 1980s and the bailout of the major banks in the 2000’s are just typical examples of the utter bamboozlement and addiction of the American people who have stood still and been raped repeatedly while being told that what is occurring is for “our own good.”
The process of being blinded begins with socialization, wherein one is taught through repeated instruction to abandon one’s own autonomy and put one’s faith in external authority; to vest one’s decision making in the outer, the other; and to forego one’s questioning of authority in order to be further wrapped in the dubious blanket of “security.” One is taught from the very beginning that one’s parents (and other adults) have one’s own best interests in mind – and that one must surrender one’s will and one’s desires, interests and opinions in order to bask in this pseudo-certainly of collective will manifesting through authority figures who represent the system as a whole. It is rarely, if ever, revealed that these seemingly sterling citizens are simply furthering their own self-interests while ostensibly serving as representatives of the “people’s power.” An entire disinformation system (much of it hidden under the aegis of “national security”) has become devoted to convincing people of the massive lies and misinformation being fed to us, in order that we might blindly keep working and feed the system. Meanwhile, the cultural elites bask in ever greater sunshine and personal resources. These cultural elites further delude themselves in the belief that they have a divine right to rule and control vast resources because they were born to money or power. This is, in fact, the social Darwinist position.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Power and Empowerment
It is incredibly difficult to unwind the pernicious effects of shame because it requires, first, the presence of a non-shaming witness; and secondly that the client be willing to expose themselves in a vulnerable manner in the presence of this witness. This last goes counter to the effect of shame in creating in an individual the desire to hide, marginalize or minimize one’s shame and the felt-sense of diminishment. The entire process is somewhat counterintuitive, but leads to the healing of shame as that which gave rise to the shame is integrated, no longer dissociated, the body/mind no longer treats it as if it were a foreign body. (This is similar to the process of the human immune system reacting to foreign bodies in creating autoimmune diseases).
The more one becomes empowered within, and feels the strength and confidence to open oneself to allow oneself to feel the immense import and impact of the shame one has experienced and the residua, the more one becomes able to process the shame; and to transform the power and strength deprived (and obtunded) by the original injury into new and awesome power for oneself.
The perpetrator may have inflicted the original injury in order to prevent one from experiencing and wielding one’s personal power. The beauty and innocence of the child is so powerful and magnetic that it implies a threat to the carefully crafted façade of the armored adult, safe within the confines of the kingdom of the illusion, the societally approved behaviors of adulthood. The child’s naïve purity may remind the perpetrator of their shame, against which all of the adult barriers of cognition have been erected. In many ways, one might speculate that the entire façade of the modern adult world has been so constructed, in order to protect the shame, and all of the shame sequelae-driven agencies (e.g., entertainment, the permanent war economy, etc.) of reminding the adult of what has been lost. Being dishonest and lying becomes second nature when one feels ashamed of who and what one is. The entire edifice of modern civilization is built upon a dung heap of lies and deceit.
It is, to some extent, one’s personal evaluation of oneself (one’s body, perceived shortcomings, shame-induced fears and phobias – in short one’s entire global assessment of who and what one is and how that self presents itself) determines one’s attitudes toward power and money. Although money is usually awarded to those who play the current game by the contemporary rules (generally ruthlessly and without conscience for the most part), it is also a reflection of one’s perception of the self. If one feels strongly that one is “right” in one’s perceptions of the world, and is encouraged and supported in these perceptions by one’s contemporaries and the social niches into which one builds oneself, then one will likely unabashedly pursue money and power with a fervor matched only by the restraints one has internalized (e.g., fear of prison). One might say of such a one that he or she believes that self worth equals net worth.
If, on the other hand, one perceives oneself as weak and undeserving, one might spend one’s life in poverty and penury – never ever feeling that one has the right to live comfortably and well. Another aspect of this more downtrodden position might be taken by the recipients of abuse who adopt the quasi-religious position that they should not be involved with the things of this world because they are contaminated and that they are awaiting the “coming of the Lord” wherein they will be rewarded for their perspicacity.
In either case (pro or con), there seems to be some level of attitude that may influence an individual and his or her pursuit of money. Not to say that there are not truly those whose goals and ideas (not to say ideals) lead them to pursue more ephemeral visions than that of money. Even then, there is a level on which one might live comfortably and well without being a greedy venal capitalist without conscience. Again, I believe that all individuals are guided (even driven) by internalized images of the propriety of their well beingness. This in turn motivates one to live one’s life in certain ways, one of which involves one’s interactions with money.
This is tied to abuse in yet other ways – as a precursor for domination and sublimation to power wielded first by parents, and then by other “legitimated” agencies such as priests and ministers, teachers, doctors, police and military. The parental figures act as agents of the state during the process of socialization – mainly a way of subduing the budding autonomy of children so that they “fit in” (reflecting the parental fear of being marginalized or ultimately even ostracized, and left out of the collective “groupthink).
The abuse (or neglect) fostered by the parenting figures both reflects the larger framework of power and abuse by government and other “authorized” agencies of social control and reinforces it as good and right and proper. Thus one matures having been properly indoctrinated from the very beginning of one’s life to be a “good little boy” (or girl) who properly obeys authority and reveres his or her abusers, holding them in proper awe and respect – and learning to blame oneself for their abuses, therefore ensuring the continuation of both abuse and Empire. This last most certainly uses abuse of power and obedience to authority as one of its innate building blocks.
The more one becomes empowered within, and feels the strength and confidence to open oneself to allow oneself to feel the immense import and impact of the shame one has experienced and the residua, the more one becomes able to process the shame; and to transform the power and strength deprived (and obtunded) by the original injury into new and awesome power for oneself.
The perpetrator may have inflicted the original injury in order to prevent one from experiencing and wielding one’s personal power. The beauty and innocence of the child is so powerful and magnetic that it implies a threat to the carefully crafted façade of the armored adult, safe within the confines of the kingdom of the illusion, the societally approved behaviors of adulthood. The child’s naïve purity may remind the perpetrator of their shame, against which all of the adult barriers of cognition have been erected. In many ways, one might speculate that the entire façade of the modern adult world has been so constructed, in order to protect the shame, and all of the shame sequelae-driven agencies (e.g., entertainment, the permanent war economy, etc.) of reminding the adult of what has been lost. Being dishonest and lying becomes second nature when one feels ashamed of who and what one is. The entire edifice of modern civilization is built upon a dung heap of lies and deceit.
It is, to some extent, one’s personal evaluation of oneself (one’s body, perceived shortcomings, shame-induced fears and phobias – in short one’s entire global assessment of who and what one is and how that self presents itself) determines one’s attitudes toward power and money. Although money is usually awarded to those who play the current game by the contemporary rules (generally ruthlessly and without conscience for the most part), it is also a reflection of one’s perception of the self. If one feels strongly that one is “right” in one’s perceptions of the world, and is encouraged and supported in these perceptions by one’s contemporaries and the social niches into which one builds oneself, then one will likely unabashedly pursue money and power with a fervor matched only by the restraints one has internalized (e.g., fear of prison). One might say of such a one that he or she believes that self worth equals net worth.
If, on the other hand, one perceives oneself as weak and undeserving, one might spend one’s life in poverty and penury – never ever feeling that one has the right to live comfortably and well. Another aspect of this more downtrodden position might be taken by the recipients of abuse who adopt the quasi-religious position that they should not be involved with the things of this world because they are contaminated and that they are awaiting the “coming of the Lord” wherein they will be rewarded for their perspicacity.
In either case (pro or con), there seems to be some level of attitude that may influence an individual and his or her pursuit of money. Not to say that there are not truly those whose goals and ideas (not to say ideals) lead them to pursue more ephemeral visions than that of money. Even then, there is a level on which one might live comfortably and well without being a greedy venal capitalist without conscience. Again, I believe that all individuals are guided (even driven) by internalized images of the propriety of their well beingness. This in turn motivates one to live one’s life in certain ways, one of which involves one’s interactions with money.
This is tied to abuse in yet other ways – as a precursor for domination and sublimation to power wielded first by parents, and then by other “legitimated” agencies such as priests and ministers, teachers, doctors, police and military. The parental figures act as agents of the state during the process of socialization – mainly a way of subduing the budding autonomy of children so that they “fit in” (reflecting the parental fear of being marginalized or ultimately even ostracized, and left out of the collective “groupthink).
The abuse (or neglect) fostered by the parenting figures both reflects the larger framework of power and abuse by government and other “authorized” agencies of social control and reinforces it as good and right and proper. Thus one matures having been properly indoctrinated from the very beginning of one’s life to be a “good little boy” (or girl) who properly obeys authority and reveres his or her abusers, holding them in proper awe and respect – and learning to blame oneself for their abuses, therefore ensuring the continuation of both abuse and Empire. This last most certainly uses abuse of power and obedience to authority as one of its innate building blocks.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
More Time & Changes
Though it would take me years to remember, I had been cajoled and manipulated from the earliest moments of my life, to meet my parents’ needs; to fulfill in them, for them, unmet and unsatisfied portions of their own longs and carvings – though these were not actually truly “legitimate” in terms of my needs. I was used, and used cruelly and without restraint. My father to expiate his burning hatred, pseudo-authenticated by his fervent vilification of me because of my body weight and mental prowess; my mother to utilize my most tender emotions and precocious sexual energy as well as my deeply-rooted hunger to be loved and needed. Ultimately, my body and especially my perception of it, were severely warped by these competing needs of my parents, and, of course, irrevocably and logically, showed up in my behaviors and presentation to life in general. There is a level on which I do most severely condemn both of them, and hold them co-responsible with myself for this – even though I espouse total responsibility for my manifestation and the choices I made pre-birth to take all of this on.
Body weight and body size, even more one’s perception of same, have a tremendous influence on one’s confidence and sense of healthy self-love. Negative imprinting embeds deep and vicious wounds in the heart and psyche of an individual, especially when delivered by those who would nominally be considered to be one’s caretakers. (This resonates strongly with all of the research on disorganized attachment (Blizard, 2003; Howell, 2003; Hyams, 1994; Main & Hesse, 2003). Miller (1984a) commented that a child might introject an extremely negative self-concept as proper or valid because: “Children have no previous history standing in our way, and our tolerance for our parents knows no bounds. The love a child has for his or her parents ensures that their conscious or unconscious acts of mental cruelty will go unnoticed" (p. 4). The frequency of the reinforcement signals, of course, has a direct impact on the level of severity of the conditioning of the individual (cite?).
In many ways, all of the pretensions of this so called “modern civilization” are directly related to individuals maturing physically and remaining damaged and regressed emotionally as a direct result of the pernicious effect of shame-based childrearing. It is this insidious process, accepted broadly as “normal,” that, I believe, has ultimately caused more damage than all of the wars of history, recorded and unrecorded. Of course, the bellicose orientation of humanity and the predilection for war both stem from the unmet and unexpressed emotional hungers of humanity. The desire to shun shame combined with the pervasive need for reinforcement of one’s “rightness” leads many (all?) parents to rear their children in a manner similar to their own imprinted standards – in effect forcing children to become the caretakers of their parents’ unmet needs, resulting in generation after generation of children becoming too early “adultified” by attempting to please their parents’ illicit demands for comfort and nurturance. It keeps getting passed on because very few ever examine the roots of their own socialization, the obvious conclusion of which would be the understanding that the world is insane and that one’s seemingly aberrant reactions and behaviors are perfectly same in reaction to the ways of the world that are routinely accepted as “normal.”
The early invalidation of the individual shapes that one is such a way that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ever effect a fundamental change. It locks in behavioral response patterns that are neurologically and emotionally congruent with the earliest experiences of shame, harm, and damage. As such, they can easily be perceived as “proper” and accepted as such. Thus early invalidation may be introjected by an individual in such a way that that one will act in a less than confident or assured manner, perhaps always seeking the opinions of others; or in other ways deferring to external authority because one feels intimidated or contaminated; or one may act even more extremely by becoming (at least occasionally in moments of great stress) in a regressed manner (cf. ARAS, Malecek, 2008) that reflects the age and developmental level of the earliest damage “frozen,” as it were by the pernicious impact of that “training” inflicted upon the child under the aegis of socialization; and, in fact, causing great harm that simply allows the runaway insanity of the current world system to be repopulated by the next crop of damaged individuals.
The utter shunning and degradation of early childhood experiences also adds fuel to the voracious hunger with which most people approach the acquisition of money and material goods in an attempt to feel strong and powerful; to ameliorate some of the incredible diminishment suffered when one had no other recourse than to endure, often harboring tremendous rage against authorities of all sorts, a rage that will later manifest as a revenge taking of sorts in attempting to become bigger and stronger, more wealthy, et cetera than others. It may also manifest in a self-destructive mechanism of weight gain (“Look at me, Daddy! I’m a big boy!”), in an attempt to be “seen” as valid and real when one feels otherwise shamed, unworthy of being loved, and relatively invisible. I further believe that all addictions are related to this earliest invalidation; and that all “relapses” with drugs, alcohol, and other addictions of all sorts is directly related to a quasi-flashback situation in which one’s earliest invalidation is restimulated (albeit in a less than conscious manner).
Friday, April 16, 2010
Roots in Childhood
By early disempowering a child, one teaches that child that he or she will be given no power to manifest his or her will; that he or she will be at the effect of other, more powerful individuals; and that he or she must learn to express their deepest inner needs filtered through the mask of the persona (or false self).
This is the beginning of the Newtonian-Cartesian split of self and other that so characterizes the entire of the dominant society. It is “learned helplessness” (Seligman, 1975), in which one assumes an attitude or guise of dependence imposed upon one by a dominant figure, and adopted as if one’s own.
Once the child has been denied sovereignty, the education system takes over with its regimenting agenda, further reinforcing the conditions and punishments of the “mainstream culture” on the still active and growing individual; forcing the child to accept the mandates of dominant culture before he or she ever even has a chance to investigate and explore his or her own ideas or soul. This forces one to always stay within the box.
Child abuse of every sort only teaches violence – that might makes right. The power inequities of childhood are then further reinforced throughout the lives of most individuals. One rarely has a chance from the start; but I believe, one may and even must redeem (L., “buy back”) oneself eventually. This may be the defining feature of spiritually aware individuals, no matter how sullied or downtrodden they might seem to have been by the ways of the world. One must reach deeply into oneself to find the clarity, strength, and light to manifest a new pattern, to reverse the course of the old, and stand forth revivified in the light of the revelation of self – one does not have to follow the typical pattern of the dominant contemporary society – of pursuing specious riches and power, only to die spiritually bankrupt and soulfully destitute.
This kind of thinking flies in the face of all that one is usually taught. I myself have been an outcast all of my life because of my desires for and ideas about something more than what might easily be obtained by following all of the rules and being a “good boy.” The early injuries I received set the tone for a lifetime of shame, sadness, misery, and addictions from which I am still recovering.
Being invalidated as a boy by my father, and as a person by seemingly everyone else, was an extremely deep and vicious wound. I never ever felt that I mattered, except to my mother who was using me for her own ends too (though in an even more insidious way that it took me years to unravel). The original invalidation was so powerful, and reinforced so many times and in so many different ways, that I became early convinced that I had no value and indeed, no right to exist (cf., Laing’s [1959] concept of “ontological insecurity” [p. 92]).
Having been consistently and persistently shamed for my size and body weight (a direct insult to my personage), I developed a variety of strategies to cope as I now see it. At the time, I see these reactions as being more reactive, and trauma-mediated emergency measures adopted to allow me to survive the onslaughts of my childhood. I harbored tremendous anger, verging on and frequently crossing over into rage on many occasions. I became severely depressed as a result of not allowing the then natural process of venting said anger. I harbored tremendous resentment toward anyone who seemed to get attention and validation of any kind, though especially so when I felt that I could have or should have “been a contender” for such validation: I became morbidly interested in displaying my intelligence at every opportunity – often being seen as a poseur, not as precocious. I took to hiding my thoughts and intentions, especially as to my very early awakening interest in sex. I began to overeat at every opportunity, especially sneaking food whenever possible, in contradistinction to my parents’ increasingly strident demands of me in this arena. I achieved the best grades for any of the boys in the class, though there were sometimes one or two girls who surpassed me.
I remember always seeming to carry the heavy burden of shame, especially around my size and body weight. I was frequently taunted by cruel invective. I was occasionally hit, spit upon, or assaulted for similar reasons. (I remember vividly once being the scapegoat in a snowball fight in the schoolyard when all of the other boys began pelting me, including at least one who put rocks in his resulting in my suffering a bloody scalp wound). I felt wounded and goddamn angry all of the time; conversely I was always wrangling to get, and craving for, the attention of girls upon who I had fixated my developing attentions. I always felt ashamed and intimidated, which had been deeply ingrained in me by my father’s vicious taunts and denigrations; as well by my mother’s overly lavish attentions and demands. (See Recapitulation II [Malecek, 1992/1993; 2001] for the gory details.)
By early disempowering a child, one teaches that child that he or she will be given no power to manifest his or her will; that he or she will be at the effect of other, more powerful individuals; and that he or she must learn to express their deepest inner needs filtered through the mask of the persona (or false self).
This is the beginning of the Newtonian-Cartesian split of self and other that so characterizes the entire of the dominant society. It is “learned helplessness” (Seligman, 1975), in which one assumes an attitude or guise of dependence imposed upon one by a dominant figure, and adopted as if one’s own.
Once the child has been denied sovereignty, the education system takes over with its regimenting agenda, further reinforcing the conditions and punishments of the “mainstream culture” on the still active and growing individual; forcing the child to accept the mandates of dominant culture before he or she ever even has a chance to investigate and explore his or her own ideas or soul. This forces one to always stay within the box.
Child abuse of every sort only teaches violence – that might makes right. The power inequities of childhood are then further reinforced throughout the lives of most individuals. One rarely has a chance from the start; but I believe, one may and even must redeem (L., “buy back”) oneself eventually. This may be the defining feature of spiritually aware individuals, no matter how sullied or downtrodden they might seem to have been by the ways of the world. One must reach deeply into oneself to find the clarity, strength, and light to manifest a new pattern, to reverse the course of the old, and stand forth revivified in the light of the revelation of self – one does not have to follow the typical pattern of the dominant contemporary society – of pursuing specious riches and power, only to die spiritually bankrupt and soulfully destitute.
This kind of thinking flies in the face of all that one is usually taught. I myself have been an outcast all of my life because of my desires for and ideas about something more than what might easily be obtained by following all of the rules and being a “good boy.” The early injuries I received set the tone for a lifetime of shame, sadness, misery, and addictions from which I am still recovering.
Being invalidated as a boy by my father, and as a person by seemingly everyone else, was an extremely deep and vicious wound. I never ever felt that I mattered, except to my mother who was using me for her own ends too (though in an even more insidious way that it took me years to unravel). The original invalidation was so powerful, and reinforced so many times and in so many different ways, that I became early convinced that I had no value and indeed, no right to exist (cf., Laing’s [1959] concept of “ontological insecurity” [p. 92]).
Having been consistently and persistently shamed for my size and body weight (a direct insult to my personage), I developed a variety of strategies to cope as I now see it. At the time, I see these reactions as being more reactive, and trauma-mediated emergency measures adopted to allow me to survive the onslaughts of my childhood. I harbored tremendous anger, verging on and frequently crossing over into rage on many occasions. I became severely depressed as a result of not allowing the then natural process of venting said anger. I harbored tremendous resentment toward anyone who seemed to get attention and validation of any kind, though especially so when I felt that I could have or should have “been a contender” for such validation: I became morbidly interested in displaying my intelligence at every opportunity – often being seen as a poseur, not as precocious. I took to hiding my thoughts and intentions, especially as to my very early awakening interest in sex. I began to overeat at every opportunity, especially sneaking food whenever possible, in contradistinction to my parents’ increasingly strident demands of me in this arena. I achieved the best grades for any of the boys in the class, though there were sometimes one or two girls who surpassed me.
I remember always seeming to carry the heavy burden of shame, especially around my size and body weight. I was frequently taunted by cruel invective. I was occasionally hit, spit upon, or assaulted for similar reasons. (I remember vividly once being the scapegoat in a snowball fight in the schoolyard when all of the other boys began pelting me, including at least one who put rocks in his resulting in my suffering a bloody scalp wound). I felt wounded and goddamn angry all of the time; conversely I was always wrangling to get, and craving for, the attention of girls upon who I had fixated my developing attentions. I always felt ashamed and intimidated, which had been deeply ingrained in me by my father’s vicious taunts and denigrations; as well by my mother’s overly lavish attentions and demands. (See Recapitulation II [Malecek, 1992/1993; 2001] for the gory details.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)