The utopia of the everyday; A romp through sin, redemption and the relinquishing of selfobsession.
(Zizek claimed that cyberspace ultimately generates a kind of proto-psychotic immersion into an imaginary universe of hallucinations, unconstrained by any symbolic Law or by any impossibility of some Real? As in a ‘real’ that is resistant to our fantasies and addictions. Thus by examining cyberspace, as an example of our promethean fantasies unbounded, we may be able to detect and say something definitive about the character and contours of the ‘the utopia? Taking Zizeks point, we could start by initially acknowledging that cyberspace is emergent from, and thus an unconsious-child an utopian id, an inprovement or, debasement –depending on ones view, of symbolic world that shapes and substanciates our physical existence. Yet cyberspace-unlike the ‘real world’-can-seemingly- fore fill all our mind created-dependent desires and desire for a feeling of embodiment; the social-as in social networking/ sexual as in pornography / emotional as in online dating ad infinitum; basically any of human busyness (bar climbing/dancing/sailing and a few others) can be feed by and into the LCD before our gaze. Whereas the psychical world that we are embodied within, or according to Wittgenstein claim, embodied as, is for now the real ‘real’ unless we ‘up-grade to silicone-as is the dream of the techno-fascist. The computer screen-as the eye of our cyber-love- will never reject our needful gaze, it’s always willing and, able to appear as the shape that will most confirm us – our present I -at any time. In effect, cyberspace is an easily recognised justifier/ appeaser and, allower of the I, or what I will be referring to as the private object. The educational thinker and doer, Paulo Friere, unlike the European Marxist, gazed upon the situation of the oppressed and oppressor as relationship, and more, as a co-dependent relationship, with both oppressed and oppressor being harmed by the status quo. Interestingly Frire placed the responsibility of liberation firmly in the hands of the oppressed that must carry out their tasks as liberators, as a labour of love. In the clear situation of oppressed and oppressor, both sides have a firm bounded ground allowing them create an identity based upon an us and them demarcation. This is all very well and good in a case of inter-oppression, but when it comes to a case of intra-oppression, as in the way we place ourselves as the private object as viewer, obsessilly needful, ever prone to obsessin, aversion and violence, then the them and us thinking is a victim to parallax, now appearing as the us and us. At this point I do not want to define the us and us, as I want to keep the definition untainted to see what others think. So I will proceed by saying a little more about the private object vie a definition of tyranny Introducing the self; the private object The definition of tyranny I use pertains to a tyranny that disallows, constricts, chokes, renders immobile and is risk adverse to being-with-others, ;essentially’ anti-life/anti-love. [Heidegger Implicate within my charge against the tyranny of anti-life/anti-love, is the ‘soft’ attesting of a position concerning human nature – not an idea of human nature as a construct-but rather an attitude to be taken towards, and for, a non-constructive and non-ideological committal to ‘allowance’ – simply put, if we keep the centre of human being and human discourse non-ideological – unnamed, than the natural affection of the human – in turn issuing from the
who was in turn the ultimately gazer. Introducing the other: the alien object. Let bring this back to personal level. we stop forcing ourselves into painful contorted shapes. Maybe we hold it as the sense of existential dread. the thing at the centre of our lives-both collective and individual.is an anti-ideological commitment to human nature that both proceeds and is beyond the lens of culture/ history/philosophy and even the religious. may only be possible when we perceive that there is no private object – therefore the arguments for essentialism / eternalism. maybe we project it as the other. instinctively knowing how to make excuses for our parents-covering their faults and seeing them with a pure perception. we stop running. it still is. [ us and them].the scientism-materialistic nihilism that undergirds late capitalism. as in the numinous buried in the myriad ‘others’. we just inherited them from our painfully shut-down and contorted elders. amongst other things. Think about it.may be freed for our seeming need to set up idols to name and define ourselves and others. When we reflect on this we may start to feel slightly confused at this point – good. with its attendant need for self authorship (us and us) I think this was part of the general thrust of the Western Enlightment. At times we experience this human nature.was not really a progression but more of a change of the tyrannical mask. It seems that we have a ‘box set of Russian dolls of private objects – each one more hidden the last. Yet I would argue that the historical narrative of the enlightmant movement from pre-enlightment tyrannical private object.to our present antilife/ anti-love god. Therefore this excluded middle-a suspension of reification rather than a rush to ‘know’ and thus consume. Their gaze (as parents and peers) was all important-and maybe to a vast majority us.that’s remains unnameable. who lived in a universe of the souls and sin The attitude and movement towards the faces of human nature that I am suggesting has a non-theistic and non dual air – thus not pushing an agenda or championing a constructivists ideology but seeing the present needs myths/story’s/theories as legitimate and useful. tradition freeing people from the chains and entanglement of meta-physical and religious ontology’s and narratives of self/selves. a suspension of attachment to the gaze of others.the us and us-the last Russian dollcould be referred as the ultimate alien object. instinctively recognizing others hurts and needs-as when we were smaller children. the um-masking of the tyrant. relative expressions of the aforementioned .I think we should always be aware that when we think we get it – we may in fact be forcing the alien object – weather a person /idea/emotion/ relating style/ sense of relation depth – when all we may be doing in reality. Sin So if we look to our ansisters. is forcing the alien object in to a self that
. Shape that had nothing to do with us.unnamed allowance’ towards and for . The realization of no private object could allow all manner of hidden content to surface/emerge. and nihilism become redundant. Maybe-for ease of the following dialogue.the soul as the personal and ultimate justifier of an all powerful god.fact of our natural inclination to love/ and the need of love. This could be bewildering and terrifying to ‘modern people and I have no problem with that.
thereafter sending it back to the colony of ‘other’ giving it a job of administration to all other threatening alien objects. what is the search. Yet let’s not forget that the ‘theatre’. saturated. but we are actually making ourselves numb with fear. Gendun (and his co-conspiritators) advocated an Eros and sexual expression which was not mechanised within and towards the private-object/family obsession/tribal vanity/national madness or militarilistic insanity. where our play of safety happens. then the back0ground scenery that we chose to play out our characters upon) all add a thickness to the many masks we wear. even the mask of authentic relating seems to have a situational flavour. We may labour under the self-delusion of a troupe of players sharing a collective identity claiming that we want to know others when in reality all we want is to place them within our drama. We surround ourselves with our own familiar thoughts. with our name in lights (and when are WE not the star of the show) can hide from the world in their dressing rooms: the admires fresh flowers. assign them a role the we can ham it up against. then the theatre props (such as status/partner/selfnarrative/ and for out therapy obsessed culture: theories and the display of emotional relating. Let’s return to the actual search for safety. at least not till the end So what to do? Well There was an interesting re-working of the Kama Sutra by an incredible Tibetan philosopher/intellectual/traveller/wild lover/tantrika and long-term prisoner. The tyrant/alien object has already shape-shifted / moved on as your previous private object-tyrant-idol was crumbling in your hands. thinking “look at all this happening for me. we feel secure. We make them knowable. why the all too familiar production. making it safe – making it conform to bourgeois etiquette. Star-prisoners. cizivalising it. has bars on the windows and guards on the doors. as it is with pathos and platitudes. So why search? The sense of movement gives the illusion of safety whilst simuantanously softening the edges where our lies meet and overlap with our fellow co-conspirators. so that nothing sharp or painful can touch us. If we keep moving even then sharp sting of an un-loved life will not peace us. the little notes for peers. Gendun championed a full bloodied and body located joussou imbuing and allowing the free expression of Eros agape and even thanotos: The wildly alive counter-culture. Just think of the drama.the alien object. Due to being a little confused at this time a re-orientation of the search to an examination of the will may draw some light. that Gendun represented.resembles the shapes we are comfortable with– in effect. We may ultimately aim to conquer the alien object. GendunChopal. we make then safe. You could give it the kiss of life: maybe play-out an emotionally charged Hollywood scean. The red ruby
. subsuming the alien object. This way. was a reaction against the patriarchal law of the priests). the distance one could get out of that. The more fearless and smarter/egotistical among us may set the scean for the charchater development of the other players. take it into ourselves making it ‘us’ shaped. forever building our ‘empire’ of self Maybe the tyrant is behind you? Can you smell? I say smell (noise consciousness) because a ‘clear view’ of the tyrant could be just another reified mask of the tyrant – similar to a Las vagus hooker mesmerising you with the ‘gaze’ that pours honey on the razor blade of truth (cash for flesh). We may think we have quieted our fear. Hidden from that ultimate knower of tyranny. If we use the analogy of theatre.
indiotibetian views consist in claiming that we have ‘an infinite potential’ for love. because the self. This is a terrible idea. So let’s break a butterfly upon the wheel. the many faces of man spoke. essentially trusted and celebrated. I will give the last word to Padamapa Sangye Don't take outer appearances inside! Don't project inner conceptions outside! Don't enslave body to mind! Don't occupy mind with body! Don't attend to view or meditation! Leave mind un-fabricated. The price is simply too great – there is no safety in ecstatic joy. storms/elements/menstrual cycles/birth and death. Better to retain position. We downed tools no matter what was going on around us/ no matter what was going on with this teeth/ligaments/blood/bones/Daddy’s and Mommy’s gaze/ self-obsessed circular mantras/ideas of history/theories/ meta-mega theories/chains of desire-linked to feelings of poverty/ chains of aggression-anger-related to a lack of admiring gazes. knows the price and the price. In very brief. but as time goes by I realize that our real fear is joy/bliss and awareness. This lions-roar of a stance recognised its expressions in nature. is everything. In short. spontaneity / the body as an instrument of bliss/ directionless love and power-awareness. to maintain a contorted bounded shape. our breath was not just in our lungs. Suffering gives a sense of control/self/safety and more to the point we may lose face if we just relax into an easeful spontaneity.of passion (neither male of female but rather androgens) was acknowledged and. just where it is!
. I had better stop all this talk about non-dependent joy – the self finds it terrifying. although it would never admit it. Indiao-Tibetian philosophy has a view of man that seems incredible to our misery loving sinful special private objects – conditioned as it is by the angry desert ego. What if we could simply awake and be joyous dependent upon nothing. With this situation of participation mystique the self did not end at the boundary of our skin. Initial I thought that the problem was suffering /misery. To keep building the empire of self Yet imagine if we awoke tomorrow and decided to get out of the construction business. joy/bliss/ compassion/wisdom and awareness.