This may be all over the place…

by pegleghippie

So recent events (the election last night, playing guitar hero tonight) have crossed with my philosophy classes in my mind to form some ideas that I want to sort out.  I will do my best to connect the ideas in some way, but no promises.  I’m telling myself I’m writing this for an audience because I think they’ll find it interesting, but there’s just as much of a chance that I’m writing this to talk to myself, in a way (sorry, I’ve been reading about deconstruction, and ever since I’ve had the nasty habit of deconstructing whatever I’m writing as I’m writing it.  I’ll do my best to refrain from here on out.)

Anyway, first a take on my favorite obscure philosopher, Bataille.  Specifically his view of consciousness.  Normally I don’t like the consciousness debate, but his views lead to some fun philosophy.  Bataille was a fan of the “pre-reflective consciousness,” also known as “lack of self-awareness,” or as he termed it, “theopathy.”  What he was talking about is traditionally understood as the idea of a mystical experience, like zen, or transcendence, or buddhist enlightenment.  

I don’t mean to sound like i’m spreading woo. All through history people have found themselves feeling connected to things greater than themselves, to the point where they stop self-analyzing and just interact with the experience.  Similarly, people have spent lifetimes trying to get back to that experience, and often tied the experience into the supernatural.  Supernatural causes weren’t really what Bataille was into, instead he found these moments in deviant sexuality, like BDSM, but also in simple things, like smoking a cigarette, or taking a coffee break.  

I break from Bataille in a few ways.  First, why is this state is so important? I’ve had plenty of “transcendent” moments in life, some purposeful and as Sometimes accidental.  Sometimes its meaningful, sometimes it is just fun. At the same time there are plenty of moments where I really enjoy being self-aware.  Consciousness, much of the time, is pretty sweet!

Second, I think that maybe this is a matter of degree.  You’re aware of yourself, but you don’t have to think about your heart, or you liver.  Unless something goes wrong, in which case your awareness has expanded. I guess that isn’t so sweet.  But this illustrates where I’m going with the degree thing.  

Stick with me here.  Imagine the pre-reflective state of mind, going along its own business, fitting into the pattern of some larger whole.  Suddenly, something appears to the consciousness that doesn’t fit the pattern.  Like getting heart burn, suddenly the consciousness has to account for something that is just weird, something that takes an analysis to deal with.  If the pre-reflective consciousness is to successfully account for the discrepancy, it will have to define itself in relation to the discrepancy.

Ok, now imagine yourself, everything you are aware of, and everything around you that you are not aware of.  You’re self aware, but you aren’t aware of your intestines, because your intestines fit a larger pattern.  When something starts to hurt, you analyze things so you can experience a more comfortable level of awareness.

I’m going to leave the different levels behind now.  This is where things get strange, but at the same time I don’t think I’m writing anything you don’t know here.  The intestine pain isn’t really without a pattern.  It’s not random, it has a cause, say evil bacteria, and fits into a larger pattern of Earth’s biology that is just too complex for the human mind to fully recognize.  A self-aware consciousness is just a consciousness capable of admitting that the pattern we think we are a part of is just a simplification of larger, more complex patterns.  

I thought of this playing guitar hero (I know, I know, I should be studying).  Think of a beat in a song.  now imagine a guitar playing along with the beat.  Suddenly, the guitar plays something quick, something that doesn’t seem to fit the beat, just for a moment.  Of course, if it’s a well written song, it does fit into the overall math of the music.  But it gets our attention because we’re experiencing the beat, and we don’t imagine that the songwriter planned anything more complex than that.  

Now to the next level: to go with the following example, Say maybe we pick up an instrument, or learn some musical theory, and then the change in the song doesn’t surprise us anymore.  This would mean that the pattern we’re experiencing is more complex than before, we’ve expanded our pre-reflective consciousness.

So the reflective consciousness allows us to expand the range of our pre-reflective consciousness.  It’s a cyclical relationship, both feeding the other, and oftentimes both go on simultaneously.  Should we see one as the goal?  I don’t think so.  Maybe it’s important to know the difference between analyzing something and experiencing something, but I don’t think we should be so dualistic about the two concepts.  

I may have had a transition to this next part when I started this, but I’m not seeing it now.  Oh well, you get two posts in one!  Don’t worry, this part is shorter.

Now, a word on Democracy.  I’ve long wondered why we don’t qualify democracy as simply a political committal of the ad populum fallacy.  Ad populum, for the record, is the fallacy of arguing that a position is correct because lots of people hold that position.  The problem is, of course, that all those people can be wrong.  Importantly, even everyone ever could be wrong about a position.  So we appeal to a different set of standards.  

Democracy, at its most basic, involves asking everyone what side of a position they think is right, and then taking action based on which side has the most people behind it.  It’s like the perfect illustration of the ad populum fallacy.  As long as we’re talking about right and wrong, I don’t see any way around it, really.  Democracy is inherently illogical.

At the same time, democratic governments are more peaceful, richer, and advance faster than any other form of government humanity has tried.  Philosophically, only an idealistic anarchy seems more equatorial, more focused on humanism, in short, more legitimate than the democratic attempt to make political decisions that benefit a polity.  Additionally, people like democracy.  If a group comes to a democratic decision, the minority may grumble, but they usually go along with the decision.  

So how to explain this divide?  We have logic so we can make smart decisions, yet our best political tool for making decisions is illogical.  

We do what good philosophers always do.  We challenge the assumptions.  A couple paragraphs back, I just described the democratic process as  “asking everyone what side of a position they think is right, and then taking action based on which side has the most people behind it.”  Why the assumption that Democracy is settling a question of right and wrong?  Can we still have democracy if we ignore questions of truth at the ballot box?

I think we can.  Instead of looking for a right, I propose that the democratic process is asking everyone what experiences, given society’s limited resources, should society pursue for its members, and in what manner, and then taking action based on which path the most people prefer.  Logic only enters into the equation for the “choosing the manner” part of things.

 Because of limited resources and limited time, we can’t afford to make universal proclamations about right and wrong. We can only compare our plans, argue and compromise about them, and, once it’s time to make a decision, use democratic machinery to pick a path.  An advantage of democracy is that since people are involved in the decision making process, previous decisions that led to unwelcome experiences serve as a feedback loop, and the next vote goes differently than the previous one.

So to sum up, the line between simple awareness and self-awareness is fuzzy at best, and Democracy isn’t logical, but we should stick with it anyway, cause it’s not about logical decisions.  Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

8 Responses

  1. The hole in your assertions that reflective consciousness expands pre-reflective consciousness is that the entire discussion on the pre-reflective consciousness is centered on the minds habit of analyzing itself, not other things. When you consider things that enhance the ability to experience the world in a manner that does not include self talk, you are enhancing the pre-reflective but not through self-reflection. You are not considering your own navel…. those elements that you have been thinking about in fact take you away from your “I” state. The falling away of the “I” is the aim of Zen practice.

    It is also what happens during a physically and emotionally intense and connected BDSM scene. You experience a loss of self and you experience a sense of oneness with your partner. This is especially true of a Dominant/submissive pairing where the sense of connection runs very deep all the time as they are more than just sexual partners.

    Now let’s talk about this word “deviant”… yes, yes, I know you are using it in a perfectly valid manner… ”outside the norm”. But I don’t care for its psychopathological implications personally. Additionally, I would place money on BDSM being outside only the SPOKEN norm. Many people have fantasy lives that take them into that realm and many vanilla couples do things that they don’t even realize are considered kinky. Also… what about Domestic Discipline in a religious context? DD smacks of D/s as well… actually it is D/s… you know a rose by any other name and all that rot.

    I challenge you not to let the stereo typical image of BDSM be the predominant one in your mind, do a little research instead…. If you are over 18 that is.

    Oh btw… you right rather well. You explained your thoughts on a complex subject well. I think you have a term paper in there somewhere. LOL

  2. His Bella,
    Thanks for the thoughts. I know what’s involved in the satori experience, and i know what being self-reflective is. I think I may have failed to be clear that using self-reflection to learn patterns that increase pre-reflection at a later time. Obviously while your a singular subjectivity you can’t simultaneously not be.

    But once the new increased boundaries of pattern-recognition is in place, the amount of oddities that will tear you out of pre-reflection changes.

    Have you read Bataille? Your explanation of a loss of self in BDSM exactly matches his description of the sacred.

    I only used the word deviant in the way that Bataille used it, which was very strictly “sex for purposes other than reproduction.” He was writing in the 30s and 40s, and moralists were a little more extreme.

    DD would seem to be just as religious. At the heart of the idea is sacrifice, that you give up something incredibly personal the way ancients would sacrifice a virgin. The “submission” ins Domination/submission is the sacrificer of his/her control.

    Finally, thanks for the compliments, and the suggestion, my term paper is actually on an article that compares Thus Spake Zarathustra to The Republic. Expect to see an increasing Nietzschian influence on my writing

  3. OK…now I challenge you to put those first two paragraphs in English, instead of ‘academicese’. LOL. Not because I don’t understand them, or more accurately what you are trying to convey, but because you loose clarity in jargon and verbose speech. The best academics are those who can say it, and say it clearly. So now … “one more time, this time with feeling” (Kentucky Fried Movie).

    I haven’t read Bataille. I lost my taste for philosophers in college. LOL. But I should, he’s obviously a good Frenchman.

    Many traditions use pain to experience the sacred. It shuts down the internal self and as such you become pure and focused. Do I as a submissive masochist experience pain as pleasure? No, but I experience pleasure in the purity of the focus, in the endorphins and the act of submission. I’d bet you dollars to donuts that these are the very same transformative elements among those seeking the sacred. I just don’t bother to fool myself. (IMHO).

    Cheers, I’ll be watching your blog…. remember… speak English! LOL

  4. well damn. Hrm. Sometimes you lose yourself. Sometimes you don’t. When you don’t, you can learn about how complex the world around you is, and doing so makes it easier to lose yourself when the opportunity presents itself.

    I guess that says it, but it feels so lifeless. These ideas are relatively new to me, maybe i’ll be both clear and eloquent in my explanations of them as time goes on.

    But thank you for your critiques, you really helped me flesh this stuff out!

  5. Well done! Yeah so it’s not as eloquent but hey, even the proletariat need philosophy. Right?

    I suspect that you are right. As you become more comfortable and come to own some of these idea’s you will find the middle ground between pedantic and plebeian. 😉

    Anytime, I’m always up for a little helpful input (its what makes the world go round imho) and I’m always around. My email is on my blog if you have a mind to write. But if you’re not 18 your not allowed to read it. LOL Although, I don’t really think I’ve written anything over the top.

  6. The linky on our page for your name just goes to a blank screen…and when I search His Bella I get several different people’s pages (at least I assume you aren’t behind them all).

    What’s your URL? Don’t worry, mekhami and I are both over 18 😉

  7. Zee blog….

    Obviously, Bella will get you squat. LOL It’s short for Isabel and what Maitre calls me. Welcome to the dark side…mwahahaha.

  8. Well, have you been enjoying your forays into the dark side?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: