somehow I ruefully came back to Xanga- must be the lazyness....
http://maya2in1.xanga.com/
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Prehistoric Visions
In the morning twilight between sleep and awakening on the first day of the year this thought shaped in my mind and raced through its neurones as a certainty:
The prehistoric move from hunter to farmer was spiritual and linked to the mystery of the female.
A woman menstruates and can give birth, the physical relation being occult to the caveman he finds a magical explanation:
The earth gives birth, life in shape of little insects and larger animals crawls in its inside and a 'dead' heap of turf can give life to worms... Mother earth therefore is the power of creation and linked in a mystical way to the woman, herself able to create life. The link between both is the menstrual blood. Blood that carries the essence of life. The monthly shed blood is given to the earth as a bond. The woman gives her blood as natural sacrifice from the dark internal cavern from which life comes forth into the light and that in a rhythm linked to the light of the moon. She doesn't do it voluntarily it happens to her, the magic happens and is larger than her- divine. Through this sacrifice she acquires from the earth the boon to give life. ( proof is that without this sacrifice she doesn't conceive and when she has conceived the sacrifice is suspended because the power of the blood is now in her). woman is keeper of this power, she is priestess of creation of the endless cycle of life and resurrection of life.
Man doesn't have this force in him, his means of serving the Mother Earth are different. Either he imitates the menstrual blood ( see Aboriginals' men's rituals ), or he sacrifices himself so that his blood and body can feed creation and make it grow. ( see my blog entry on ritual sacrifice of the leader in prehistoric times) Maybe he sacrifices a part of his body to acquire magical power ( pictures of mutilated hands in prehistoric caverns).
But man has another magic, the magic of the hunt. The link between him and his victim. In prehistoric times any killing created a bond in between the slayer and his victim with certain obligations to the slayer so as to not disturb the creational and resurrectional cycle of life. Man can offer through this magical link not his own blood but that of the animal he slays. And there is an animal that is synonymous for virile forces, muscles, strength, impetuous, armed with horns, and in communion with the earth since it feeds on its fruits- the bull.
There are numerous engravings left from prehistoric times showing the slaying of a bull with a moon (= equivalent to the menstrual blood), by a lion or a man ( the lion being an eater of flesh represents the slayer) through a ritual knife and out of his wound grows a plant.
Was the menstrual blood and the bull blood necessary to make plants grow? Did it enhance the growth of plants through the contained minerals and thus created the myth that the mystery of creation of Mother Earth could be mastered if only there was sufficient 'fertilizer ' in shape of bodies or blood ? Does the plant thus become sacred, spiritual food or sacred grain that can be sown by those who came to seek it at the sanctuary? Was the beginning of agriculture the adoption of a rite?
The prehistoric move from hunter to farmer was spiritual and linked to the mystery of the female.
A woman menstruates and can give birth, the physical relation being occult to the caveman he finds a magical explanation:
The earth gives birth, life in shape of little insects and larger animals crawls in its inside and a 'dead' heap of turf can give life to worms... Mother earth therefore is the power of creation and linked in a mystical way to the woman, herself able to create life. The link between both is the menstrual blood. Blood that carries the essence of life. The monthly shed blood is given to the earth as a bond. The woman gives her blood as natural sacrifice from the dark internal cavern from which life comes forth into the light and that in a rhythm linked to the light of the moon. She doesn't do it voluntarily it happens to her, the magic happens and is larger than her- divine. Through this sacrifice she acquires from the earth the boon to give life. ( proof is that without this sacrifice she doesn't conceive and when she has conceived the sacrifice is suspended because the power of the blood is now in her). woman is keeper of this power, she is priestess of creation of the endless cycle of life and resurrection of life.
Man doesn't have this force in him, his means of serving the Mother Earth are different. Either he imitates the menstrual blood ( see Aboriginals' men's rituals ), or he sacrifices himself so that his blood and body can feed creation and make it grow. ( see my blog entry on ritual sacrifice of the leader in prehistoric times) Maybe he sacrifices a part of his body to acquire magical power ( pictures of mutilated hands in prehistoric caverns).
But man has another magic, the magic of the hunt. The link between him and his victim. In prehistoric times any killing created a bond in between the slayer and his victim with certain obligations to the slayer so as to not disturb the creational and resurrectional cycle of life. Man can offer through this magical link not his own blood but that of the animal he slays. And there is an animal that is synonymous for virile forces, muscles, strength, impetuous, armed with horns, and in communion with the earth since it feeds on its fruits- the bull.
There are numerous engravings left from prehistoric times showing the slaying of a bull with a moon (= equivalent to the menstrual blood), by a lion or a man ( the lion being an eater of flesh represents the slayer) through a ritual knife and out of his wound grows a plant.
Was the menstrual blood and the bull blood necessary to make plants grow? Did it enhance the growth of plants through the contained minerals and thus created the myth that the mystery of creation of Mother Earth could be mastered if only there was sufficient 'fertilizer ' in shape of bodies or blood ? Does the plant thus become sacred, spiritual food or sacred grain that can be sown by those who came to seek it at the sanctuary? Was the beginning of agriculture the adoption of a rite?
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Neo Poppers
During the boring eighties when economy slowed down there developed a new youth segment in Germany as answer to the nihilist punks: the popper.
The popper was everything the punk wasn’t: clean, shaved, with neither too long nor too short hair (actually the favorite male popper haircut looked pretty much like the favored style of the Hitlerjugend), addicted to conservative luxury and brand cloth, apolitical, listening to mainstream pop-music; in short a popper looked and breathed the middle-upperclass kid. Poppers were the nightmare of the family budget, due to the kid’s demand on brands and a red flag in the eye of any political leftist group.
The segment dissolved into mainstream before long. Recently I feel there is a revival in Western society which is quite surprising. I don’t know if there is a new term for the phenomena, I’ll call it Neo Popper.
The Neo Popper is young, beautiful and rich. And he loves it- more so, it becomes his reason for living.
Being rich in former times in Western societies was frowned upon by Christianism. In Catholic dogma the poor was nearer to the kingdom of God and in Protestantism you could be rich out of merit but you were not supposed to boast about it or to expose it too much.
I know of noble families where estates and servants were kept but rest of candle-wax collected out of chandeliers and molten into new candles- not because out of financial need but because of the sin of waste. And I’ve seen several specimen of old European noblesse walk around in cloth patched and torn that even a beggar would refuse, again a sign of horror to waste. French bourgeoisie traditionally walks around in excellent brand cloth, but they are worn long beyond their fashionable life, as a matter of fact they often are chosen because beyond fashion. New things were frowned upon- they looked suspiciously nouveau riche. And nouveau riche meant you had no culture and that you would be ignored by the establishment ( see Molière’s bourgeois gentilhomme on that)
Until the Neo popper. The Neo popper is luxury advertising come alive. Imagine somebody jumping out of an advertising for Vuitton or Chanel , trying to live every second of his life as if he/she were a living example of publicity dreams come true. It is almost as if the luxury industry had invented this clientele to keep their market alive.
Maybe some people who dispose of lots of money have always looked down upon the less fortunate, but this time the sole reason to despise the less rich is money. To have or not to have banknotes is a sign of distinction for the Neo Popper- an important sign. My daughter recently showed me a blog whose owner is obsessed with the quantity of luxury goods he buys or with the money he is offered as pocket money. It is interesting that this guy needs to constantly rub it into his readers as far as photographing the produce or the money he is talking about and questioning constantly- do you have the same? Apparently the Neo Popper is a kind of Vampire- for his existence he doesn’t need blood but envy.
A bestseller out is called ‘Hell’ and tells the story of a Neo Popper: luxury as only value, no limits- apparently a life as living advertisement can be hell.
Fault of the parents or mirror of society? The popper syndrome in former times revealed aspirations of belonging – it was predominant in social spheres that dreamt of ascension the youth of the middle classes and in upper-middle classes from developing countries. Parents that supported the exterior signs of belonging secretly hoped that it would lead to a better standing of their offspring. Contrary to the criminal ghetto youth scene that tries to cover their inferiority complex by flashy or sportswear luxury brands, the Neo Popper rather uses consumption as statement: I consume luxury therefore I’m special and rare.
Today the youth harboring neo popper attitudes seem to be more cynical and very aware of their privileged position. In a world of constant change where nothing stays the same and the admired of today are blamed tomorrow the Neo Popper needs to hold on to the illusion that he will always be on the winning side, because he possesses what apparently is the ultimate value- money.
The popper was everything the punk wasn’t: clean, shaved, with neither too long nor too short hair (actually the favorite male popper haircut looked pretty much like the favored style of the Hitlerjugend), addicted to conservative luxury and brand cloth, apolitical, listening to mainstream pop-music; in short a popper looked and breathed the middle-upperclass kid. Poppers were the nightmare of the family budget, due to the kid’s demand on brands and a red flag in the eye of any political leftist group.
The segment dissolved into mainstream before long. Recently I feel there is a revival in Western society which is quite surprising. I don’t know if there is a new term for the phenomena, I’ll call it Neo Popper.
The Neo Popper is young, beautiful and rich. And he loves it- more so, it becomes his reason for living.
Being rich in former times in Western societies was frowned upon by Christianism. In Catholic dogma the poor was nearer to the kingdom of God and in Protestantism you could be rich out of merit but you were not supposed to boast about it or to expose it too much.
I know of noble families where estates and servants were kept but rest of candle-wax collected out of chandeliers and molten into new candles- not because out of financial need but because of the sin of waste. And I’ve seen several specimen of old European noblesse walk around in cloth patched and torn that even a beggar would refuse, again a sign of horror to waste. French bourgeoisie traditionally walks around in excellent brand cloth, but they are worn long beyond their fashionable life, as a matter of fact they often are chosen because beyond fashion. New things were frowned upon- they looked suspiciously nouveau riche. And nouveau riche meant you had no culture and that you would be ignored by the establishment ( see Molière’s bourgeois gentilhomme on that)
Until the Neo popper. The Neo popper is luxury advertising come alive. Imagine somebody jumping out of an advertising for Vuitton or Chanel , trying to live every second of his life as if he/she were a living example of publicity dreams come true. It is almost as if the luxury industry had invented this clientele to keep their market alive.
Maybe some people who dispose of lots of money have always looked down upon the less fortunate, but this time the sole reason to despise the less rich is money. To have or not to have banknotes is a sign of distinction for the Neo Popper- an important sign. My daughter recently showed me a blog whose owner is obsessed with the quantity of luxury goods he buys or with the money he is offered as pocket money. It is interesting that this guy needs to constantly rub it into his readers as far as photographing the produce or the money he is talking about and questioning constantly- do you have the same? Apparently the Neo Popper is a kind of Vampire- for his existence he doesn’t need blood but envy.
A bestseller out is called ‘Hell’ and tells the story of a Neo Popper: luxury as only value, no limits- apparently a life as living advertisement can be hell.
Fault of the parents or mirror of society? The popper syndrome in former times revealed aspirations of belonging – it was predominant in social spheres that dreamt of ascension the youth of the middle classes and in upper-middle classes from developing countries. Parents that supported the exterior signs of belonging secretly hoped that it would lead to a better standing of their offspring. Contrary to the criminal ghetto youth scene that tries to cover their inferiority complex by flashy or sportswear luxury brands, the Neo Popper rather uses consumption as statement: I consume luxury therefore I’m special and rare.
Today the youth harboring neo popper attitudes seem to be more cynical and very aware of their privileged position. In a world of constant change where nothing stays the same and the admired of today are blamed tomorrow the Neo Popper needs to hold on to the illusion that he will always be on the winning side, because he possesses what apparently is the ultimate value- money.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
in memoriam
Tuesday evening died
Michel Kipoke,
who has sacrificed all of his free time ( and I sincerely hope that it doesn't turn out that he sacrificed his life for the cause) to peace in the Great Lakes region for Initiative of Change. May his soul rest in peace and may his memory be honored forever in the countries he worked for. He was a true example of servant leadership.
In case his passing away doesn't have natural causes
I curse anyone who has decided or has been involved in getting him out of the way.
May your subconscious nag on your intestines, let your heart root, may disease make you suffer the same fate. May you die like king Midas, covered with gold you gained out of the wars of others, but unable to feed yourself with the food of mankind.
You who stand in the way of a lord of peace, who wickedly uses poison, who is an arrogant lord of war shall have to answer to the Lord in his darkest hour. And this darkest hour will come, all the gold of the world will not be sufficient to keep man's fate from you. Then you shall face the truth of your mean and petty soul and recoil in horror.
Michel Kipoke,
who has sacrificed all of his free time ( and I sincerely hope that it doesn't turn out that he sacrificed his life for the cause) to peace in the Great Lakes region for Initiative of Change. May his soul rest in peace and may his memory be honored forever in the countries he worked for. He was a true example of servant leadership.
In case his passing away doesn't have natural causes
I curse anyone who has decided or has been involved in getting him out of the way.
May your subconscious nag on your intestines, let your heart root, may disease make you suffer the same fate. May you die like king Midas, covered with gold you gained out of the wars of others, but unable to feed yourself with the food of mankind.
You who stand in the way of a lord of peace, who wickedly uses poison, who is an arrogant lord of war shall have to answer to the Lord in his darkest hour. And this darkest hour will come, all the gold of the world will not be sufficient to keep man's fate from you. Then you shall face the truth of your mean and petty soul and recoil in horror.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Generations
After you've finished worrying about yourself it's time to worry about the future of your kids and your parents.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
individual and collective myths
We are all great story tellers.
Most of the time, though we don’t use our talent to the benefit of our environment but we use it upon ourselves. We are our own fascinated listener.
Mostly our own private stories deal with the past and our implication in it.
We tend to transform the truth a bit so that we can keep up our self-esteem as shining hero. Anything going wrong tends very much to be the fault of bad circumstance or of incapable and incomprehensive people.
If we have a low self esteem we tend more to go for the: 'oh no! I did it again- that is the proof for my incapacity' storyboard.
Our own private story gets stored away in our conscious memory- the truth often is buried in the meanders of our unconscious. We use our story to keep up our persona, to communicate about ourselves. The more time goes by, the more we tend to believe our own story and slowly it will become part of our own private myth- the myth of our existence.
In that way we adapt our memory contents to the archetypical context of our subconscious. Hence the unconscious ‘recognition’ of archetypical fairy tales and myths that has been put forward by Bruno Bettelheim.
The construction of myth functions on individual level as well as on collective.
In that case the myth is the glue that keeps a community together, that explains its reason of being, its origins and its beliefs.
What comes to your mind when you think of your parents? Your grandparents? Your children? Your wider family? Stories! Stories about problems, stories about events, stories about experiencing together. Those family stories create the family over generations- some can date back hundreds of years.
In my family it’s the ancestor that created a foundation for fun during studies for his descendance; the great aunt who resembled a Madonna in a polish church, who was probably painted with a lost ancestor as model; my grandfather who would saw the branches of the Christmas tree only to fix them again in a more orderly way- the more those stories go back in time the more fantastic they become. The more recent stories deal with more common events- I and my brother remember a confrontation of our usually so calm father with an American hotel owner or the capacity of my mom to always chose the worst plate in a restaurant.
It is those stories that will keep the memory of the clan alive, that will transcend generations- that will represent the family myth.
Lucky the company who has a real foundation myth- like Apple or Tata. The whole style of management and identity of the company is built on that foundation myth.
The historic truth becomes less and less important as years go by- historic accuracy is more and more exchanged for symbolic content that serves as foundation for belief.
Myths serve as basis and carrier of collective conscience. A myth can even do something even more fascinating- it can transmit special powers to people or places. The knowledge of the myth then charges the collective belief in such a way that the power of belief transfers a sacred identity unto people or places.
During my travels in Israel I encountered many places that were attached to a foundation myth. In the end, it wasn’t important if the mythic event really took place at the same spot- the power of the believers charged a place like a battery with sacred energy that can be experienced.
A sacred space is a space where the rules of reality ( or let’s say of the world out there) don’t apply. It has its own rules, its own magic- In a sacred space windows open to our unconscious. That is why any problem of sacred space is so difficult to treat with logic and realistic means. Rational thinkers suddenly become deaf to the voice of reason in such a place- if they are believers.
A sacred space needs constantly to be kept alive by believers- take away those who trust in its powers and it is just another piece of land. What would Lourdes be without the hoards of ill believers that come to the cave to seek healing?
A sacred space needs a founding myth and a keeper or keepers that will keep the myth alive for the existing or potential believers.
And somehow everybody is a believer, even if it is in the almighty power of the market or of technology, and as such we all create our sacred spaces.
Most of the time, though we don’t use our talent to the benefit of our environment but we use it upon ourselves. We are our own fascinated listener.
Mostly our own private stories deal with the past and our implication in it.
We tend to transform the truth a bit so that we can keep up our self-esteem as shining hero. Anything going wrong tends very much to be the fault of bad circumstance or of incapable and incomprehensive people.
If we have a low self esteem we tend more to go for the: 'oh no! I did it again- that is the proof for my incapacity' storyboard.
Our own private story gets stored away in our conscious memory- the truth often is buried in the meanders of our unconscious. We use our story to keep up our persona, to communicate about ourselves. The more time goes by, the more we tend to believe our own story and slowly it will become part of our own private myth- the myth of our existence.
In that way we adapt our memory contents to the archetypical context of our subconscious. Hence the unconscious ‘recognition’ of archetypical fairy tales and myths that has been put forward by Bruno Bettelheim.
The construction of myth functions on individual level as well as on collective.
In that case the myth is the glue that keeps a community together, that explains its reason of being, its origins and its beliefs.
What comes to your mind when you think of your parents? Your grandparents? Your children? Your wider family? Stories! Stories about problems, stories about events, stories about experiencing together. Those family stories create the family over generations- some can date back hundreds of years.
In my family it’s the ancestor that created a foundation for fun during studies for his descendance; the great aunt who resembled a Madonna in a polish church, who was probably painted with a lost ancestor as model; my grandfather who would saw the branches of the Christmas tree only to fix them again in a more orderly way- the more those stories go back in time the more fantastic they become. The more recent stories deal with more common events- I and my brother remember a confrontation of our usually so calm father with an American hotel owner or the capacity of my mom to always chose the worst plate in a restaurant.
It is those stories that will keep the memory of the clan alive, that will transcend generations- that will represent the family myth.
Lucky the company who has a real foundation myth- like Apple or Tata. The whole style of management and identity of the company is built on that foundation myth.
The historic truth becomes less and less important as years go by- historic accuracy is more and more exchanged for symbolic content that serves as foundation for belief.
Myths serve as basis and carrier of collective conscience. A myth can even do something even more fascinating- it can transmit special powers to people or places. The knowledge of the myth then charges the collective belief in such a way that the power of belief transfers a sacred identity unto people or places.
During my travels in Israel I encountered many places that were attached to a foundation myth. In the end, it wasn’t important if the mythic event really took place at the same spot- the power of the believers charged a place like a battery with sacred energy that can be experienced.
A sacred space is a space where the rules of reality ( or let’s say of the world out there) don’t apply. It has its own rules, its own magic- In a sacred space windows open to our unconscious. That is why any problem of sacred space is so difficult to treat with logic and realistic means. Rational thinkers suddenly become deaf to the voice of reason in such a place- if they are believers.
A sacred space needs constantly to be kept alive by believers- take away those who trust in its powers and it is just another piece of land. What would Lourdes be without the hoards of ill believers that come to the cave to seek healing?
A sacred space needs a founding myth and a keeper or keepers that will keep the myth alive for the existing or potential believers.
And somehow everybody is a believer, even if it is in the almighty power of the market or of technology, and as such we all create our sacred spaces.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Intercultural learning
Being member of the SIETAR –Society for Intercultural education training and research- I attended a conference of Margalit Cohen-Emerique on dangers for identity and self-shock
Margalit develops the intercultural encounter problem not from an cross-cultural point of view but from the general perspective of encounter with the Other.
In her theory the more the other’s behavior surprises, offends or challenges us the more we feel that our own identity is in danger ( unity, continuity, coherence and value) and we tend to have a defence reaction . With this reaction we even become in response a danger to the identity of the Other.
Margalit has observed social workers who work with people from different cultural contexts and rather than focusing on explaining why the culturally different group behaved that way she concentrated on the effect the behavior had in the social worker and what resources he/she could mobilize to face the situation. In that sense her model corresponds to the psychological need of the social worker as being taken serious in his reaction and emotion and it studies what is there and available ( the emotional reaction of the social worker). At the same time it is adaptable to more situations than just the cross- cultural ones and doesn’t need previous knowledge or predictability of possible situations.
Sounds complicated, but actually during the whole Saturday Margalit made her fascinating theory very clear and understandable. I wasn’t bored for a second and my mind raced ahead in making all kinds of associations with my current work. At the same time I realized that although I have a good instinct my theoretical basis on the subject is too thin and I'd be well advised to do some groundwork.
As a plus I got to know a lot of interesting people- I think I’ll have to sign up for more conferences of SIETAR.
Margalit develops the intercultural encounter problem not from an cross-cultural point of view but from the general perspective of encounter with the Other.
In her theory the more the other’s behavior surprises, offends or challenges us the more we feel that our own identity is in danger ( unity, continuity, coherence and value) and we tend to have a defence reaction . With this reaction we even become in response a danger to the identity of the Other.
Margalit has observed social workers who work with people from different cultural contexts and rather than focusing on explaining why the culturally different group behaved that way she concentrated on the effect the behavior had in the social worker and what resources he/she could mobilize to face the situation. In that sense her model corresponds to the psychological need of the social worker as being taken serious in his reaction and emotion and it studies what is there and available ( the emotional reaction of the social worker). At the same time it is adaptable to more situations than just the cross- cultural ones and doesn’t need previous knowledge or predictability of possible situations.
Sounds complicated, but actually during the whole Saturday Margalit made her fascinating theory very clear and understandable. I wasn’t bored for a second and my mind raced ahead in making all kinds of associations with my current work. At the same time I realized that although I have a good instinct my theoretical basis on the subject is too thin and I'd be well advised to do some groundwork.
As a plus I got to know a lot of interesting people- I think I’ll have to sign up for more conferences of SIETAR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
