Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts

Tuesday, 13 June 2017

Notes From A Wizard's Journal I: King, Warrior, Magician Lover

This being the first in a series of posts in which I present extracts from my personal journals, for the enjoyment of interested parties.  Few explanatory notes shall be given, other than to point readers in the general direction of what I am referencing - otherwise, the text here will be left to speak for itself.

This post contains my thoughts and reactions to King, Warrior, Magician, Lover by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette, a text in the broadly Jungian tradition that argues for a generative and empowering form of masculinity to replace the toxic archetypes that are currently dominant in Western society.

The original notes were written contemporaneously with my reading of the book - they are something of a gloss on the text, and should be interpreted in that light. These are neither my current, nor final thoughts on the matter.

Indented text indicates the extracts from my journals, non-indented text is used for explanatory notes.


Traditional societies have defined boy/man (or child/adult) psychologies, bounded by processes of initiation. Since the Reformation, these have been eroded in the Western world, the ritual reduced to mere ceremony. What is left is pseudo-initiation, that fails to adequately transform the child to the adult; thus a failure to integrate. This leads to cyclical patterns of abuse and victimhood, severity and weakness, rather than the Middle Pillar. In a way, the process of moving into the New Aeon could thus be seen as redressing the harm done by the Reformation - necessary as that harm doubtless was at the time. All things in oscillation towards the centre.

The Patriarchy does not represent a mature masculinity, but rather is boyhood psychology writ large. It attacks both "true femininity" (in favour of submission) and "true masculinity" (in favour of conformity) - "Patriarchy is based on fear - the boy's fear, the immature masculine fear  - of women... but also fear of men"

Contrast the "traditional" initiation into warrior culture as seen in various indigenous societies with Western "pseudo-initiations" such as gang culture and military service... both ultimately fail due to various factors, producing an unbalanced masculinity, often one of wanton violence, hostility, and dominance.

Our pseudo-initiations do not successfully slay the ego - rather, they amplify it, especially those worst parts of it. Second, the ritual space is not contained properly, neither spatially, nor by the presence of a hierophant-psychopomp to act as the initiating priest and guide to the aspirant. This final point is the most salient - without a hierophant who is themselves successfully initiated, there is a great danger that the aspirant will not be truly initiated, but, rather, fall into the traps of the ego.

The indwelling nature of the primordial archetypes provides a possibility for rectifying the above situation in the absence of proper hierophants - c.f. "the abyss too shall bloom" - all humanity have the inherent ability to reach the highest forms of initiation, regardless of external initiators or not, but it is just a lot easier with a proper hierophant (HGA, VVVVV, etc.). Note, of course, that if we consider the Dead and Risen God, LVX formula, to be that of initiation to {sol}, which is to say humanity in its perfected form, then the crossing of the Abyss that follows is not the same process at all. NOX follows, and presupposes, LVX. 

NOX and LVX refer to specific magical formulae of initiation - they are perhaps best explained in J. Daniel Gunther's rather excellent text Initiation into the Aeon of the Child

 Is the becoming of {sol} the becoming of adulthood? We might equate, or at least conceptually link the HGA with [the authors'] "fountains of innate masculine energy", to which one must submit in order to be truly initiated. C.f. Islam as submission to God.

The polarised form [of an archetype] is referred to by [the authors] as the "shadow" of the archetype in its fullness. I suspect that this is not exactly equivalent to the usual Jungian conception of the Shadow; to borrow Ramsey Dukes' theories - the polarised archetype is daemonic.

It is interesting to note [the authors'] use of the image of two pyramids to describe the archetypal structures; the pyramid of boyhood extends to cover a greater conceptual space in adulthood, if integrated properly. The archetypes of the child are still present within the adult self, but are expanded by experience, to cover a greater range of possibilities. The pyramid thus again becomes the archetypal image of Self (and note, πυραμίς = φαλλός, thus reinforcing the generative self's function in self-conception)

By certain systems of numerology, the Greek words πυραμίς (pyramid) and φαλλός (phallus) are equivalent, which is assumed to be symbolically important.

The Divine Child, the Jesus-Moses-Dionysus Osirian myth of a babe both divine and helpless, created or preserved as an emanation of the Divine by miraculous means... the Shadow of the Divine Child can be seen in the Paranoid-Schizoid position of Klein, which experiences completely polarised omnipotence and paradoxical weakness and fear of annihilation in turn... as with all polar relationships, enantiodromia is a factor at play... the weakling child suddenly erupting in furious tantrums when insufficiently coddled.

The Precocious Child, who thrives on the joy of discovery and understanding. He is the eternal seeker... the child prodigy... often introverted, but always willing to share knowledge.


[as shadow] the "Know-it-All Trickster"... which in the adult manifests as smugness and a domineering attitude "turning discussions into lectures, and arguments into diatribes"... in a more beneficent aspect, he is the Jester, who lets the inflated egos of others deflate. Consider Satan as the morally ambiguous trickster in this light - the troublemaker for the sake of Truth. C.f. The Book of Job, where, in one interpretation, Satan exposes the hypocrisy of both Job and God by daring them to break the compact of superficial faith born of a life of good fortune. One might say that Satan is the only one who really comes off positively in that one. Likewise, the Serpent of Eden, exposing the Shadow side of the "All-Good"Creator, could be seen as an integral part of the macrocosmic plan for reconciliation and development.

The Oedipal Child - his is the passion of connectedness with the Mother, whose infinite nurturing love he yearns for. His is affection, and the birth of spirituality. This Mother is the archetypal Isis; Mother Nature, Soul of All, and is beyond all considerations of his mortal mother


[the active shadow aspect] comes the closest to the Freudian understanding of the Oedipus complex. He wishes to destroy his father and marry his mother... unsatisfied by mortal women who faith to live up to his yearning for the Divine Goddess, he chases the poignant love of a hundred forms... [he] seeks not to be merely a mortal man with a mortal sexuality, but to be identified with the Phallus of God, and unite in congress with every woman that is the manifestation of the Goddess.

[In relation to the Oedipal Child] the Thelemic project can be seen as an attempt to unite the poles [of the Shadow Oedipal Child], in seeking the excess of each rather than the negation of either, in the hope of a kind of enantiodromic flip occuring to catapult the Self into archetypal synthesis.

The Hero is tied to the Mother, but rather than yearn to join her, he yearns to overcome her. He wishes to conquer her to assert his masculinity - thus emerge certain toxic archetypes of male "heroic" sexuality... note, however, the purpose of the Hero archetype - ultimately to found a beachhead against the unconscious, and to allow the seperation of the indivdual from the collective. This is, in point of fact, the archetypal conflict, and one which is essential to the freeing of the Psyche from the Chains of the Child, the tethers placed upon him by Mother and Father.

It is the triumph of the Hero which leads inevitably to his death - his sacrifice is an inescapable part of his journey. In death, he finds transcendence - the Boy dies, and the Man is born... one must, it is clear, first become the Boy-Hero; then the Boy must within his hour of triumph die. Only then can he rise again, as Osiris, and become the Man. LVX is fulfilled in his death; what Thelema adds is several methods of this achievement, and the demand then to move beyond to NOX. The high aspirations of the Aeon of Osiris are still too much for many - but the door is open, and the door beyond that, across the Desert, is at last conceivable, even if it is not yet crossed. LVX, the NOX. Become the Hero, then kill him.

The four archetypes categorically do enrich each other,  and are not mutually exclusive. The Perfect King is also the Perfect Magician, Warrior and Lover - the apex of the Pyramid. To some extent, this describes the state of the Exempt Adept

The process of masculinity was once institutional and collective, [but] humanity now exists - at least in the West - in a much more individual state. C.f. Aeonic theory - our salvation is no longer in the hands of a God or Church, but is our own path to tread.

The Good King is as selfless as the Divine Child is self-involved. He is the Primal Man, Adam Qadmon, Imago Dei. Note that Kingship is an office that supercedes and is archetypal greater than any who fill it - cf. the Beast and Scarlet Lady; also the Pope-as-Hierophant, etc. Note also the ritual tradition of the death of a king - often sacrificial - being followed by the rise of a new vessel to take on his archetypal power - c.f. the Osirian Formula.

The King brings order - Dhama, Ma'at, etc - to the macrocosmic world, but only in so much as he can exemplify that order within... else he becomes as the Fisher King, and his wounds do wound the land with him (c.f. also the blight of Thebes that resulted from Oedipus' impiety)

"Those who would cut off masculine aggressiveness at its root, in their zeal, themselves fall under the power of [the Warrior]"... if turned against aggression, [it] becomes unconsciously repressed and manifests in other ways. Consider it as the psychological correlate to "New Labour Syndrome" - attempts to enforce peace becoming more destructive than war.

One might here draw inference from Alice Miller's ideas of poisonous pedagogy - the codified, harmful patterns of child-raising that use coercion, manipulation, and outright violence of one form or another to "tame" the child, forcing them into a conforming social role, and, on a psychological level, as a rationalisation of parental patterns of sadism, which is sanitised and euphamised as it passes from generation to generation - the "it never did me any harm" approach. These same patterns can be seen in other "pseudoparental" hierarchies - military conscription, medical training, or the institutional abuses of the Catholic Church, for example. 


[In his properly integrated form] the Warrior has his own Dharma... The primary force here is one that drives forward, not merely holding ground - it is the energy to face life head on. This is produced by the proper application of "aggression" (force, perhaps?), which is to say, in a mindful and discerning manner. The Warrior knows what he wants, and knows how to get it; intent and action are in perfect alignment. Herein lies the difference between Hero and Warrior - the Hero, not knowing his limitations, cannot adapt. He must throw himself at the foe again and again. He becomes the Warrior when he recognises the need to attack the flanks of life, when he acknowledges his weaknesses and limitations, and changes his strategy.

The Warrior is something of a state of emotional disconnection. "I am afraid" becomes "there is a person who is afraid"... Alone, the Warrior is a destroyer; admixed [with the Lover and other archetypes], he emerges the warrior-poet, who is balanced between detachment and attachment, approaching the Apex... The Adept at {sol} is capable of balancing the archetypal forces; it is only when he becomes a Magister, and has reconciled the archetypes not only with each other, but with their ultimate negation - which is the negation of the psyche in totality that we refer to as the Abyss - that he reaches the true Apex of the Pyramid.

An interlude: some reflections on the Abyss
I wander in the desert, in the land-that-has-no-maps, of some petty abyss. That I know not the way matters not; I must press on and advance. Step by step, inch by inch, yard by yard. Ever closer toward something. The only incorrect move here is to lie down and die, to stop and let the sand of the desert consume me. Or, else, to build here the fortress of my delusion and join the the Black Brotherhood who dwell here. Can you not see their basalt towers, empty and ruined, devoid of all life, that they think to be their kingdoms? They have drunk Hypnos' brew, and refuse to awaken; sealed themselves within the bubbles of the cosmic foam, never to rejoin the Source of All, never to pass through. Beware. 

And returning to the gloss of KWML
The Magician is, ultimately, the creator of civilisation... the ambiguous, chaotic but civilising force of the Trickster. He thus has the power to bring down the mighty King when his pride turns to hubris; he is Nathan to David, Merlin to Arthur... the mirror of kings, who shows things as the truly are... by correspondence - the Devil is the psychotherapist of God.

At his best, the Magician brings fullness and wholeness from within, and gives it to all beings - the desert shall flower with the water of his life, freely poured into the Cup of Babalon.
Again, the specific meaning of the Cup of Babalon is a rather complex one, and is discussed relatively clearly in Gunther's Initiation
[the Shadow Magician] can be seen in a failure, or refusal to initiate... he witholds the initiatory knowledge for his own self-aggrandisement... The paternalistic doctor, witholding information from a patient; the dubious therapist, promising flawed initiations at great cost; the lawyer and the accountant, manipulating secret symbols and words of power as much as for their own gain as for any others; the advertising executive; the cruel classroom tyrant; the data-slaver. All these are facets of this Shadow.

"This is the man who thinks too much, who stands back from his life and never lives it. He is caught in a web of pros and cons... lost in a labyrinth of reflexive meanings... in the fear of making the wrong decision, he makes none" ... By cutting off from relating with others, one cuts off from one's own soul; by withholding from others, one withholds from oneself. Isolation begets isolation. This is black magic indeed - and probably the closest that [the authors] get to describing the Black Brotherhood, who are very much this manner of Shadow. 
The Black Brotherhood is a term employed in various Thelemic writings to different ends - one might consider them synonymous with "regressive, static forces", rather than as a specific organisation.
The lover is the mystic sensate, capable of perceiving the holographic universe - "the world in a grain of sand"... his sight is, too, the Eye of Shiva, cleansing the Doors of Perception and revealing - and reveling in - the Infinite that is equally singular...


The Lover, in feeling the Joy of the World, must also take responsibility for bearing the Pain of the World... [the Lover] is in some way opposed to all forms of restriction. As Joseph Campbell puts it, he enacts the tension between Amor and Roma, passion and order, Love and Law

The Dionysian nature of the Lover points to clues in its suppression by the Christian Churches. Both the sensual understanding of the material world as union, and the quest for self-made meaning are condemned with ferocity. It is easy to see the Lover's marks in the "greatest heresy" of Epicurus, the ultimate blasphemy against the ascetic's denial of the Lover. Yet, Dionysus is devoured and rises again, from within the conquering culture; the suppression of the Lover only sows the seeds for his return, stronger and more potent. The slaying of Osiris leads, inevitably, to the birth of Horus

[The Shadow Lover as Addict] is also the Idolator - he has fallen in love with the Fatal Image of Nature, forsaking the One for the Many... note the pornographic addict's idolatrous worship of breasts, legs, feet, cunts, etc. rather than the full experience of the Anima... the Addict ultimately seeks release from Maya, but finds himself seeking solutions that are ever outside himself, drawing him further and further into the web... he is the Lotus-Eater, who has tempted the Hero away from his quest.

Patriarchy is Puerarchy, Lord of the Flies written large. We now live in a world where many of the toxic shadows have been sundered - but we are now left with a void, an antisymbol where there are no initiaic structures of any value.
 
 

Thursday, 16 February 2017

I Kant Believe it's Not Büchner: A Codex Vitae

Rejected Titles:
  • A Crapulous Creed
  • Wrongful Convictions
  • Meditations on Second-Hand Philosophy
  • Tractatus Illogico-Philosophicus
  • Thus Spoke Nastananda

Inspired by https://github.com/busterbenson/public/blob/master/Codex.md and http://terrie.me/codex/


How To Use This Document



If you are Anthichthonian:
  • Develop a habit of using the Codex as a repository for beliefs that develop throughout the year.
  • Consider doing a monthly review of whether my life is in alignment with values and beliefs. If not, should my behavior change or have my understanding and values changed?
  • Do a yearly review in January of the entire document, editing places where beliefs have changed. Expect beliefs and tactics to change — don’t hold on to them too rigidly.

If you are not:
  • Read this with the understanding that you are different than me — the way I live my life is not the way you should live yours.
  • Consider creating your own Codex Vitae. Feel free to copy anything here that is helpful.

Meta-Beliefs

  1. This purpose of this document is to capture my beliefs about the universe.
    1. It is, and they are, always incomplete and out of date.
    2. It is, and they are, always subject to revision.
  2. There are different categories of belief, which may or may not overlap.
    1. There are beliefs that I agree with on an intellectual level.
    2. There are beliefs that I accept on an emotional level.
    3. There are beliefs that I accept insomuch as I act on the assumption that they are true.
  3. The degree to which any of my beliefs are an accurate reflection of the universe is an unanswered question
    1. Most statements should be interpreted as a "best guess"
  4. Some of my beliefs are best expressed through rationality and logic. Others are better expressed as subjective opinions.
  5. Whilst I have certain beliefs and biases that exist on a subconscious level, I assert that it is possible to change any and all of my beliefs - at least to some degree - through conscious effort.
    1. This process of becoming conscious of my beliefs and modifying them is a fundamentally useful one, even in the absence of a particular end-goal.

My General Principles

  1. "Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the Law, Love under Will".
    1. As an essential prerequisite, one must understand one's Will in the fullest sense, and that it is not equivalent to "what one wants to do".
      1. This concept can, in its simplest form, be expressed as "above all, to thine own self be true".
    2. As a corollary, one should allow others to do their Will.
  2. All authority and certainty is to be questioned.
    1. Especially my own.
    2. "All truth begins as heresy".
  3. It is better to be open to new experiences than to be closed to them.
    1. I will regret the things that I did not do more than I will regret the things that I did do.
  4. The answer to any question is, ultimately, "it's more complicated than that".
  5. The ability to act on my wishes is contingent on first accepting any situation that I encounter on it's own terms.
  6. The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is inherently rewarding.
  7. Even if all morality is subjective, it is better not to be a dick to people.
  8. Logic and rationality are extremely helpful tools, though like any tool they have their limitations.
    1. Logical fallacies can generally be considered to be heuristics - they are often useful rules of thumb, despite being not strictly true in all senses.
  9. If it's stupid but it works, then it's not stupid.
  10. One should aim to become antifragile
    1. This is best achieved through striving to increase one's options for action
  11. One should attempt to practice doxastic commitment, living one's life in accordance with one's expressed opinions and principles.
    1. The failure of a source to practice doxastic commitment is a useful hereustic by which to discard ethical arguements and the like, even if it is not strictly logical.

Beliefs on the Nature of Reality

  1. The Map is not the Territory
    1. Our comprehension of the world within and without emerges from our perceptions.
      1. Our perceptions are subject to any number of flaws and biases.
      2. We can never be certain how well our perceptions match up to an external reality.
      3. Reality is, thus, essentially unknowable. The best we can do is to form an image of reality.
    2. All attempts to comprehend the image of reality that our perceptions give us are also subject to numerous flaws and biases.
      1. In particular, the limitations of language impact upon our ability to comprehend the image of reality.
        1. A substantial number of metaphysical problems (e.g. the sorites paradox, the Ship of Theseus, just about everything to do with counterfactuals, etc.) are artefacts of the limitations of linguistics.
    3. These attempts to comprehend the image of reality produce models, which simply and codify the image in order to aid the understanding of a part of it.
      1. No one model can fully explain the totality of the image of reality. "There are more things in Heaven and Earth..."
      2. To have complete faith in a single model, or set of models, of reality is to limit one's conception of reality to things that can be described by that model.
    4. All models are incorrect; some models are useful.
      1. Seemingly incompatible statements within different models can be simultaneously considered true if doing so is useful to our understanding of the universe.
  2. This is all to say: we may not be able to prove the existence of a world outside ourselves, or any particular thing about that reality
    1. In practice it is useful to assume reality to be - more or less - what we experience, as the alternative does not lend itself to any useful action or further train of thought.
    2. Insomuch as it is essentially impossible to falsify, the Brain in a Vat / Simulated Universe problem cannot be answered; furthermore, given the previous assumptions, it doesn't really make much of a difference.
  3. At least in principle, we have free will; even if this is not true, it is useful to accept this as being true.
  4. Strictly speaking, induction is impossible, though in practice it is useful to assume its validity.

Beliefs on Morality and Ethics

  1. Morality is essentially an aesthetic choice
    1. This being the case, morality does not necessarily need to be strictly justifiable in its rationale, as it is an essentially subjective construct
  2. Deontology is essentially flawed
    1. Divine Command Theory and moral absolutism in general are not so much philosophies as positions of intellectual surrender.
    2. Kant's Categorical Imperative can best be treated as an ethical heuristic.
  3. Consequentialism - and utilitarianism specifically - is inherently flawed, as it relies upon perfect knowledge of the outcome of any action, and on assumptions about the universal nature of any true benefit.
    1. Equally, there is value in consequentialism as an ethical heuristic.
  4. Many moral systems can be considered flawed due to a lack of doxastic commitment among their adherents.
  5. All else being equal, one should pull the lever
    1.  Pushing the fat man is morally equivalent to pulling the lever.
  6. We do not have a moral obligation to pander to Utility Monsters.

Beliefs on Science

  1. The Weak Anthropic Principle is as good an explaination for the fundamental properties of the universe as we are likely to be able to understand.
  2. The universe is not fully deterministic when viewed in its entirety
  3. Black Swan Events have a disproportionate effect on complex systems, thus it is almost certainly useless to attempt to predict the future behaviour of such a system
  4. Anthropogenic climate change is occurring and observable
  5. Micro- and macro-evolution occur in nature.
  6. Homeopathy is unlikely to be anything more than a placebo.
  7. Vaccinations do not cause autism
    1. Even if they did, the balance of harm and benefit would favour continuing to use them.
  8. Nuclear power is, in the balance of things, better than fossil fuels, though inferior to renewable energy.
  9. The Ecological Fallacy is the most insiduous assumption that exists within the sciences, and is responsible for a great deal of bad science and bad policy.
  10. Human enhancement technologies, such as nootropics, cybernetics, longevity therapies, etc. should be considered ethically acceptable, if not praiseworthy.
  11. Assuming practical concerns around safety were resolved, there are no substantive issues with germline engineering, human cloning, etc. provided that the quality of life of the offspring is not adversely affected, and that such offspring are granted the same rights as any other human.

Beliefs on Mind

  1. A collective unconscious exists on a biological level, insomuch as the nature of our neurology predisposes us to certain forms of thought and behaviour.
    1. This affects, and is affected by, cultural factors.
  2. Consciousness is an emergent property of a complex system.
    1. Consciousness and intelligence are most likely a property of the complexity of a system, not the specific structural 
    2. China Brain would have a form of consciousness.
    3. Our presuppositions on the nature of consciousness are fundamentally anchored in our understanding of our own consciousness, and are not axiomatic.
      1. This is to say - a thing does not have to think like a human in order to think
  3. Mental illness is best understood as a cultural construct
    1. There is no sharp dividing line between neurotypicallity and neuroatypicallity
  4. Altered states of consciousness provide potential insights into the human mind which should not be underestimated.
  5. Animals and other beings that can be conclusively proven to have a comparable level of consciousness to humans should be candidates for comparable rights to humans.

Beliefs on Meaning and the Spiritual

  1. There is no inherent meaning to life, other than the meaning that we give it. This is, essentially, subjective.
  2. If there is a single "God" or divine presence of some kind, it is best considered to be more or less synonymous with the entirety of the universe, internal and external.
  3. Gods, spirits, angels, demons, etc. can be said to exist, insomuch as they could be considered emergent consciousnesses that arise from complex systems, including those which reside within the collective unconscious, which we personify with anthropomorphic features.
    1. In another sense, they exist insomuch as we experience them to exist.
  4. Magic(k) is possible, insomuch as that it is the deliberate modification of one's internal sense of reality in accordance with one's will.
    1. In this sense, it is not dissimilar to a kind of applied psychology, albeit practiced more as an art than a science.
  5. The persistence of some form of life after the death of the body is an unanswered, and probably unanswerable question; 

Beliefs on Society

  1. "Every Man and Woman is a Star" - each individual is a unique and whole unit, occupying a unique place within their social cosmos
    1. Equality in opportunity is desirable; equality in outcome is impossible, and even if it were possible, it would likely be undesirable.
  2. The dividing line between children and adults is fundamentally an arbitrary one.
    1. Minors who are Gillick Competent - in other words, have sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully comprehend a matter - should, broadly, have the same rights as adults.
    2. As much as possible, all age-associated rights should be tied to this concept
      1. There should be no statutory minimum age at which one can gain a driving license
      2. There should be no statutory minimum age at which one can vote
      3. There should be no statutory minimum age at which one can stand for parliament
    3. In general, the concept of "parental rights" should exist only insofar as the actions of the parent safeguard the best interests of a minor who does not have the capacity to make decisions of their own.
  3. Society should be constructed only on the basis of voluntary association.
    1. There is no substantive difference between the legitimacy of a nation-state and of any other voluntary association of people.
    2. Most territorial claims are dubious at best; the chief arbitration of such claims should be the will of the people who dwell in any given area.
  4. Our notions of "race" and "ethnicity" are entirely arbitrary
    1. They are useful ways of analyzing power differentials between groups
    2. The truly egalitarian society would have no meaningful concept of race or ethnicity.
  5. Our notions of "gender" and "biological sex" are entirely arbitrary
    1. They are useful ways of analyzing power differentials between groups
    2. The truly egalitarian society would have no meaningful concept of gender
  6. Individual success is usually more to do with luck and privilege than it is with skill, natural aptitude, or effort.
  7. The individual right to morphological freedom should be upheld as a cornerstone of personal autonomy.

Beliefs Regarding Politics

  1. Our current political systems are unsustainable
    1. Representative democracy is not essentially superior to any other system; most of our attachments to it are an artefact of a bias towards the status quo.
    2. In many senses, a delegative democracy would be superior to a representative one.
    3. Direct democracy does not work on large scales, and has numerous flaws.
    4. There is ultimately no one political system that is perfect for everyone.
    5. The best solution may be to encourage a proliferation of different social and governmental structures
  2. Freedom of speech and expression should be considered a foundation of civil society.
    1. Speech should only be restricted by the government if it is maliciously libelous or constitutes incitement to violence.
  3. The role of government should be to uphold individual and collective liberty, whilst advancing human flourishing generally.
    1. As a general principle, any action taken on a voluntary basis between consenting persons, that does not directly harm a third party, should be considered permissible.

Beliefs Regarding Law

  1. The role of law should be to protect and uphold individual and collective liberty.
  2. The circumstances in which a competent individual should be deprived of their liberty are limited, and in general should be restricted to the prevention of severe harm to themselves or others.
  3. Justice should be less concerned with punishment than with rehabilitation.
  4. Imprisonment is ineffective as a deterrent, and should only be used when there is an urgent need to protect the public at large.
  5. Torture could be ethically justifiable in some cases; however, on a pragmatic basis it is of extremely limited value in gathering truthful information, and the social sanctioning of torture causes more harm than good.
  6. The death penalty is neither an effective nor justifiable punishment for crime.

Beliefs Regarding Sexuallity

  1. Sexuality is morally neutral.
    1. Sexual orientation is morally neutral
    2. Sexual acts that occur between consenting individuals are morally neutral.
  2. The debate around whether sexuality is inherent or somehow chosen is irrelevant to its moral status.
  3. The concept of an age of sexual consent is flawed on a fundamental level, but should probably be kept for practical purposes, albeit with the understanding that consensual sexual activity between individuals who are competent to consent to such, regardless of the age of the individuals, should not be criminalized.
  4. Prostitution, pornography, and other aspects of the sex industry are morally neutral. They should be legalized and regulated like any other area of business
  5. Most people's sexual orientation does not fit into any clearly defined binary.

Beliefs Regarding Health

  1. One's state of health is one's own business.
  2. Weight is a morally neutral issue.
    1. On the individual level, BMI is effectively a useless measure.
    2. Most diets do not help one to lose weight.
  3. The healthiest lifestyles are likely to be antifragile ones.
  4. The use of compulsory treatment of mental illness is justifiable in certain circumstances, but these should be very carefully considered.
  5. Abortion should be available on request before the point of viability, and after this point at minimum on the grounds of preventing harm to the mother's physical or mental health, or in cases of catastrophic congenital defect.
    1. This said, much of the discourse around abortion is deeply ableist in its language and assumptions.
  6. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, embryo selection, and so on should be supported, as should stem-cell research and hybrid embryo research.
  7. Suicide should generally be seen as an act that is the product of severe mental distress and not of a rational actor. However, this does not preclude the possibility of an individual making the rational choice to end their life.
    1. Assisted suicide should be allowed, with appropriate safeguards.
  8. The harm associated with tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs is best addressed through a combination of legalization, regulation, education, and support in quitting.
  9. In general, only medicines which risk having a substantial public health impact beyond the individual taking them (such as antibiotics) should be legally restricted by prescription.
  10. Free at-point-of-access health care should be available to everyone who needs it.

Beliefs Regarding Education

  1. Free university-level education should be available to anyone who wants it.
    1. Beyond the point of that a child has reached a level of civic competence, there should be no obligation to remain in full-time education.
      1. One might, at least in theory, posit a "high-school exit exam" of some sort to certify that one has reached this point.

    Beliefs Regarding Human Relationships

    1. Radical Honesty is, at least in principle, a good thing
    2. Everyone is ultimately responsible for their own feelings
    3. It is generally better to assume good faith in others
    4. Love is not a finite resource
    5. Monogamy, polyamory, and other relationship structures are all valid
      1. Though one structure may be a better fit for any given individual, no structure is categorically better than any other

    Thursday, 10 November 2016

    Horribly Indescribable IV: Terror Incognita

    Returning from the brief hiatus of the past few days, which can mostly be put down to a case of the Man Flu (Manthrax/Hebola/Manengitis/etc), today I will continue my series of articles on the techniques of the horror genre as applied to larp.

    Next up is terror, which I initially described as "perceived vulnerability in the presence of uncertain fears". This is clearly related to dread in that both fundamentally rest on ambiguity and fear of the unknown; where they differ is in the sense of threat, and in the powerlessness of the subject in the face of that threat.

    The difference can be difficult to fully tease out, but I think that it is worth trying to differentiate the two, as they have slightly different roles to play within what one might refer to as the methodology of fear. Where dread might be considered the unsettling backdrop, a kind of emotional ambiance, terror provides a more acute emotional effect - the !!! to the ??? of dread.

    As with dread, less is frequently more. The exact nature of the threat need not be specified in order for it to be effective, so long as there is a clear sense of threat. The monster that is only glimpsed as a silhouette against the window is often more effective that the one that can be seen in the light - and, on a pragmatic level, this kind of obfuscation hides a multitude of sins when it comes to physrepping.

    There are various that increase vulnerability, and thus susceptibility to terror; as with dread, feelings of disorientation serve to be a useful driver of this effect. Disorientation inherently messes with threat perception by putting one on edge; when you cannot trust your perceptions or knowledge of your surroundings, then vulnerability is an entirely predictable feeling.

    In considering discontinuity as a driver of terror, it is worth mentioning the use of "bait and switch" techniques. An effective method is to provide a source of dread which leads players towards certain assumptions, followed by a countervailing shock - the signalling of a high-threat event that is in conflict with those assumptions. Consider, for example, following a mysterious trail of blood down a twisting, poorly lit corridor (dread), then reaching a dead end only to suddenly hear a the noise of a slamming door far behind you (shock).

    More potent even that this disorientation is the effect of isolation. By forcing a small number of characters, or a lone individual, to face the terror alone, the feeling of vulnerability is heightened. This ties into something quite deep and ingrained in the human psyche, the childhood fear of abandonment which never fully goes away even in adulthood - even in the absence of other sources of fear, it is something that people tend to find profoundly unnerving. Whilst isolation need not be physical, this is often the easiest kind to achieve; in general, the feeling that should be aimed for is that others are either unaware, unable, or unwilling to provide aid in some manner.

    As final point on the subject of terror, it is worth mentioning that, unlike dread, terror is a difficult emotion to keep up for an extended period of time. This is where the tension-release cycle comes back into play - periods of fearfulness should be interspersed with calmer periods, if only to prevent players from burning out. In this schema, terror should come at the climax of several tension-release cycles, across which there is a slow but steady ratcheting up of the perceived threat. One could consider it to be something like this:


    Thursday, 3 November 2016

    Horribly Indescribable III: Judging Dread

    Following on from my previous posts on the subject, today I am going to continue to share some of my thoughts of the use of techniques and tropes from the horror genre in larp. Today, I am going to be writing about dread, which I defined as a kind of fearful apprehension or anxiety that emerges from the ambiguity of perceptions. In essence, it is the fear of the unknown, combined with the human tendency towards apophenia.

    As I alluded to in the previous article on shock, the key to the horror genre is more to be found in the set-up than in the payoff itself. Dread and terror are the two primary drivers of the tension which heightens the emotional payoff of the eventual shock.

    Whilst I initially defined dread as concerning ambiguities of perception, it is probably more accurate to say that it is caused by ambiguity in the meaning of a perception (though pareidolia can also be an effective creator of tension). The trick here is that some aspect of what is seen must point towards a vaguely defined threat, without making the nature of that threat entirely clear.

    The golden rule here is that the nature of the threat should not be shown directly. Less is more, and the imagination can almost always serve up greater fears than anything which can be created in the external world. 

    Even despite this, preserving ambiguity is often difficult. Larpers are generally a fairly genre-savvy bunch, and there is often a tendency to pick up on the use of staple tropes of horror when they appear. One might consider the more general application of the "Don't Show the Monster" to be "Never Tell Them Enough" - in horror, knowledge is power, and the restriction of knowledge is thus vulnerability. The less that is solid, the more that rests on speculation and guesswork, the less certain players and their characters will be of what to make of ambiguities.

    Undoubtedly, dread is most effectively produced when it is expected; by priming players to expect that they will feel scared, one creates something of a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby the process of apophenia will already be functioning, at least on a subconscious level, well before any dreadful elements are introduced. Indeed, I suspect that merely be advertising a larp as "horror", one sets up a set of assumptions and expectations in one's players which will predispose them to experiencing this kind of dread and fear.

    There are a few other cheap tricks that one should consider for invoking dread. Firstly, is the use of disorientation, the alienation of the individual from their surroundings. Restricting the ability of the player to perceive their surroundings is an effective method of unsettling the mind, one of the reasons that darkness is such a driver of dread. The ability of the individual to determine direction and distance can also be restricted through forcing players to take winding and circuitous paths from one area to another; the more maze-like an area can be made, the more effective this is likely to be. Disorientation in relation to time is trickier, and has numerous logistical difficulties (for example, in relation to players with health issues requiring regular medication), but can be deeply unsettling. The most effective of all might be thought of as "discontinuity", in which players are conditioned to distrust their memories - objects can be moved, doors opened or closed, or even entire areas rearranged, for example.

    Another cheap, but effective, trick is to use the principles of Pavlovian conditioning to make an association between a particular sensory phenomena and the existence of some manner of threat. The ways in which this might be done are infinite; subtle coloured lighting, low-volume ambient sounds or white noise (or the abrupt stopping of such); or, to take a cue from the infamous Projekt Ragnarok, the sounding of an air-raid siren shortly before some reality-melting horror was about to occur, which has left several larpers of my acquaintance, myself included, breaking out in nervous sweats several years later. Similarly, some former players of Winter in the Willows may still have an instinctual twitch reaction to this rather innocuous song.

    It is generally advisable to build up the feeling of dread slowly and inexorably. One might begin with a relatively mundane opening, progressing to a vague sense of wrongness, before introducing more and more sinister elements and finally emerging into the outright horror. The longer that one delays the introduction of a shock, the greater the impact. One might begin with relatively mundane ambiguities (Was that door open before? What was the noise outside?), moving to the more sinister (Why are there eyes chalked on the so many of the walls? What was that scraping noise behind the locked door?), and bring to a head with high-threat ambiguities (Was that a window breaking? Why have the lights suddenly gone off?).

    One of the best examples of this process in horror cinema is the original Blair Witch Project. Spoilers follow, but frankly, it's been seventeen years since the film was released (a fact that suddenly makes me feel unaccountably old), so I don't feel too guilty about dissecting it here. The film begins slowly, with the protagonists interviewing various locals about the folklore of the area (foreshadowing), before heading into the woods where they camp for the night. The next day they move deeper into the woods, uncertain of the exactly where they are on the map (disorientation). They find some mysterious cairns in the woods, and the next night hear snapping twigs around their tents (ambiguous perceptions). The next day they attempt to return to the car, but get themselves further lost; again there are some unusual noises around the camp at night. The fourth day sees them continuing to wander in the woods, stumbling across a grove filled with mysterious stick-figures hanging from trees (ambiguous meaning); that night, things escalate further with the sound of children laughing in the woods, and unknown forces shaking the tent. This pattern of gradual escalation increases throughout the film, but at no point is the ambiguity of what is occurring ever resolved, even at the climax of the movie.

    All in all, that's not a bad model to be aiming for.

    Wednesday, 2 November 2016

    Horribly Indescribable II: Shock and ARGH


    Following on from yesterday's  post, I am going to spend the next few posts discussing the different kinds of horror, and how they can be used in the context of larp. Today, I am going to begin with a discussion of "shock", which I defined as the "response to a sudden stimulus whist in a state of heightened arousal". This, arguably the most primal form of horror, is deeply embedded in the brainstem and occurs on an automatic level - which is perhaps why it is so commonly invoked across various media.

    The startle response is the neurological basis for this kind of horror - automatic reflexes which are fundamentally tied to survival instincts. Startle responses can be triggered by multiple different sensory modalities - visual, touch, proprioceptive (as in the instinctive response to the sensation of falling, so beloved of Inception) - but the most potent is probably the response to auditory stimulus.

    This, the acoustic startle response, is the one most often taken advantage of by jump scares in film and other media; though it is usually the case that there is a visual component to focus the shock, it is generally the auditory component that drives the response. Whilst a very effective method of inducing amygdala hijack and the fight-or-flight response (CW: jump scare), this approach can be rather unsatisfying.

    The classic jump scare comes in three parts - and here I'll quote Bryan Bishop's excellent article in The Verge:

    In fact, a well-done jump scare breaks down the same way Michael Caine describes illusions in The Prestige, with three distinct steps. First there’s the pledge: a character is introduced into a situation where danger is present. They hear a rattling in the kitchen, or voices when they’re home alone. Then comes the turn, where the character finds a reasonable explanation, or the immediate threat is somehow removed. Everything seems alright, and the audience lets its guard down. That’s when the filmmakers execute the prestige, hitting an unsuspecting audience with the actual scare — usually accompanied by a shrieking music cue or sound effect

    One major problem is that it is very difficult to keep up any degree of pay-off if one relies overly-much on jump scares - if you're following the classic three-part setup, things can get predictable very quickly. Spring-loaded cats aside, there aren't many ways of varying the formula.

    It is worth noting that the impact of a jump scare depends greatly on the amount of build-up that comes before it. The excellent (and free) Spooky's Jump Scare Mansion is an excellent example of this - shock rarely works alone, and even cartoonishly ridiculous shocks can be effective if one is suitably anticipating it. This ties into a lot of the material that I'm going to talk about in a later post, and is tied into the cycles of tension that create a rising feeling of dread before the payoff of the shock.

    There is good evidence that startle reactions are greatly increased when one is already in a condition of stress, or otherwise in a state of anxiety- these clinical findings can be fairly easily related to casual observations around the tension cycle if we consider one of the main methods by which dread primes us for a shock to be the induction of hyper-vigilance. This also links into questions of the effect of concentration on the potentiation of the startle effect. Research suggests that when attention is directed to a startle-inducing stimulus the response is amplified, which one could surmise from playing a couple of Scary Maze games (CW: jump scare, obv.), or, if you prefer, Scary Flappy Bird (CW: Flappy Bird, and probably a jump scare. I don't know, I'm so terrible at Flappy Bird that I can't get beyond the first couple of pillars, and have thus never actually seen the end of this one).

    The reverse also seems to be somewhat true - directing attention away from the sensory modality of the shock seems to decrease startle responses, though only in introverts. It's one of the few INTP superpowers, I guess.

    How does this all translate to larp, then?

    Shock can be an effective driver of play, but one should be careful of its overuse. Horror elements can create a great degree of emotional intensity, which is often desirable in a larp, but the emotions that repeated exposure to this kind of fear tends to bring up are not especially productive ones. There are safety concerns as well - whenever you try to invoke the fight-or-flight response, there is a reasonable chance of the former kicking in. Nobody wants to be the crew member that jumps out of the bushes to scare the players, and ends up with a point-blank crossbow bolt to the nads.

    Another safety note - it's always wise to try and have a good idea of any phobias that players may have, and to avoid using those (or, indeed, any other common phobias) in jump scares. Panic attacks are not generally the kind of emotional state that one wishes to inspire in one's players.

    This is not to say that one shouldn't use this kind of scare. One of my most memorable larp experiences was at the first Dark Tempus, when the sudden unexpected appearance of a zombie caused one of my group to involuntarily throw a glass of scotch all over it as we struggled to draw our weapons. But if you are going to use shocks, then use them well.

    The tension-release cycle is perhaps the most important aspect here, and one which I will talk of more in later posts. One should aim for a cycle of Dread => Shock => Calm => Dread etc, rather than Shock => Calm => Shock => Calm. The former, in telegraphing the upcoming shock, will make it all the more effective; the latter rapidly falls into Cat Cannon territory, with sudden unpredictable shocks coming out of nowhere leading more to confusion and irritation than fear.

    Stimuli do not necessarily need to be overwhelming in order to trigger a shock if the tension has already been built - a quiet voice in a pitch-dark room thought to be empty may be far more effective than a full-blown screaming monstrosity appearing with no build-up whatsoever.

    It's worth playing with sensory modalities, though note that the auditory seems to be the most effective. In this, larp has an advantage over many other media, as all senses can potentially be commandeered towards the creation of experience. Sound and vision are potent, especially when combined; but there may be avenues of interest to explore in touch and proprioception. Touch, particularly, has a sense of violation about it, which can trigger strong feelings of fear and revulsion - the latter of which is an integral feature of horror, as I'll discuss later.

    The potentiating effect of attention should be drawn upon where possible; if a player is engrossed in some activity that is requiring their full attention, then it not only makes it easier to set up the shock unnoticed, but the impact of the shock is greatly increased. A certain amount of bait-and-switch misdirection can be used here, a technique which I will discuss later in the post on Terror.

    Finally, there is what one might term the Anti-Cat Technique. This, which might be described as "scar the character, scare the player", requires shocks to have a meaningful impact; they should represent credible threats or be somehow significant in the greater scheme of things where possible. This can of course be subverted - but the subversion is only effective when the majority of shocks are meaningful.

    Tuesday, 1 November 2016

    Horribly Indescribable, Or Indescribably Horrible?

    Well, it's been a while.

    It's been a long hiatus, but here I am, back in the world of blogging. Eagle eyed visitors may note that I have merged my two earlier blogs - Beep Beep Jeepform and Overly Honest Occultist - into some kind of hybrid rebus. If I was being highbrow about it, I would talk about trying to bridge the interdisciplinary barriers between various subjects, and say something about the nature of storytelling as a fundamentally magical act, and magic as a fundamentally artistic, aesthetic practice, and so on and so forth. But, if I'm being honest with myself, it was mostly due to laziness.

    This month, in lieu of my usual failed attempts at NaNoWriMo, I have decided to attempt something a little different - a blog post every day (or there abouts) in the style of the spectacularly-named NaNoBloPoMo, working through various things that I feel like rambling on about in the vague direction of an audience.

    Just too late for Halloween, in this and the next few posts I would like to talk a bit about horror in LARP - not the UK LARP Facebook Group, vile as it is, but on the use of themes and techniques from the horror genre as applied to LARP.

    I'd first like to define a few terms, and say a little about the neurobiology of fear. An early definition, coined by the Gothic writer Ann Radcliffe, defined terror as the feeling of dreadful anticipation that preceeds the experience, and horror as the feeling of revulsion that occurs after something frightening has been experienced. One might thus cosider terror to be a form of anxiety, and horror a more direct stress-response.

    Stephen King devised a system including three types of fear: Revulsion, horror, and terror; the first being fairly self-explanatory, the second encompassing the fear of the unnatural, and the third encompassing phenomena that disrupt one's sense of reality. These seem to give a reasonable overview of different types of fear, but I think it's possible to differentiate things a little more: I would propose a catagorisation based on dread, terror, shock and horror.

    Dread and terror are states very close to one-another; they both describe feelings of uncertainty and fearful anxiety. Dread, I feel, rests more on the ambivalence of perceptions (What was that sound? Is there something moving in there? Where does that trail of blood lead?), whilst terror rests more on one's perceived vulnerability in the presence of uncertain fears (Hiding in the cupboard as the killer prowls through the room. Trying to outrun the werewolves. Being tied to a chair as the interrogator noisily executes the previous captive). Shock is what one experiences in response to a sudden stimulus whist in a state of heightened arousal (The skeleton falls from the closet. The ghostly scream. The voice from the darkness). Finally, Horror can then be thought of as a combination of revulsion and inevitablity (Being trapped in the room as the thing slowly rises from the bathtub full of blood. Waking up inside a coffin).

    The neurobiology of fear is a relatively well-studied area, which deserves some mention. The primary route of action is through the sympathetic nervous system, which is responsible for mediating various hormonal and neurological mechanisms involved in the fight-or-flight reflex, such as causing the release of the stimulat hormone adrenaline, and the constriction of blood vessels in the digestive tract and skin in order to shunt more blood to skeletal muscles in preparation for physical activity.

    Within the central nervous system, the fear response is primarily mediated by the amygdala and the limbic system in general. Damage to the amygdala has been reported to cause an inability to feel fear, and, apparantly, a lack of sense of personal space, which I am almost certainly going to house rule into all D&D Paladins from now on. And which arguably explains a lot about Warhammer 40k's Space Marines (CW: 1d4chan).

    Fear is generally thought of as being the result of conditioned responses, though the more primative fight/fight/freeze responses are often considered to be innate and termed "species-specific defense reactions" (SSDRs). These can be considered to be instinctual and immediate reactions, often occuring before there is any conscious processing; this can also include the immediate induction of emotional states in a process sometimes known as amygdala hijack.

    The process by which fears are learned is a form of associative (Pavlovian) conditioning, mediated by changes in synaptic plasticity that increase the sensitivity of pre-existing neural pathways, and by the action of the hippocampus and neocortex. Long-term changes in synaptic plasticity are thought to be a contributing factor in the formation of phobias, and in post-traumatic stress disorder.

    Whilst these physiological reactions are fairly universal, the psychological and emotional processes involved in fear are somewhat diverse; a reductionist view might be to pin these differences on dopamine, and though there are numerous other factors that are likely to feed into one's experiences of fear, it seems likely that dopamine responses are likely to play a role in whether or not one enjoys the feeling of horror, especially after the fact.

    So, where from here? Over the next few days, I will look into the four divisions that I outlined above, and look at how these concepts can be applied in LARP.

    Wednesday, 17 February 2016

    The Locusts of Control

    A friend and co-conspirator of mine linked me to a rather interesting article in the New Yorker today, which got me thinking about the ways in which we conceptualize the degree of control we have over our lives, and how belief and culture shape these.

    The concept of a locus of control is a valuable one when it comes to thinking about the psychology of health, politics, religion and so on. The brainchild of the fantastically named Julian B Rotter, the theory describes loci of control as either being internal, signifying that one believes one's actions and circumstances are generally under one's own control, or external, and beyond one's control. Rotter's I-E scale is one way of measuring one's belief in the internal or external nature of one's locus of control - not the best one, admittedly, as it conflates a number of concepts, so is better described as a measure of one's assessment of societal loci of control.

    There is a certain amount of evidence that having an internal locus of control is associated with a more "healthy" psychological state (whatever that means), and in particular with better outcomes in certain areas, such as smoking cessation and academic performance.

    On an esoteric level, it is clear that the practice of ceremonial magick relies upon a conception of one's locus of control being internal - leaving aside, for the moment, discussions about the nature of ego-death and the interminable question of spirit guides, augoeides, Holy Guardian Angels and the like. The magician positions themselves as the fulcrum of the universe, and then acts by applying force through whatever method they choose. On this level, one might consider an internalised locus of control as being a factor in the Law of Attraction.

    It is perhaps interesting to note the tendency that certain worldviews have on conceptualizing the general locus of control as being external. Indeed, the greater part of the philosophy and science of the historical-conceptual era that in Thelemic jargon is referred to as the "Aeon of Osiris" does exactly this. Consider how the ultimate formulation of Christianity and of materialistic science completely abolish the possibility of an internal locus of control - through the creation of an omnipotent God beyond all human understanding and morality, that punishes and redeems on His whim alone as in Calvinism; or through the models of biological determinism which reduce the human condition to nothing more than the interaction of neurotransmitters. Both are inimical to free will; both tend towards the creation of a kind of learned helplessness as an ultimate outcome.

    "Oh, and we should have nuked the middle east into a
    desolate wasteland as a response to 9/11... because science."
    - Satoshi Kanazawa, alleged scientist

    This is never applied evenly throughout society - indeed, one might see many social structures as dividing and classifying individuals into whether or not they are permitted to have an internal locus of control. All systems of oppression could be seen as taking their roots, or at least their justifications, from this fact. Consider the way in which the oft-dubious discipline of evolutionary psychology is practically a byword for misogyny and rape apologia (CW: misogyny and rape apologia, obviously), or the "scientific" racism that produced drapetomania and which still tiptoes around the fringes of scientific respectability - the theme that can be seen as running between all these examples is that people within oppressed groups are seen as not having the same intellectual or social capacity for having an internal locus of control as those of the dominant groups.
    It has been noted that there is something of a political divide in the loci of control - those with more typically right-wing views tends to have a more internal locus of control, where as left-wingers tend towards a more external one - though this is by no means a simple relationship. It may be better to think of the difference between personal loci of control ("I am free to act" vs "I am controlled by outside forces") and societal loci of control ("people should be free to act" vs "people should be controlled by outside forces") - in such areas there is often a great degree of doublethink.

    Authoritarians of all stripes seek to impose a paradigm upon society whereby the societal locus of control is externalised, whilst social liberals and anti-authoritarians tend towards a more internalised societal locus of control. Equally, self-styled Libertarians tend towards externalising the societal locus of control in much the same way that authoritarians do - creating the paradigm of Market-as-God - whilst at the same time preaching the doctrine of personal internalisation. Consider as an example of this the politician who promotes entrepreneurship and personal responsibility (personal internalisation) whilst implementing policies which lead to a decrease in social mobility and personal economic freedom of the masses (societal externalisation).

    Even within the progressive left, which arguably sees as an end goal the internalisation of control, there can be seen some remnants of the externalist viewpoint - mostly as a Shibboleth whereby attempting to advocate for the internalisation of personal loci is seen as elitism and privilege. Indeed, this can often be the case - the well-meaning ally coming up with some preposterous rubbish about self-empowerment that entirely misunderstands the situation is practically a trope. However, this does also possibly point towards one of the reasons that such movements often struggle with significant inertia - the very idea that one might be able to change one's situation is somewhat taboo, and thus a sort of resigned apathy is the inevitable result.

    It seems to me that there is a certain amount of reconciliation that needs to be made between the two positions of internal and external loci of control, recognising the external factors which influence one and simultaneously acknowledging one's capacity for action. As for societal loci, I shall end by quoting without comment Aleister Crowley (or Aiwass, or Whatever):

    "Do as thou wilt shall be all of the Law." - Liber AL vel Legis, I:40
    "Love is the Law, Love under Will." - Liber AL vel Legis, I:57

    Thursday, 28 January 2016

    Escaping the Positivity Trap

    There's an ongoing debate on the subject of positive thinking, which seems to have been raging for years. On one side is the camp which - broadly speaking - suggests that one can fix any multitude of problems in one's life if one changes one's outlook; the other, that such a position is naive at best, and tends towards a kind of victim-blaming narrative.

    Both sides of the argument are, as always, not entirely wrong, nor entirely right. My personal feeling is that the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the synthesis of the two; in this post, I would like to hash out a few of my thoughts on the matter.

    The pro-positivity crowd offer numerous solutions to life's problems, which on the surface seem to be mostly about thinking happy thoughts. The likes of Oprah relentlessly promote this strategy - that one can fix all, or almost all of one's problems simply by changing one's outlook. These can come in many guises - ranging from from daily affirmations, encouragement to smile, re-framing one's life experiences, meditation, and the ever popular "cutting negative people out of your life".

    Glurgemonger-in-Chief  Doreen Virtue, to nobody's surprise, offers "Daily Guidance From Your Angels"; the equally crap-saccharine Louise Hay, of You Can Heal Your Life fame, has similar "Power Thoughts"; as does, inevitably, Deepak Chopra, the only man in existence who seems to understand less about Quantum Physics than Peter Carroll.

    If you read any of the above and felt a sense of general revulsion trickling down your spine, you're not alone. One has to wonder if the advice is meant as a cure for depression, or merely to sooth the minds of those suffering from what Freud called "common unhappiness". Ask anyone who has ever suffered from clinical depression, and you'll quickly find out that these kinds of positive encouragements are worse than useless; indeed, they are often listed as being some of the worst things that can be said to a depressed person. Not only do those spouting such positivity seem to completely misunderstand the nature of depression - which is perhaps thought of less as sadness, more a profound feeling of meaninglessness and futility - but by giving such pieces of advice, even well-meaningfully, there is a tendency to shift the blame for one's circumstances onto the individual.

    Even if one was to argue that psychological factors are the primary cause of depression (they aren't), the demographics of mental illness point towards extrinsic social factors as being a contributing cause. Even for those not suffering from depression, it is no great leap of logic to suggest that being part of a disadvantaged population is likely to reduce one's opportunities in life, and cause a greater exposure to stressful factors. For ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, women, the economically disadvantaged, and those on the LGBT spectrum, the simple fact is that the oppressive structures of society as it exists today are ones which act externally. No amount of positive thinking is going to change the pay gap between men and women, for example; no amount of smiling is going to prevent the trauma caused by governmental persecution of the most vulnerable (CW: sexual assault).

    For this reason, there has been a great amount of backlash against the positivity movement, much of it justified. It could even be said that positivity is for "Rich White People" - a soothing balm for the worried well, who are not harmed by structural inequalities.

    But that's not the whole of the story. As much as we rail against the cult of optimism, there are some small grains of truth at the root of all the mindless positivity; indeed, it clearly works for some people, one way or another. As much as it is argued that, as in the joke about the anarchist and the lightbulb, it's the whole damn system that needs changing more than the individual, if it works, then it's useful.

    Let's take a two common examples of Positivity Advice and dissect them a little:

    Happy Yoga - Mindfulness and Postural Feedback

    Often touted as the psychological panacea that society needs, mindfulness is a form of meditation that involves deliberately moving one's attention away from one's thoughts, generally focusing on bodily sensations or on breathing. There's a lot that can be written about the effectiveness of meditative techniques for psychological and personal development, which I shall save for another post. The most crucial thing to note here is these techniques are, at least until one is very well practiced in them, merely a "pause button", most effective at helping reduce the feeling of being overcrowded by thoughts. Similar claims are often made about the efficacy of yoga.

    The old phrase about it taking less muscles to smile than to frown is, whilst technically accurate, entirely unhelpful (and misses out the fact that it takes even fewer muscles to flip the middle finger at anyone who thinks that this qualifies as advice). However, it keeps getting repeated within positivity circles, often with some kind of scientific studies backing it up. The science behind this one is a bit sketchy at best - the theory dates back to Riskind and Goatey's 1982 study on posture having a regulatory effect on emotional feedback, and Laird's 1974 study on facial feedback, which I can't find a non-pay-walled link to. 

    The idea of there being a biofeedback mechanism related to posture or facial expression is reasonable enough in itself - if only due to the psychological associations that one inevitably develops with any given posture. Practitioners of yoga and certain esoteric traditions will recognize this as old wisdom; couched in terms of energy meridians or chakras is the general sense of a biointelligence which mediates between body and mental states. This could all be seen as supportive of "Smile Therapy", were it not for the fact that facial expressions are not culturally universal. In essence, it seems to boil down to determining what postures have specific resonances for you - and if any such postures do aid in bestowing a specific mood, using those. As always, experimentation and observation are key.

    Arguably, this all ties into the many strange and hard-to-explain observations around the placebo effect, but that is a matter for another post. 

    Incidentally, I'll here plug Steve Wilson's excellent Chaos Ritual, sadly out of print and difficult to get ahold of, for having one of the most interesting deconstructions of the mind-body-neurology link when it comes to posture.

    Positive Visualizations and the Law of Attraction

    So, here's the big one. As a random aside, I've been reading David Allen's Getting Things Done this week (don't judge me), and I had a sudden insight into why Rhonda Byrne's The Secret and its numerous tie-ins got things wrong. Aside from the Chopra-level quantum woo, obviously. Allow me to save you a few pounds and reveal the Ancient Secret of the Secret Masters of Secretness:

    Thinking about things gets you things.

    Specifically, imagining a positive outcome, gets you that outcome.

    Now, it is pretty clear that this is utter rubbish. If it were true, I wouldn't be writing this blog, because I'd be too busy lying on my poolside recliner in the blazing sunshine, being served cocktails by a selection of nubile personages of various genders as I gaze lovingly at my enormous, Scrooge McDuck-worthy pile of cash. But, as with so many things of this nature, it does contain a grain of truth.

    A simple explanation is that by visualizing specific outcomes, you prime the part of your brain that acts as a perceptual filter - the reticular activating system, or RAS - to focus on information that you would not have consciously perceived. Like all simple explanations, it's not entirely true - the neurology is a lot more complicated than that; the RAS certainly has a significant role in the routing of sensory stimuli, alertness, and habituation (the process by which the brain trains itself to stop noticing background stimuli), but it isn't the all-powerful mental filtration system that some make it out to be. Nonetheless, it can easily enough be observed that there is some kind of perceptual filter which determines what the conscious mind becomes aware of. On some level, whether this is a neurological or psychological filter is irrelevant; the function can be considered to be the same regardless of the origin.

    There's a good amount of evidence that suggests that these perceptual filters can be primed by expectation, as well as by thoughts, beliefs, and mood. The totality of these filters makes up what Robert Anton Wilson referred to as the "Reality Tunnel". The theory then follows that if one sets up the right positive attitude and visualisations, then one is more likely to notice opportunities and the like which can lead to the occurrence of the desired outcome.

    And yet, what is missed so often here is that the visualisation is only the first step - it must be matched by action. This is seemingly obvious, but is easily missed in the flurry of positivity. No matter the strength of one's affirmations, they will remain mere words unless they are acted upon. This is the Positivity Trap, the new Opium of the Masses: the idea that merely changing your thinking but acting the same will magically lead to some great change. This is one possible cause behind the observation that positive fantasies predict poor achievement - if one buys deeply into one's visualization to the extent that one believes it to be inevitable, regardless of actions taken or not taken, then one is probably in for an unpleasant surprise.

    So, what then?

    I'm not going to say that you should simply chuck positivity. There are some useful tools to be found buried in the woo-mines. As always, the trick is to use them critically. Positive thinking for the sake of positive thinking is an exercise in intellectual masturbation: and, more to the point, it isn't the opposite to negative thinking. There is no forced duality - after all, most negative thoughts do have a kernel of truth to them, but so do most positive ones.

    One should not attempt to annihilate all negativity with positive thoughts - this is the swift way into the Positivity Trap. Having the vision of a positive outcome is useful - it allows one to gain a certain degree of clarity, by which to direct one's actions. But this must be tempered by a degree of realism, and, of course, backed up with action - whether on a physical, or a psychological plane.

    Wednesday, 20 January 2016

    The Book of Jugs: Behavioural Conditioning For Fun and Prophet

    Content warning: discussion of techniques (towards the end) which could be classified as deliberate self-harm

    What do drugs, World of Warcraft, speeding tickets, Facebook, and Aleister Crowley have in common?

    No, whilst "things the Daily Mail disapproves of" is technically correct, it's not the one I was looking for...

    Here's a clue:
     

    Operant conditioning (hereby referred to as OC) is a particularly interesting bit of psychology, which emerged from the works of noted pigeon-weaponiser, saxophonist, and Chomsky-baiter B.F. Skinner. It can be distinguished from classical (Pavlovian) conditioning in two ways: firstly, because it describes the ways in which a single pattern of behavior can be altered in isolation, whilst the later describes the way in which a stimulus, not a behaviour, is associated with a consequence; and secondly, because it's more about pigeons than dogs.

    OC makes a number of assumptions about animal (and, indeed, human) behaviour which may or may not be accurate: the main one is around the ultimately mechanistic origin of many behaviours. However, ignoring some of the somewhat spurious logical-positivist offshoots of Skinner's works, and the consequent endless arguments over free will, it becomes relatively clear that - at least in a subset of cases - OC can work. Adopting a certain amount of theory-agnosticism, I will focus on the effects and uses of OC, rather than whether the underlying assumptions are strictly true.

    The mechanisms by which behaviour is changed can be broken into three main categories: Reinforcement, Punishment, and Extinction. The first two are then broken down again into Positive and Negative subcategories. Reinforcement is considered to increase the likelihood of a behaviour; punishment to decrease it. Positive interventions involve adding something - pleasant or unpleasant - whereas negative interventions are considered to be removing something. Extinction, on the other hand, refers to the process which occurs when a behaviour which previously was reinforced or punished no longer becomes associated with any such outcome, or where the outcome becomes sufficiently disconnected from the behaviour.

    For example:
    • Positive Reinforcement: I go to the gym. I reward myself with coffee. I go to the gym more.
    • Negative Reinforcement: I pay off my debts to the mob. I don't get my kneecaps broken. I pay off my debts quicker.
    • Positive Punishment: I drink too much. I get a hang over. I drink less.
    • Negative Punishment: I have a cigarette. I put a pound in the Quitting Jar, the contents of which will be donated to Westboro Baptist Church. I smoke less.
    • Extinction: I go to work, hoping to be paid. I don't get paid. Eventually, I stop going to work.
    There is a certain amount of cross-over between reinforcement and punishment, depending on how any given example is worded; for example, I could consider having my knees broken a positive punishment for not paying off my gambling debts, rather than it being a negative reinforcer. The difference is somewhat academic - it boils down to three simple premises, that:

    Pleasant outcomes encourage a behaviour

    Unpleasant outcomes discourage a behaviour

    Unexpectedly pleasant or unpleasant outcomes reduce the degree of encouragement or discouragement.

    Numerous factors influence the effectiveness of reinforcements. Humans are pretty terrible at making long-term cost-benefit analyses, so more immediate consequences are generally far more effective than delayed ones, for example; likewise, more extreme consequences generally are more effective than less extreme ones.

    There are two interesting observations which spiral off Skinner's research, and which are somewhat intertwined. First, consider the problem of contingency: when a consequence occurs consistently following a behaviour, the behaviour is quickly modified, but should the consequence later become inconsistent, only occurring following a proportion of instances of the behaviour, it will soon become extinguished. Conversely, if a behaviour only triggers a given consequence on occasion, it takes longer for the behaviour to become learned, but likewise takes longer for that behaviour to be extinguished should the stimulus stop.

    One good example of this process in action can be found in road speed cameras. It is well known that many static speed cameras across the UK are "empty" boxes, with some areas only having 10% of their cameras actually active at any one time. Whilst there are numerous economic and logistic reasons behind this, it could also be argued to be a subtle method of maintaining the non-speeding behaviour of motorists. Were every camera to be normally active 100% of the time, extinction would kick in relatively quickly upon encountering a camera that had malfunctioned or been taken down for servicing. However, if only a certain, random number of cameras were ever active at a given time, it would take far longer for the extinction of non-speeding - as one would never know if a camera would activate the next time one sped through it, and would thus have to keep on one's toes, so to speak.

    The second related phenomena is what emerges when a subject is rewarded and punished with zero contingency; that is to say, on an entirely random basis. Skinner demonstrated that pigeons that were randomly given food pellets quickly developed complex behavioral patterns (pecking, spinning, neck turning, and other such pigeoning things), presumably in an attempt to replicate the conditions in which the food was released.

    Admittedly, research subsequent to Skinner does cast some doubt on the validity of this observation - but we may consider it, true or not, to be an interesting and potentially useful explanation for a wide variety of behaviours. The ever-fascinating Derren Brown explored this effect with humans on Trick or Treat in 2008, and showed similar effects, albeit in a much less controlled fashion. One could consider this effect to be closely linked to such things as magical thinking and apophenia.

    Turning to matters more esoteric, I now want to look at one of the lesser known and more interesting texts by pioneering mountaineer and scatological poet Aleister Crowley. Specifically, Liber III vel Jugorum (CN - discussion and photographs related to self-harm, albeit not in the context of psychological distress, and allusions to animal cruelty. Contains Crowley.). 

    Stripping out the usual incomprehensibilities and allusions to Higher Secrets (which, inevitably for Crowley, are all about sex), this text describes methods of gaining a degree of control and discipline over speech, action, and thought, using techniques that would be best described as positive punishment. A particular pattern of speech, action, or thought, is to be designated as taboo for a week or more, and all breaches of this taboo are to be punished by the aspirant. Crowley suggests using a razor to make a cut upon one's arm or wrist every time such a taboo is broken, and that one should record the number of breaches by the number of cuts.

    These taboos are - intentionally - entirely arbitrary. Some examples, taken directly from Liber III, are given here:
    • Avoid using some common word, such as "and" or "the" or "but"; use a paraphrase.
    • Avoid using some letter of the alphabet, such as "t", or "s". or "m"; use a paraphrase.
    • Avoid using the pronouns and adjectives of the first person; use a paraphrase.
    • Avoiding lifting the left arm above the waist.
    • Avoid crossing the legs.
    • Avoid thinking of a definite subject and all things connected with it, and let that subject be one which commonly occupies much of thy thought, being frequently stimulated by sense-perceptions or the conversation of others.
    • By some device, such as the changing of thy ring from one finger to another, create in thyself two personalities, the thoughts of one being within entirely different limits from that of the other, the common ground being the necessities of life
    The aim here is not to change one's behaviour permanently; rather, it is to develop a certain awareness of one's thoughts, speech, and actions, and the discipline both to suppress such behaviours, and to punish oneself when one breaches the taboos. For Crowley, such a degree of awareness and control was considered central to all forms of magick; along with yoga, the practices here were a major pillar of his magickal system, the order known as the A.'.A.'. (commonly, though incorrectly, said to stand for "Argentium Astrum" or "Arcanum Arcanorum").

    The methodology is interesting, though personally I wouldn't use a razor for the self-punishment aspect. A common suggestion is to use a thick rubber band around the wrist, which can be snapped back sharply; some Thelemites of my acquaintance swear by the electric-shock device known as the Pavlok. The exact method doesn't really matter - the stimulus is the important part.

    I've experimented a couple of times with this system, using the rubber-band technique, and from my own observations, it is quite an eye-opener. One tends to initially miss a lot of taboo-breaches; over time, these become more noticeable, but equally one becomes more adept at avoiding the taboo and working around it. Eventually, it almost becomes natural; in a way, it follows the competence curve from unconscious incompetence to unconscious competence, though this fades a few days after completing the exercise due to the extinguishing effect described above.

    What I'm trying to say, is that magick and psychology have an awful lot of crossover.

    The first is pretty much an applied form of the second, anyway...