9 February 1999 and ongoing (portions
uploaded on 19 and 21 February 1999)
Mickel Adzema's (WebGuy's) Note:
Due to the length of this dialogue -- from
Primal Spirit Forum -- I have given it this separate page of its own.
It all began on the psychohistory listservice
-- where there had been an ongoing debate on abortion and when consciousness
begins and so on -- which triggered the following, initial, comment from
Lloyd deMause:
Re: Killing Fetuses, Denial,
and Apocalypse, Or New Age? Contentions:
How Can This Intellectualizing Be Made Therapeutic?
9 February 1999 (uploaded
21 February 1999)
Since there seems to be no stopping the frenzy
of opinions about killing (or not killing) fetuses on the listservice lately,
let's take another tack. Suppose you were a perinatal psychotherapist,
and you had a group of people who shrugged off every insight into their
emotional life, but only wanted to talk about dying fetuses. Indeed,
let me ask this question of listmember Mickel Adzema (if he is still on
the list after several people told him to keep quiet), since he is in fact
the only one on the list who actually has daily people in therapy experiencing
perinatal feelings. Mickel: What would you say about the flurry of
fetus-killing postings lately, if they were your patients? Since
little insight into their own inner life was evident in the postings, how
would you move them off this denial spot and into re-experiencing, if you
had them in a session? Isn't this the kind of "re-experiencing of
perinatal traumas" you speak about in your book [i.e., Apocalypse,
Or New Age?]? How can it be made into something therapeutic,
rather than pure denial of one's own life as a fetus, as it has been so
far? And what connection, finally, might this have to my oft-posted
theory that we are in a period of ego collapse (in Clinton's terminal years),
when nations regularly re-experience and then restage fetal traumas?
Lloyd
psychhst@tiac.net
9 November 1998 (uploaded 21 February 1999)
[Mickel Adzema's Response:]
Lloyd,
In this posting I want to do two things:
explain why I have not participated in this dialogue so far (which you
are inviting me to comment on) and then explain why I will respond to your
questions in my next posting.
First, I have been avoiding this subject
like a "tar baby." I must confess to have been scanning the postings
and then, being sure not to read too much lest I get prompted to respond,
quickly filing them away. Having said that, let me humbly state that
if the remarks that follow appear deprecatory to the list, they are not
based on a thorough reading of the postings. So I will respond for
now, explaining my reasons for not participating, which is based on the
"appearance" or "tone" of the dialogue and a "scanning" of its contents,
but I reserve the right to be absolutely wrong, after having thoughtfully
read and considered what has been posted. At any rate:
I have done this avoidance of the dialogue
because the dialogue has "appeared" to me to be much like you describe
it, Lloyd. There seems a "flight into intellectualism" surrounding
it, and the dialogue has reminded me of a kind of "bull session" with a
radio-talk-show understanding of the issues involved. As I said in my
article about the attacks on Clinton, psychologists are such the Rodney
Dangerfields of professionals that everyone with an opinion thinks he or
she is one. (And please, don't everyone take this personally, I know
there were some very thoughtful postings made . . . I am speaking "in general"
and its "appearance" to me.) Nevertheless, this discussion, from
my scannings, has appeared soooo far removed from the kind of discussion
around this issue I have had with my pre- and perinatal psychology and
transpersonal psychology colleagues, I have feared that if I were to say
anything I would appear nuts.
The other danger would be the tar baby one
where I would be sucked into an endless debate, forced to come up with
findings like (I think it was you) had to in citing your article on "Restaging
Early Traumas in War and Social Violence," which it seemed -- though your
article is both seminal to this
discussion as well as to many other current
issues of extreme importance as well as it being an elaboration and extension
of your (in my circles) famous and even decades-old "War As Birth" hypothesis
-- some or many in the discussion were unaware of it! So in noticing
these postings, I had more insight into why you would tell me, as you did
at one time, that "few in psychohistory have ever read deMause, let alone
Janov" -- which absolutely astounded me at the time! And as I said
to you recently in response to a similar comment of yours to me, I fear
you are known and renowned more in circles (and generations) outside of
your own than in your own. And I also know, as you have recently
told me, that you have been putting 16 hour days in for many decades to
share your ideas. So in seeing this discussion going on, I feared,
in getting involved, that kind of thing happening to me. In other
words, I feared the reason that you had to do those long hours was because
you were getting involved in these kinds of debates -- trying to convince
the unconvinceable. When I worked as a political activist, I was
taught, and taught others, that to engage in such arguments with people,
as we went from door to door, was counterproductive in that it only reinforced
their already hardened opinions, and wasted our energy and time, and that
instead we should "pick up our pace" and "hit more doors" to get to the
people who were at least open and ready to hear, if not sympathetic, to
what we had to share. We had to learn to avoid the temptation to
try to convince everyone, i.e., the tar baby phenomenon, and instead focus
on INSPIRING those who already have "ears to hear." (And let the
ripples go out from there.)
Assuming these things to be true about the
ongoing discussion, or at least to be a perception that you and I share,
is it any wonder that you now lament -- paraphrasing an old commercial
-- "Where's the psychohistory?" Whereas I am lamenting the same,
as well as "Where is the pre- and perinatal psychology?" (in this debate
on prenatal psychology) and "Where is the transpersonal psychology?" in
this debate on early consciousness, where in transpersonal circles we have
discovered consciousness to exist at the cellular level, i.e., the sperm
and egg level, and indeed to actually precede that! In transpersonal
circles, the debate about when consciousness "begins," would appear ludicrous
because it assumes that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter, when
the voluminous evidence of transpersonal psychology points to the opposite:
that matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness . . . that consciousness
exists a priori in existence. And by the way this finding derives,
not only from the evidence of transpersonal psychology, but that of the
new physics, the new biology, and many more. As Rupert Sheldrake
will tell you, science, in all its branches, has in its most up-to-date
findings overturned all the basic tenets of "common sense materialism";
and what passes for science in the imagination of lay people (and even
in the day-to-day workings of applied scientists) is actually a religion
of "scientism." (If someone really wants to dispute this, please
first have the courtesy to check out the book I wrote on exactly this subject
titled, Primal Renaissance: The
Emerging Millennial Return, especially Part One: Matter As Metaphor.
It also is uploaded in its entirety on my website, www.primalspirit.com,
and can be downloaded for free and contains the voluminous references behind
my assertion. That way I can be disputed on evidence, not on opinion.)
So how irrelevant and nuts I would appear
in stating that the issue of abortion being centered on the beginnings
of consciousness leads to the conclusion that to be truly anti-abortion
on these grounds would require that every emission of 300 million sperm
in every orgasm by every male on this planet, as well as every egg cell
ovulated by every female, would need to be brought to term, creating human
babies. (Try enforcing that one!)
Enough on point one. As for point
two, why I will respond to your questions in my next posting: You
raise extremely pertinent questions to the processes of change I have described
in my book (the Apocalypse, Or New
Age? book). You ask me how the ongoing debate on this list might
be viewed in terms of the assertions in my book as to what is going on
right now in our global society. You also challenge me to consider
my understandings in light of some of yours, as in your postings.
These questions and this challenge require a thoughtful response, certainly
not an offhand remark. I am tempted to say simply that there is no
way I would have people in such denial as clients. Not only wouldn't
they come to me, of all people, but they would be "tar baby" clients that
would "brain-suck" me into exhaustion, with little or no gains on their
parts for all my efforts, and that I have long ago learned to weed out
those kinds of clients (knowing it to be a futile exercise for us both).
But of course I won't yield to such temptation
[ :-) ] for not only do your questions merit the level
of thoughtfulness you put into raising them, as well as providing an opportunity
out of this endless go-round by raising this discussion to a meta level
where we all might engage in analyzing the analysis and thereby stepping
into real psychohistory -- one where we step out of the old-paradigm false
assertion of "objectivity" and step fully into the new-paradigm, more humbling
realization that we can never escape being ourselves the object of our
study, no matter our claims, that wherever we look, there we are, and so
we might as well make our assertions with that qualifier . . . but I won't
yield to less than a considered response because your questions also raise
larger issues regarding the assertions in my book. I did, after all,
say that the rise of the talk show was an example of the kind of societal
self-analysis that keeps people from acting out their pre- and perinatal
traumas in the extremes, such as violence and war, and that it is related
to the participants having "at least a modicum of insight" into these events
as being part of themselves, not totally and self-righteously an actual
and real part (undoubtedly factual) of the societal context, the issue
being discussed, or the Other. And if, as you say, "little insight
into their own inner life was evident in the postings" and the discussion
is being bandied about on a total "denial spot," then this dialogue represents
a test case, perhaps even a metaphor, for what is going on in general,
currently, in our society. These are enticing challenges and questions
that I also wish to and need to know the answer to. In order to discover
these answers, I will need to wade into and immerse myself in the swamp
of these seeming intellectualizations. At least now you have given
me a good personal reason for engaging the tar baby. In viewing this
dialogue in the light of the claims I have made in my book, you have given
me real feedback on my work. I.e., the time engaged in this exercise
can only add to my understanding and thereby improve the final formulation
of my work. So I will give it the highest priority I can at the moment
and respond to this list -- after my thorough, Taurus-fashion reading,
with my respectfully thoughtful response -- ASAP!
Mickel Adzema
mickel@primalspirit.com
10 February 1999 (uploaded
19 February 1999)
To Mickel Adzema:
You wrote:
actually a religion of "scientism."
(If someone really wants to dispute this, please first have the courtesy
to check out the book I wrote on exactly this subject titled, Primal
Renaissance: The Emerging Millennial Return, especially Part One:
Matter As Metaphor. It also is uploaded in its entirety on my website, www.primalspirit.com, and can be downloaded for free and contains the voluminous
references behind my assertion. That way I can be disputed on evidence,
not on opinion.)
Two points for clarification please:
(1) I'm still not 150% sure whether you
mean to say that (a) matter was used as a metaphoric (in cognitivist terms
probably more of a metonymy, though) target domain (w/ mind constituting
a source domain), which implies that matter still has an independent existence
[just like a trans-field semantic transfer from the domain of body parts
to that of geographical topology does not mean that we mistook "the foot
of a hill" for a limb], or that (b) matter [ultimately] was an epiphenomenon
of mind (some of your quotes are suggestive of this).
(2) In Chapter Six you write:
Thus, a new conception, the creation
of a new human life is felt to allow the parent to cleanse him- or herself
of his or her polluted components.
But from the perspective of the newly created
individual, this world scheme gives to humankind a chance to do better
next time, to do better than the parent did, to overcome the "bad karma"
of the parent that was put into the Universe through that particular new
form, that newly created being, and which originally is recorded
in the sperm and in the egg. We therefore have here an indication
of collective memories and pain as well as the hope of resolution of one's
ancestral memories. This is to say that the child carries those things
of its parents with it; and this world scheme gives the child a chance
to cleanse the Divinity (the parent who by proxy represents the entire
species and all progenitors) of its polluted components.
This, then, is the child's chance to save itself;
but the child is also coming into the world to help to cleanse the world
of a taint that is passed down. It is an "Original Sin," so to speak,
because its origins extend back through the generations in an infinite
regress. Why the taint is there is a whole other question, however.
I'm sorry, I can't help associating this w/ the
[neolithic/matriarchal] sacrificial Corn King Complex (Holmberg 1998).
I also wonder why you chose to draw on a Qabbalistic tradition, which is
anything but "primal" in the sense of Highwater (1981). At best it
then seems that this is a description of the afflicted pattern, which leaves
the question unanswered what the unafflicted pattern looked like -?
Or do you mean to say this kind of affliction was a universal? Which,
however, contradicted your claim (w/
which I wholeheartedly agreed, by the way)
that it was about epipaleolithic developments that were critiqueworthy
(by the way, as far as I know the first one to call the Neolithic Revolution
a "Fall from Grace" was K. H. Schlesier).
A further point: While I would agree
that patterns may have a build-up of enormous time-depth, their transmission
"very fast" can be broken off (the example you quoted of the elders who
gave up on the initiation bluff would be such a case). Whether this
is viewed as desirable (or too frightening -- the TEOTWAWKI [the
end of the World as we know it] syndrome) is another matter, though.
best,
heike
boedeker@netcologne.de
10 February 1999 (uploaded 19 February
1999)
Mickel Adzema's (WebGuy's) Response:
Heike,
My responses are interspersed in brackets
and in green type.
Mickel
Two points for clarification please:
(1) I'm still not 150% sure whether you
mean to say that (a) matter was used as a metaphoric
["Matter WAS used"? I assume you mean
that my meaning of the term "matter" was "used," in the book, by me.
In which case you mean to say that you are not sure that I am saying that
matter is a (as follows):]
(in cognitivist terms probably more of a metonymy,
though) target domain (w/ mind constituting a source domain)
[My response then: No. Absolutely
not. I mean what I said, that Matter is metaphor for consciousness,
that it is an epiphenomenon of consciousness and implies and reflects and
symbolizes Experience (Consciousness). I can see that I am going
to have to upload very soon my articles "The Transpersonal Perspective"
and "Biologically Constituted Realities: An Anti-Anthropocentric
(Species-Relative) and New-Paradigm Perspective." I'll let you know
when I do.
Anyway, as I said in the book, physical
reality can be interpreted just like the reality of dreams, which we call
symbolic and metaphoric. This is not a new position. It is
completely in line with Eastern, Platonic, Gnostic, and shamanic worldviews
and philosophies. About the only worldview it is not in line with
is the common-sense materialism and scientism of the last few hundred years
and the non-mystical viewpoints of the later Judeo-Christian tradition.
By later, I mean after the Church Fathers threw out the idea of reincarnation
(which requires a primary substrate of spirit) and settled on the dualistic
idea of a separate physical universe, some of which are human bodies, into
which "souls" are inserted, and only into human bodies (note well) and
of course at a certain time of the physical body's development.
So you see here how this radical and recent
philosophy (from the perspective of the philosophies of the majority of
the people on the globe, i.e., reincarnation is much the more widely held
belief than that Judeo-Christian one of only one life) of the early
Church Fathers has led not only to the primacy-of-the-physical-world postulate,
which was a foundation of early science and is still the working hypothesis
of applied scientists, ignoring the implications of the most up-to-date
findings in their fields, but has led also to this endless go-round on
abortion on this list ['WebGuy Note: This dialogue was originally
posted on the Psychohistory ListService] -- all based upon a dualism and
trying to find out at what point in time the "ghost" -- i.e., consciousness
-- takes up residence in the "machine" (i.e., the physical body).]
which implies that matter still has an independent
existence [just like a trans-field semantic transfer from the domain of
body parts to that of geographical topology does not mean that we mistook
"the foot of a hill" for a limb], or that (b) matter [ultimately] was an
epiphenomenon of mind (some of your quotes are suggestive of this).
[As I said above, (b) is correct.
Specifically, I am saying something that has been advanced ad nauseum in
philosophy which is that one's subjectivity, one's direct Experience, one's
consciousness, is the only really knowable fact of existence. That
the existence of the physical world is dependent upon this fact.
This is so for the simple reason that I have DIRECT experience of my existence,
but I only know of your existence through my senses and you appear as an
object to me. And I have to consider your existence (and the existence
of the entire physical world, it follows) to be INDIRECT and hence less
accurate and hence flawed in comparison to my DIRECT perception of myself,
or else I have to assign my experience of you -- i.e., as an object --
to be superior to your experience of you -- i.e., as a subject with a similar
DIRECT and subjective experience of yourself -- and therefore to assign
the status of my perceptions of the physical world to be that akin to God
and infallible. This would also imply that your existence is dependent
upon my perception of you. All of this is hubristic in the extreme.
Therefore, we must accept that our perceptions of the external world are
"outward" and "indirect" and less accurate than the DIRECT experience of
one's subjectivity or Mind.
This view (of the fallibility of "objective"
information over against "subjective") is also supported by our observation
that the perception of the physical world varies depending upon the observer.
And this is the primary finding of the new physics. But ("you
don't need to be a rocket scientist" for) even common sense tells us that
different species have different "worlds" that they perceive and the only
way you can still maintain common-sense materialism is to maintain the
hubristic stance -- once again promulgated by the Judeo-Christian tradition
and quite at odds with shamanic worldviews -- that "Man" is the pinnacle
of creation. Considering the awesomeness of the Universe and the
likelihood of the existence of other species of which we know not (even
if we wish to denigrate the views of the species on this planet as being
inferior to our own), the idea that these alien entities would "see" --
"sense" is a better word -- the same physical world (or a physical world
at all) that we do is anthropocentrism in the extreme.
What it all comes down to is that the only
way one can maintain, a priori, that our common-sense view of the
world is an accurate one is to be extremely egotistical. For to hold
that position, (1) one would need to deny the most current findings of
science, which incidentally used common-sense materialism as its starting
point; (2) one would need to assert that all the planets, galaxies, solar
systems -- which are near infinite in number -- would need to assert that
somehow Divine Grace put all those twinkling stars out there simply for
our evening's entertainment. Because of all of them, only on Earth,
and only in the viewpoint of the human species on Earth is there a biological
construct with senses perfectly refined enough and therefore capable of
rendering reality as it really is; and (3) one would need to to assert
that even of the species on this planet that our common-sense materialism
tells us of, in which an eagle sees farther, and a dog hears more of the
spectrum, somehow despite these species having superior acuity in particular
senses, well, OUR perception is still superior. So extreme hubris
is the basis of "scientism" and the primacy-of-the-physical-world postulate.
And as Fritjof Capra, Michael Talbot, Stanislav Grof, and many others have
pointed out in works with references to empirical studies numbering in
the thousands (not to mention the heuristic studies and the anecdotal evidence
which support the empirical studies), science has taken us full circle
(thus the name of my book, "the millennial RETURN") to a view in essence
identical to that of Eastern (and Western) mystics and paleolithic (as
well as modern-day) shamans.
As I said in my book (you may recall), one
anthropologist of consciousness asserted that ultimately science is going
to discover that all that exists is "mind and motion." So (b) is
definitely what I am asserting. I do not believe that matter has
an independent existence at all. I think, like the mystics and physicists,
that the "the stuff of the World is Mind-stuff," and that therefore whatever
occurs, occurs first in mind, and then, to the degree it is shared in Mind
(by other "minds"), and in the manner like Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic
resonance" and the creation of "morphogenetic fields," it then shows up
in what we as a species have collectively decided a long time ago to envision
as World (and of course, matter).
I know there are still holes in what I am
saying here. That is why I will try to get my two articles "The Transpersonal
Perspective" and "Biologically Constituted Realities" up on my website
soon. Because I feel I fill in the holes and answer the questions
that might still be left begging in those two pieces. And after reading
them, then perhaps you can help me if you find any holes in my reasoning
therein.]
(2) In Chapter Six you write:
Thus, a new conception, the creation
of a new human life is felt to allow the parent to cleanse him- or herself
of his or her polluted components.
But from the perspective of the newly created
individual, this world scheme gives to humankind a chance to do better
next time, to do better than the parent did, to overcome the "bad karma"
of the parent that was put into the Universe through that particular new
form, that newly created being, and which originally is recorded
in the sperm and in the egg. We therefore have here an indication
of collective memories and pain as well as the hope of resolution of one's
ancestral memories. This is to say that the child carries those things
of its parents with it; and this world scheme gives the child a chance
to cleanse the Divinity (the parent who by proxy represents the entire
species and all progenitors) of its polluted components.
This, then, is the child's chance to save itself;
but the child is also coming into the world to help to cleanse the world
of a taint that is passed down. It is an "Original Sin," so to speak,
because its origins extend back through the generations in an infinite
regress. Why the taint is there is a whole other question, however.
I'm sorry, I can't help associating this w/ the
[neolithic/matriarchal] sacrificial Corn King Complex (Holmberg 1998).
[Why be sorry? Especially when I have
no idea what the sacrificial Corn King Complex is? Sounds like something
I should check into, however. Could you help me by providing the
title (and if an article the publication) for the reference, i.e.,
Holmberg 1998?]
I also wonder why you chose to draw on a Qabbalistic
tradition
[There was no choice involved. That's
simply where the evidence happened to be. I happen to have read an
article (later followed by his books) by Shoham, an Israeli scholar, who
makes a case for ontogenetic development that is a series of "falls from
grace" based upon the myths of a tradition that he is apparently quite
familiar with -- a Kabbalist one. His theory based on the myths of
his tradition were remarkably like the theory I had put forth as "falls
from grace" in an article (later turning into a book), based on my experiences
in primal therapy and my observations of the experiences of others in experiential
psychotherapy and my extensive reading of the literature of experiential
psychotherapy. When I read that his "mytho-empirical" analysis of
the myths of the Kabbalist tradition led to the same conclusions, including
the exact same number of falls from grace and much else, as my DIRECT experience,
as well as the reports of others, I nearly went through the roof!
Here was support for my theory from the
most unexpected of sources, and since you are reading my book you understand,
in words so congruent with my own experiences that there seemed something
deeply true and meaningful that we were individually coming up with.
Imagine for a second a man raised alone in a jungle somewhere coming up
with a theory of philosophy based solely on his experience. Then
imagine that person coming somehow into civilization and finding out that
his theory is nearly identical, even in the words used, to one of the major
philosophical theories of advanced civilization. Imagine his astonishment
and his excitement at that . . . and the conclusions he would draw from
it about the validity of primary experience. Well something like
this is what happened to me, in a sense, because my theory of falls from
grace came initially only from my experience and it occurred at a time
when I did not know that others -- like Graham Farrant, Frank Lake, William
Emerson, and others in primal as well as pre- and perinatal psychology,
as well as Grof -- were experiencing cellular consciousness, as in sperm
and egg consciousness, let alone speaking or writing about them.
My primal friends were predominantly not having these experiences (though
later many would). So I felt very much out on a limb in my theories.
To find confirmation, AFTERWARDS, in the reports slowly coming out (this
was in the early 1980s) of the experiential psychotherapies, and then,
of all things, in the writings of an Israeli scholar about some of the
myths in Kabbalism gave me the same kind of confidence you can imagine
of that jungle man.]
which is anything but "primal"
[Although I don't know what your definition
of "primal" is, and I doubt the correctness of your statement; nevertheless,
if you are correct, so much the better! Fritjof Capra wrote a book
called "The Tao of Physics." In it he finds remarkable and astounding
similarities between the findings of the new physics and those of ancient
Eastern mystical traditions. According to your reasoning, you would
say, "Why did he "choose" Eastern philosophy, which is anything but like
modern day hard empirical "physics" according to [etc., etc., and in fact
just about everybody]?" But according to HIS reasoning -- and that
which I have been explaining above -- the fact that there is this correlation
between these most unlikely of systems lends credibility to both!
Wouldn't you agree?]
in the sense of Highwater (1981)
[Don't know Highwater. Could you help
we out with a complete reference here too, please?]
At best it then seems that this is a description
of the afflicted pattern, which leaves the question unanswered what the
unafflicted pattern looked like -?
[Though that is like asking what God looks
like, please keep reading in my book for I make a stab at answering that
in Part Four: Return to Grace and especially Chapter Thirteen: Can It Be
Otherwise? Also it is much like asking what will the children being
raised by deMause's most advanced child-caring mode, the helping mode,
look like. The answer of course is we don't know, except that it's
got to be better. Plus, if you're reading my book, you know that
I am saying that SOME indigenous cultures give us a hint at what being
untainted looks like. Look to the writings of Jean Liedloff, "The
Continuum Concept" and Colin Turnbull "The Forest People."]
Or do you mean to say this kind of affliction
was a universal?
[Yes and no. Yes it is universal to
some extent. As I point out in the book, we as a species are unique
in having birth trauma for the infant due to the small pelvis relative
to the fetus, the species-relative "premature" birth and consequent secondary
altriciality, and the "fetal malnutrition" -- all of which
resulted from our standing upright.
So, universal early trauma equals universal affliction. But some
cultures have managed to mitigate the affliction more than others with
humane child-caring and birthing procedures, especially some of the indigenous
cultures and of course some of the modern children being cared for with
the "helping mode," being called for by deMause and psychohistorians, and
with the gentle birthing procedures, being called for by pre- and perinatal
psychologists.]
Which, however, contradicted your claim (w/
which I wholeheartedly agreed, by the way) that it was about epipaleolithic
developments that were critiqueworthy
[Developments, the likes of which we are
talking, happen over the tens of thousands and sometimes millions of years.
Humans didn't just start standing up all of a sudden, as depicted in cartoons.
And the paleoanthropological evidence shows that pelvic sizes for females
went through several variations (including one where the pelvic bones were
wide enough to have allowed for an easy birth -- i.e., nontraumatic for
the neonate -- for a neonate at nine months OR for the normal birth trauma
we are used to but without the secondary altriciality that is unique to
our species, i.e., without us being born prematurely relative to other
species and with the gestation time being approximately 20 months) before
the compromise we are left with, which was arrived at hundreds of thousands
of years ago, in which there is birth trauma, secondary altriciality, but
the female is not burdened with carrying the baby for twenty months, which
she would need to do for us to be born with the same maturity that our
nearest primate, and even mammal, relatives enjoy. (The rest of this
argument is in the book.)
Anyway, somewhere in the course of those
eons birth trauma began being acted out by some of our distant ancestors
in the form of the "epipaleolithic developments," as you put it, by which
I think you mean the Neolithic "agrarian revolution" (devolution).
And even then, the degree to which birth trauma was acted out (and IS acted
out) varied both by culture and by individual. To take the example
of the going from nomadic (trusting of Nature) hunter-gathering to the
stayin-in-one-place (CONTROLLING of Nature) horticultural societies (i.e.,
agrarian revolution/devolution): well, to this day there exist some
hunter-gatherer cultures, though they are rapidly dying out and being assimilated
into the one global culture.)
by the way, as far as I know the first one
to call the Neolithic Revolution a "Fall from Grace" was K. H. Schlesier
[Great! More confirmation for my theories!
Again, can I persuade you to provide me with a specific reference?
I'm sure I would find this person's ideas very helpful.]
A further point: While I would agree
that patterns may have a build-up of enormous time-depth, their transmission
"very fast" can be broken off (the example you quoted of the elders who
gave up on the initiation bluff would be such a case).
[I basically agree. But keep in mind
that the elders' change was caused by a sociocultural change that was unprecedented
in the entire history of our species, until now. It was caused by
their exposure to other cultures in which they discovered that people had
different practices and acted differently than them (and without apparent
harm), thus allowing them to understand that "the way things have always
been" was not necessarily "the way things always have to be"! As
for its application in general, by "unprecedented" I mean that, because
of modern telecommunications and the field of anthropology, this is the
first time ever that all societies can have knowledge of the cultures of
all other societies (including ones no longer existing). The ego-eroding
power of being confronted by infinite possibilities -- for the first time
in our species history -- cannot be deemed minuscule or insignificant.]
Whether this is viewed as desirable (or too
frightening -- the TEOTWAWKI [the end of the World as we know it]
syndrome) is another matter, though.
[EXACTLY! Which leads to the second
book "Apocalypse, Or New Age?"
So you agree unprecedented developments can lead quickly to monumental
changes, and they can either be colossally bad or incredibly wonderful.
If you haven't yet read the book mentioned, which expounds on this theme,
let me give you a hint: It is my opinion, based on the evidence and
arguments I put forth in the book, that we have reason for hope.
Not only that, but that, in the words of Arthur C. Clarke in "2010":
"Something wonderful is going to happen."
Thanks for your interest in my book.
Regards,
Mickel]
mickel@primalspirit.com
Re: Abortion Issue As Tar
Baby, "Miasmic Mess"
10 February 1999 (uploaded
22 February 1999)
Mickel,
Thanks for your insights and perspective on
the whole abortion issue . . . makes me examine my motivations for initially
being sucked right in myself . . . still wading my way through that miasmic
mess. . . .
Russell Miller
millerrussell@hotmail.com
Towards an Animistic
Point of View: Birth Trauma Unique to Humans; Neurosis/Biosocial
Bands in Animals; Plant Consciousness in Humans; Chimp "Violence" Compared
With Human "Apocalyptic" Violence ("Animals Will Never Be as 'Crazy' as
Humans")
10 February 1999 (uploaded
23 February 1999)
To Mickel Adzema:
You wrote:
So how irrelevant and nuts I would appear
in stating that the issue of abortion being centered on the beginnings
of consciousness leads to the conclusion that to be truly anti-abortion
on these grounds would require that every emission of 300 million sperm
in every orgasm by every male on this planet, as well as every egg cell
ovulated by every female, would need to be brought to term, creating human
babies. (Try enforcing that one!)
I think I even have heard this as an anti-masturbation
propaganda, probably by Catholic extremists or so. Guess there is
no absurdity that wouldn't be promulgated at some time. But back
to more serious stuff: As you write in Chapter 7 of Primal
Renaissance: The Emerging Millennial Return:
At birth we have the beginnings of
the idea that is the ego. But Wilber (1977) points out this
is initially a body-ego. Therefore, if the womb could be called vegetative,
this state of body-ego could be called
animalian. . . .
Now, the birth sequence will be the same in other
mammals, too, and unless we argue they were lacking a suitable physiological
substrate (which meant through the backdoor introducing the primacy of
matter again), this implies that they will develop biosocial bands, too.
While some ethological findings render this to be likely, it makes "animalian"
not too satisfactory a terminological choice (in absence of a human-animal
gradient here).
The same w/ "vegetative." What about
species who don't go through gestation and birth?
So many questions . . .
best,
heike
boedeker@netcologne.de
PS: For those who are wondering what
this has to do w/ psychohistory, guess why I preferred to call "post-natal
abortion" *eating the young behavior*. In dealing w/ some 4 million
years of human history we also somehow have to account for that fact that
our nearest still living relatives, chimps and
bonobos, are quite an abusive bunch.
11 February 1999 (uploaded 23 February
1999)
Mickel Adzema's (WebGuy's) Response:
Heike,
As before, my responses are interspersed
in your comments using brackets and are in green type.
Mickel
I think I even have heard this as an anti-masturbation
propaganda, probably by Catholic extremists or so. Guess there is
no absurdity that wouldn't be promulgated at some time.
[No doubt! And in this same vein --
that is, the extremism/insanity of the fanatical religious (as opposed
to spiritual of course) mind -- how about this one: I remember reading
in Russian history and learning of a Jonestown precursor. It seems
there were two views on how the sign of the cross should be made.
You know, that Catholic (I was brought up Catholic) ritual where you put
your fingers to your forehead, then your chest, then your one shoulder,
then the other shoulder (making a cross), and mumbling the appropriate
names/words at each stop. Well, anyway, and this was either in the
Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox Catholic religion, not the papist Roman
Catholic, one group insisted that the left shoulder was to be touched before
the right, and the other group that the right was to be touched before
the left. No big deal, right? Wrong. Turns out 1,000
people in the one group committed mass suicide over this issue.
(brother. . . . "Can't we all just, uh, get along??")]
But back to more serious stuff: As you
write in Chapter 7 of Primal Renaissance:
The Emerging Millennial Return:
At birth we have the beginnings of
the idea that is the ego. But Wilber (1977) points out this
is initially a body-ego. Therefore, if the womb could be called vegetative,
this state of body-ego could be called
animalian. . . .
Now, the birth sequence will be the same in other
mammals, too. . . .
[No, exactly not, not, not. :-)
As I have said in the book and in my response to your last posting, the
one thing that really characterizes the human species is the existence
of birth trauma, and the things associated with it: That is, premature
birth, secondary altriciality (i.e., the baby does growing outside of the
womb, with the help of all-too-human and flawed care-givers that every
other mammalian species accomplishes IN the mother's womb, where its needs
as it goes through the different processes of maturation are attended to
with the biological perfection and synchronicity that elicits our awe of
the wonders of Nature). In fact, it is known that chimpanzees, our
closest relatives, are much more mature at birth than are human babies.
Human babies catch up and then "surpass" chimpanzees months (quite a few
if I remember correctly) down the road after birth.]
and unless we argue they were lacking a suitable
physiological substrate (which meant through the backdoor introducing the
primacy of matter again)
[Nope, wouldn't do that. No, no, not
on our life. Gotta keep that primacy-matter outa here.]
this implies that they will develop biosocial
bands, too. While some ethological findings render this to be likely,
it makes "animalian" not too satisfactory a terminological choice
[Well, ya know. You're not too far
off, when you think of it. Even without birth trauma, we can induce
"biosocial bands" in animals easily enough. Just try doing to their
infants what we often do to ours. Sure enough, it's easy enough,
by depriving a monkey of breast-feeding or adequate mothering in one form
or another, to create neurotic animals. And by neurotic, this means
that they have "biosocial bands"; they have a lens of fear in regard to
their social others that makes them act inappropriately (antisocially).
But you see it all the time in ordinary circumstances too. But always
it is the result of the actions of neurotic humans. By this I mean,
who doesn't know someone who kicks or smacks their dog or cat. And
doesn't that produce the biosocial bands that cause, e.g., that dog to
cower in relation to both humans as well as other animals, that cat to
run away from others or tear up the furniture when "master" isn't home,
or in the dog, especially if the trauma is induced in the course of "training"
that dog to be a guard or watchdog, cause that dog to ferociously attack
harmless others (again an inappropriate, neurotic response, indicating
biosocial bands and the beginnings of an ego, complete with the filters
of defense mechanisms, i.e., biosocial bands).]
(in absence of a human-animal gradient here)
[Exactly. And why shouldn't we expect
there to be such a human-animal gradient unless we are still burdened with
that "pinnacle of creation" baggage again. Sure. The evidence
is there. We can teach gorillas to do sign language and actually
communicate with them. Dolphins, very similar. Communication
definitely happening. But the point is that while we can find somewhat
of a gradient, it is by no means a scale. There is a gap. Animals
will never be as "crazy" as humans because they do lack birth trauma.
And if we induced birth trauma in chimpanzees, we would still need to do
it over the course of millions of years for it to effect them in the cumulative
way it has in making us what we call "human."]
The same w/ "vegetative." What about
species who don't go through gestation and birth?
[Not sure what you mean here. But
I can tell you that what I mean by vegetative is not like when we say,
when someone is on life support, he or she is "a vegetable." (Or
maybe that's not so far off.) What I mean by vegetative is how one's
consciousness is in relation to splitting off from Absolute Consciousness,
by means of the various splittings and therefore dualities and therefore
repressions; that "vegetative" consciousness is a state in which one is
still somewhat connected to the Divine yet separate, just like a plant
is somewhat connected to the Earth, yet separate, and the fetus is somewhat
connected, through the umbilical cord, to the mother, yet separate.
So what would this kind of consciousness be like? Check out Grof's
books where he talks of people experiencing "plant consciousness."
It is a state of symbiotic relation to the Other, separate yet mutually
cooperative and beneficial. It is one that mystics aspire to; being
that close to the Divine, yet still separate. It is one that I have
personally experienced in a holotropic breathwork session when I had the
experience of being a tree; it is one that I have witnessed being experienced
and talked about by others in holotropic breathwork sessions. In
fact, one of the participants in the first breathwork workshop that my
wife and I gave had the experience; and that man from Iceland and I are
to this day "Tree Brothers" to each other -- both having experienced something
amazing that apparently is a part of the larger architecture of the psyche,
which is equivalent to the cosmos (as they say in India, Atma, the deepest
individual self is equivalent to Brahman, the world soul).
Now, you've done it. You've really
exposed me in this psychohistory, predominantly materialistic, psychoanalytic
list service. I guess I'll just have to go over in the corner and
sit with Jung .. . . . and Grof . .... and shamans . . . .. and the
majority of indigenous peoples of all time . . . . and the majority of
humans who have ever existed who have believed in reincarnation . . . .
. oh how alone I feel in this listservice now. :-( :-)]
So many questions . . .
best,
heike
PS: For those who are wondering what
this has to do w/ psychohistory, guess why I preferred to call "post-natal
abortion" *eating the young behavior*. In dealing w/ some 4 million
years of human history we also somehow have to account for that fact that
our nearest still living relatives, chimps and
bonobos, are quite an abusive bunch.
[Yes, maybe so. But they have never,
and this is the point I will make over and over, never, never, never, never
have risen to the level of neurotic "civility" as to be able to accomplish
what we have: the Holocaust (millions and millions, totally unknown
to the perpetrators, i.e., there wasn't even personal rage here! of anonymous
people killed); Stalin's purges (millions and millions more); and of course
we have the man who shares my birth date having the distinction of being
responsible for killing more people in less time (we Taureans are thorough
and efficient) by dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Give 'em
hell, Harry.). Compare that with some chimps batting each other around
on occasion.
Now to really brighten your day, consider
the likelihood of our species being the one to be responsible for the end
of all life on this planet. Part of the cause of that likelihood
being the population explosion. And meanwhile we sit here in front
of our screens discussing the exact time when the "ghost" comes into the
"machine" and coming up with reasons why even more humans should be killed
(abortion doctors) and the death of a fetus that transpersonal psychology
tells us is going to be conscious whether we abort it or not since consciousness
cannot be killed any more than a soul can. And as we cover the Earth
with ever more humans, in the process exterminating for all time tens and
even hundreds of thousands of, not individuals, but entire species, which
had existed for millions of years evolving out of the mists of time, and
managing to do it in the space of one single human lifespan, we sit here
quibbling about those illusory deaths, fiddling while Rome burns.
Or, better still, we appear like the old-paradigm medieval priests who
fervently debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Oh, what hubris we have invested in our intellectualizations, hiding from
the true horrors around us -- the pollution, the population bomb, the nuclear
weapons, terrorists and rogue nations fighting with their dying breath
like the conservatives in our own country and willing to do anything to
take anyone down with them lest the world as they know it change forever
and the new age be born, the dying off of the oxygen-producing plankton
in the life-giving oceans, the greenhouse effect with its already epidemics
of skin cancer and hushed up epidemics of allergies and bacterial and viral
and fungal afflictions, and on and on and on. But boy is the abortion
issue important (sarcasm intended).
Oh, brother, it's getting late and I'm kinda
toasty. . . .
Regards,
Mickel]
mickel@primalspirit.com
Digging and
Grooving On This To No End! Clear and Flawed Consciousnesses, Creating
"Worlds," Approaching "Truth" Through Experiential Psychotherapy, Reality
Is a Game -- Play It! Reality Is a Dream -- Realize It!
11 February 1999 (uploaded
23 February 1999)
Mickel,
From my book, "The Journey From Chaos to Consciousness
to Chaos". . .
Especially myself
If I saw myself walking down the street
What would I truly think objectively?
I don't know because I'd know it's me
I run in every direction
I've tried all deceptions
But I can't detach from myself
Or my perceptions
Any object, person or event
I experience, create or perceive
Leaves traces and ripples that
Stretch through all of eternity
Filter through me
Are interpreted
Differentiated
Categorized
Labeled
Impressed with
Emotive content and value
Judged and related to
What I have been
What I am and
What I'd like to be
Become filled
With the fluid
Of my conscious being
With all of me
And become
What I will them to be
This is true of everything
Especially myself
I agree with so much of what you're saying
it's scary. I just have a few clarifications/questions/inputs . .
.
The perception of one's self may be the most
direct thing we can experience, or the thing we experience most directly,
but can you truly say that one's experience of oneself is even a "true"
direct experience? And aren't your experiences/perceptions of the
world akin to God?, not in their infallibility, but in that individuals,
or consciousness is in fact THE Ultimate creator, i.e. "God." If
in fact what you're saying is "true", and matter is an epiphenomenon of
consciousness, then every
individual is in fact "God." By the
way, I do believe this to be "true" (at least for myself). The Universe
and everything in it is created in "our image," and perhaps we can never
know, "true" objective reality, which is why I think that the true "leap
of faith" is in the acceptance of this objective reality we can never really
know, but which most certainly existed before there was consciousness to
define it, otherwise consciousness itself would not exist . . .
Yes, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness,
in that we are merely perceiving/experiencing/interpreting a differential
vibration of strings as matter and defining it and separating it from everything
else, i.e., into four fundamental forces, when in fact it is essentially
the same "stuff" (your referral to physics leads me to believe you're familiar
with string theory. I myself am fascinated with the latest developments
in physics, and the underlying implications. By the way, The Tao
of Physics was a tremendous eye-opener for me as well.)
Also, this may be nitpicky and if you think
so, I apologize, but in my understanding of mathematics (admittedly limited),
any finite number or system is nowhere close to infinity by definition,
therefore, as numerous as planets, stars, solar systems etc. are, they
are nowhere near infinite. In this cycle of creation, i.e. this go
around from the "big bang" to "big crunch," the energy contained within
the Universe is finite, nowhere near infinite . . . however, the cycles
of universal creation "big bang" to "big crunch," are themselves infinite,
in other words, the end of one cycle creates or leads to another, creating
an overall meta-cycle of "big bang" to "big crunch," which infinitely repeats,
in this point of view, then there is infinite energy contained within the
meta-cyclical meta-verse . . . Not to mention other dimensions, but don't
get me started. . . .
Please refresh my memory as to where your book
is available, it seems like a "must read" for me.
Digging and grooving on this to no end,
Russ Miller
millerrussell@hotmail.com
11 February 1999 (uploaded 23 February
1999)
Mickel Adzema's (WebGuy's) Response:
Russell, see my responses below in brackets
and in green type.
I agree with so much of what you're saying
it's scary. I just have a few clarifications/questions/inputs . .
.
The perception of one's self may be the most
direct thing we can experience, or the thing we experience most directly,
but can you truly say that one's experience of oneself is even a "true"
direct experience?
[I knew I'd get called on this one.
You're absolutely right that subjective experience can be faulty.
I am saying simply that its existence -- whether its contents are "true"
or not -- is the only knowable fact of one's existence. However,
you bring up another point, the truth or falsity of the contents of one's
subjectivity. Well, since the contents can be incorrect, we need
the experiential psychotherapies (and some would say that some of the sadhanas
or mystical practices of the East achieve the same end) to "clear" consciousness.
Someone in experiential psychotherapy -- primal or holotropic breathwork,
for example -- will relive traumas and after having done so look at the
world completely differently, and more correctly as can be demonstrated
by the fact that acting on the new view is more successful than the old
one. And then continuing this process, it follows, with each release
of trauma giving ever closer approximations to the truth and ever more
successful engagements with what is "out there" leads to the conclusion
that one is approaching truth (at least with a small t) in the contents
of one's consciousness. For truth with a big T, we have to look to
the mystics. The claim of the perennial philosophy is that one's
deepest untainted truth reflects World truth. That's why Plato said
"Know thyself." Since I'm not completely clear yet, I can only tell
you what they say.]
And aren't your experiences/perceptions of
the world akin to God?, not in their infallibility, but in that individuals,
or consciousness is in fact THE Ultimate creator, i.e. "God." If
in fact what you're saying is "true", and matter is an epiphenomenon of
consciousness, then every individual is in fact "God." By the way,
I do believe this to be "true" (at least for myself). The Universe
and everything in it is created in "our image," and perhaps we can never
know, "true" objective reality.
[I agree with everything you are saying
up to this point. My spiritual teacher says that the ultimate nature
of humanity is Divinity. Of course he also says that Everything is
God and God is all there is. For those for whom this sounds strange,
it is really nothing different than what has been called Pantheism, or
animistic. It is also the perennial philosophy, modern transpersonal
psychology, and all the rest as I've explained in my recent postings.
So as regards our creating the world: yes, we do it collectively
as a species and it is related to the range, number, and abilities of what
we call our "senses" (our external ones). Therefore, the physical
world is a "biologically constituted reality" -- constituted differently
by each species; and it is as biologically relative (i.e., not absolute)
as are the "culturally constituted realities" that cultural anthropologists
speak of -- constituted differently be each culture, and each one culturally
relative, i.e., not absolute.]
which is why I think that the true "leap of
faith" is in the acceptance of this objective reality we can never really
know
[Here is where I disagree somewhat.
It is true, just as our dreams are true, i.e., they really happened.
But as you explained above regarding the flawed nature of subjectivity,
and as I explained in my discussion of the multiple ways reality is seen
by different species (and no doubt by other beings in the Universe that
we don't know of yet), our "common-sense materialism" has to flawed in
that there are too many variations on it possible. In other words,
the material world is an anthropocentric one. What REALLY exists
has been debated for centuries by philosophers; all of them acknowledging
that "common-sense realism" is highly debatable; with modern physics now
pointing out that physical reality doesn't exist, that the ultimate substrate
is "wavicles" or energy, is particles that are there and then disappear
again, and so on. That therefore physicality is simply a viewpoint
that our species shares.
Now all of this is not to say that I'm not
gonna go out and enjoy a really juicy hamburger! As my spiritual
teacher says, "Life is a game, play it. Life is a dream, realize
it!" Therefore I keep hitting the keys on this
laptop.]
but which most certainly existed before there
was consciousness to define it, otherwise consciousness itself would not
exist . . .
[I don't understand this at all. When
was there ever not consciousness? Sure there may have been a time
when human-style consciousness did not exist, but is that all that you
are saying? If matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness, as you
say below, then consciousness, of the sort the mystics talk about, always
existed.]
Yes, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness,
in that we are merely perceiving/experiencing/interpreting a differential
vibration of strings as matter and defining it and separating it from everything
else, i.e., into four fundamental forces, when in fact it is essentially
the same "stuff" (your referral to physics leads me to believe you're familiar
with string theory. I myself am fascinated with the latest developments
in physics, and the underlying implications. By the way, The Tao
of Physics was a tremendous eye-opener for me as well.)
[Yea. We're definitely on "the same
planet" then.]
Also, this may be nitpicky and if you think
so, I apologize, but in my understanding of mathematics (admittedly limited),
any finite number or system is nowhere close to infinity by definition,
therefore, as numerous as planets, stars, solar systems etc. are, they
are nowhere near infinite. In this cycle of creation, i.e. this go
around from the "big bang" to "big crunch," the energy contained within
the Universe is finite, nowhere near infinite . . . however, the cycles
of universal creation "big bang" to "big crunch," are themselves infinite,
in other words, the end of one cycle creates or leads to another, creating
an overall meta-cycle of "big bang" to "big crunch," which infinitely repeats,
in this point of view, then there is infinite energy contained within the
meta-cyclical meta-verse . . . Not to mention other dimensions, but don't
get me started. . . .
[Of course you are correct about my statement
"near infinity." But my hyperbole was in the interest of trying to
express how unbelievable huge we are discovering the Universe, as we are
able to perceive it even with our
limited means, is. I mean, I don't
believe one can even imagine, with a human mind, the dimensions and numbers
that our modern astronomy is coming up with!]
Please refresh my memory as to where your book
is available, it seems like a "must read" for me.
[On this website, the Table of Contents
-- and from there the individual chapters -- is accessed under Features,
on the first page, you can click on the section titled "Complete
Book: Primal Renaissance: The Emerging Millennial Return."
And the psychohistorical book that has been
mentioned on this list is accessed by clicking on the Feature titled:
"Complete Book: Apocalypse,
Or New Age? The Emerging Perinatal Unconscious."]
Digging and grooving on this to no end,
Russ Miller
[Thanks for your interest.
Warm regards,
Mickel]
mickel@primalspirit.com
11 February 1999 (uploaded
24 February 1999)
Mickel,
I find your discussion of matter, mysticism,
and transpersonal psychology absolutely fascinating. A spiritual
perspective is very much needed in psychohistory. I'm an odd duck,
being an orthodox Christian, biblically grounded, with a strong interest
in Jung, mysticism and the paranormal, which some of my fundamentalist
brethren dismiss as "demonic." I logged on to your site yesterday
and plan to bookmark it.
But I do question your looking to indigenous,
Third-World cultures as a paradigm for an "untainted," people. Just
as it was an act of Western imperialism for the colonialists and racists
to view these people as "inferior," it is also a Western projection, a
reaction formation, to idealize them and look to them for guidance on childrearing.
You equate the birthing techniques of modern peoples in the helping mode
of parenting with those of native peoples, many of whom are still stuck
in the infanticidal mode.
How do you reconcile these seemingly disparate
realities?
Continuing the dialogue,
Andre
Goandre@cris.com
11 February 1999 (uploaded 24 February
1999)
Mickel Adzema's (WebGuy's) Response:
Andre, My responses are in brackets and
in green type below:
Mickel,
I find your discussion of matter, mysticism,
and transpersonal psychology absolutely fascinating. A spiritual
perspective is very much needed in psychohistory.
[Thank you, and I 'm glad you agree about
its need.]
I'm an odd duck, being an orthodox Christian,
biblically grounded, with a strong interest in Jung, mysticism, and the
paranormal, which some of my fundamentalist brethren dismiss as "demonic."
[I agree, that IS odd. And I can relate
to the "demonic" label as for a long time I got that myself from some in
my fundamentalist Catholic family. If I'd gone to church also, well
I'm sure I would have gotten more of it. Oh well.]
I logged on to your site yesterday and plan
to bookmark it.
But I do question your looking to indigenous,
Third-World cultures as a paradigm for an "untainted," people. Just
as it was an act of Western imperialism for the colonialists and racists
to view these people as "inferior," it is also a Western projection, a
reaction formation, to idealize them and look to them for guidance on childrearing.
You equate the birthing techniques of modern peoples in the helping mode
of parenting with those of native peoples, many of whom are still stuck
in the infanticidal mode.
How do you reconcile these seemingly disparate
realities?
[I am well aware that deMause claims that
native peoples are to be equated with the infanticidal and other early
modes of child-rearing. And this is a point where his theory is disparate
with much of what I read as a graduate student in anthropology, what pre-
and perinatal psychologists have been describing in indigenous cultures,
and with well-known works put out by the likes of Marilyn French (Beyond
Power), Joseph Chilton Pearce (The Magical Child), Jean Liedloff
(The Continuum Concept), Colin Turnbull (The Forest People),
and quite a few others, including the renowned Margaret Mead. It
is also where his theory gets the most flack from feminists.
When I first questioned Lloyd about this
on the phone about six years ago, he didn't dispute that there were some
indigenous cultures that demonstrated the helping mode and healthy birthing
practices. He said that the evolution of child-rearing was not technologically
dependent and that these cultures could be said to have evolved independently.
He also said that there were many more indigenous cultures that demonstrated
cruel childrearing than there were those that exhibited the helping mode.
(Have I got that right, Lloyd?)
I have read widely in this area, but apparently
not as widely as Lloyd. (But then has ANYONE read as widely as Lloyd
on any subject? Save maybe in the field of transpersonal psychology?)
At any rate, I am not yet ready to give up my position that our earliest
ancestors practiced humane birthing as well as child-caring and that it
is only with the inclusion of, first, hunting, and then horticulture (both
of which, as I explain in my book, can be attributed to the birth trauma
that began when we stood upright) that we see the "falling from grace"
that produced the infanticidal and other horrid child-caring practices,
even among indigenous peoples. So I am saying, in line with Marilyn
French, that when we look back hundreds of thousands of years, we see our
species as basically in tune with Nature, peaceful, and humane in ways
that we are only now aspiring to be again today. It remains an open
question whether the cruel indigenous or the humane indigenous peoples
existing today represent what we were like for hundreds of thousands of
years, going back tens of thousands of years, before even there was hunting,
and we existed as simple nomadic gatherers only.
The same is true for when we look at our
primate relatives. It has been said that white male anthropologists
tended to find primates -- baboons the classic example -- that reflected
their own aggressions. That when female anthropologists went into
the wild they discovered that pacific and "humane" primates far outnumbered
the cruel ones, concluding that, when it comes to either indigenous cultures
or primates, they are like Rorschach tests where you tend to see what is
really inside yourself. But then Lloyd counters with some more recent
information from Jane Goodall, which I have not yet read.
All of this is to say that I am well aware
that my claims go against psychohistorical dogma. But I am also aware
that feminists and others disagree with Lloyd. And if you look into
Marilyn French's book, "Beyond Power," she appears to be at least one person
who has as many references as Lloyd! If the feminists, like Marilyn
French, are correct, it does not mean that deMause's theory of the evolution
of child-rearing through increasingly advanced modes is wrong, just that
its starting point was after a major "fall from grace" that occurred tens
of thousands of years ago, occurring as the birth trauma inherent in standing
upright finally began to be acted out in the killing of animals and eating
of meat (becoming hunters, i.e., killers) and then becoming agrarian (controlling
Nature) and perhaps along with that the change in child-rearing practices
among some of the cultures to the abusive ones that Lloyd describes.
This view is supported also when the examples
that some people give for "indigenous" cultures are "third world countries"
or "colonized" peoples, as Heike seems to be saying in his posting today.
I would not look to these people as examples of "untainted" societies as
they have had too much contact with so-called "civilized" peoples.
In other words, using them as examples of natural humans is as flawed as
studying animals in the zoo for what THEIR natural behavior is. An
example of how this can occur is given in Colin Turnbull's "The Forest
People," where the culture/tribe with the harsh child-rearing and rites
of passage is the one that has contact with and economic ties with the
external culture, extending out to White culture, while alongside them
are the Mbuti, who have little or no contact with the external culture
and exhibit radically different, and humane, child-caring practices, more
irreverent and light-hearted attitudes toward authority, and finally a
more sensitive, less repressed, more spontaneous, and joyous personality
type.
Having said all this, I want to make it
absolutely clear that I am not taking a position on this and am not saying
that Lloyd is wrong. As I said above, it could be that both views
are correct, just that you have to go back further in time to find the
"untainted" cultures. But at any rate, Lloyd's contentions have caused
me to withhold final judgment in this area ever since I heard of his viewpoint
-- even to the point of putting off publishing my book, Primal
Renaissance, most of which was written before I was aware of deMause's
position -- until I have more thoroughly checked into and done research
in this area. In other words, Lloyd's, and Heike's statements with
supporting references in his posting today, have caused me to "go back
to the drawing board" on this. And I, for one, am not going to argue
either side of the issue -- having presented the alternative viewpoint
in my postings of yesterday and today as something that should be considered
a possibility -- until I have waded through the literature I have been
gathering in this area, some of it suggested by Lloyd, some more of it
given me by Heike today.
Still, I have to say that when I see the
extermination perpetrated by the White race against indigenous peoples
the world over, as well as the dominant global White culture's actions
in the extinction of tens of thousands of species, along with the historical
tendency, particularly relevant in anthropology, for Western White
males to project their own aggressions into just about any arena they have
studied (having to be corrected by later generations or by women researchers),
I must admit that I have no respect for the ferocity with which certain
people in this discussion denigrate indigenous cultures (the same way they
denigrate people who have had abortions), and my instincts tend toward
siding with the indigenous and feminist viewpoint over the White male one.
Still, my respect for Lloyd's viewpoint, which I know is based on a truly
remarkably voracious appetite for research, has stopped me in my tracks
on my book and I know I need to research more before I say more.
Thanks for your sharing, Andre, and for
the opportunity to clarify my new stance in regard to the assertions in
my book.
Regards,
Mickel]
mickel@primalspirit.com
Return to Psychohistory Section