"Not everything that looks like liberation actually is, nor is every political idea which claims to help people actually helpful. Sometimes, we can dream up things which become nightmares. Sometimes, the left is actually out of touch with reality, with “larger reality.” Sometimes, the theories and frameworks crafted to fight oppression only lead to more oppression. Sometimes, the “impossible” is actually really impossible."
This is so clarifying. I'm really looking forward to the book.
I agree that there are still only two dominant competing meta-narratives / frameworks politically but there are some interesting shakeups happening in parts of the "post-liberal" world. One of these interesting post-liberal thinkers, Sohrab Ahmari, wrote a book called Tyranny, Inc., detailing capitalist exploitation of workers from a social conservative perspective. I haven't read his book yet, but it has been blurbed by the likes of Slavoj Zizek and Jacobin magazine as well as Senators Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio…a strange group of recommenders, surely.
So I am interested to see what happens when those sympathetic with what you call "leftist" goals of ending "capitalist and industrialist exploitation of the Earth and of people" also have socially conservative viewpoints around hierarchy, family structure, abortion, sexuality, etc. How do we thread the needle of celebrating some forms of personal liberation without veering into either conservative restrictions/hierarchies on one hand and the unreality of representations that is becoming rampant in an age of isolation, social media and algorithms on the other hand?
Perhaps I should read your book to learn more ;-) But also I would love to hear your thoughts on this new "post-liberal" shift that aims for the same economic goals of the traditional left but not the social ones. Here is a great podcast episode/article where I learned more about Ahmari's book: https://www.vox.com/the-gray-area/2023/8/30/23841383/sohrab-ahmari-tyranny-inc-the-gray-area
I hope that doesn't sound edgy, but I'm genuinely wondering why it should be hard to thread the needle between "Let's live like the Taliban" and "I've forgotten physical sex existed and I'm aghast to be reminded" so to speak. Probably anything between those two should be fine, shouldn't it? It's not really the eye of a needle not to veer into insane extremes.
Oh my, if you think the likes of Josh Hawley are anything close to the Taliban, you’ve never been to Afghanistan. I see what you did there, though, equating social conservatives in the US with the Taliban. Do you think that’s helpful?
I'd be curious if you've been to Afghanistan and if so in what function.
But anyway, I wasn't talking about Josh Hawley, I don't know who that is. I was using "Taliban" as a figure of speech to mean 'horrifyingly conservative' to contrast with 'insanely liberal'. I was questioning the previous poster's assumption that the place between these two was thin as the eye of a needle to thread. You then project US social conservatives on the 'horrifyingly conservative' end of the spectrum and get insulted.
You assume much. I’m not insulted, merely pointing out that equating US social conservatives with the Taliban is not helpful. You did that, it’s right there up above in your comment (not a projection on my part). And Josh Hawley is referenced in the original comment to which you were responding. Perhaps you might do a little digging and find out who exactly it is that you are equating with people on the other side of the planet whom you’ve never met.
For my part, I’m not a social conservative (I do value my family....my wife and my daughter, especially, and I do value personal sovereignty, though, so throw whatever label you want on that), but I know quite a few, and they are definitely NOT the Taliban. We need to be able to have conversations with people who disagree with us without using extremist labels.
Perhaps “thread the needle” was the wrong term, but it’s clear to me that our politics are very polarized right now, and I don’t think it’s easy to hold a nuanced position when there are constant pulls to blindly follow the “right side” even when nuance is what is needed. Rhyd wouldn’t have needed to write this book if we were already having nuanced conversations and living in the greater reality.
I am writing from the USA. Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio are US Senators from the Republican party, with populist tendencies (some would say “faux populist” since many of the actual policies of the Republicans make things worse for workers and families). But any movement that seeks to genuinely improve working class lives is something to pay attention to, and improvements in material conditions will hopefully help reduce political polarization as well.
Yeah, that about the polarization is true, and I know it as well. Even though I'm not from the US, I've been on the anglophone internet for almost two decades and I've seen it grow and grow... And I take your point that nuanced conversation aren't happening or Rhyd wouldn't have to write this book.
I don't think the polarisation is deep human nature, I think it's caused by the media most of all. By that split in two media system where publications 'belong' either to the Democrats or the Republicans. They foment outrage and horror and so on to increase party loyalty in their already loyal voters. But because of that, I personally see no possible 'trick' to get out of the polarisation either... The only thing that would do it were if people would stop listen to the media. Maybe if it sinks in that the media are lying all the time?
I have to admit, I was intrigued enough to Google bat sex because I started wondering: do they do it upside down (from our perspective)? While flying? With all their colony-mates watching, or alone? Do they squeak a lot?
The details depend on the species, but perhaps a truly committed Batman would have made a selection (?)
A delicious appetiser. And I'm just wondering whether your date were an undercover philosopher slyly referencing Thomas Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?".
In the Subcultures seminar I used to teach we talked about the otherkin subculture (they're the ones who believe they are animals, mythical creatures, weather phenomena, and whose pronouns are "dragonself," "cloudself," etc.) But the fun and games can only be taken so far: eventually, an otherkin's self-ascribed identity may collide with entrenched power structures that are unwilling to play along. Someone who believes she's a cat cannot insist on having a kitty-cat language interpreter in court, nor would someone who claims they're a vampire and must not be touched by rays of light be granted a midnight trial, or a diet of human blood if they are incarcerated. A cloudself likewise won't be given accommodations to float down the hall from a room where they're taking a proctored exam - say, a medical board exam - because it's in their nature to be diffuse and move around.
Of course, all I've provided above are examples of the fallacy of "appealing to authority" - I have not proven that these otherkin are not cats, vampires, or clouds. Very few of us would believe they are these things.
But when could a person's claim to "other" be persuasive? For example, would you believe an Indigenous shaman who said they had transformed into an animal (perhaps in trance) in order to gain esoteric knowledge?
I think the key difference between a shaman and the Batman in Rhyd's story is that a shaman offers something to their community. Even if they are a "dark" shaman, it's understood in some societies that there is a balance of forces, and the "dark" shamans will be opposed by light ones, and it's all part of some larger picture. What did Batman offer? Intimacy, but with strings attached, and a new game where he got to make up all the rules - and when he wasn't accommodated he behaved like an entitled b(r)at. In the end, he had nothing to share but an offended ego.
There should be compassion for those who are different, but it doesn't mean they have a right to have all their whims indulged, and it's legitimate to draw a line between roles that can be enacted in public (e.g. in court, in school, in prison ... ) and those that can only be negotiated privately, where others have a right to refuse to join in the play.
The key to that problem is offered in the chapter on the Zombie and the matter of soul pluralism, which I think is also relevant to other identity crises in cultures with a Christian legacy.
Christians put a singular soul in opposition to the body, while animists saw a person consisting of multiple souls: at minimum a "body soul" and a "wandering soul." When a shaman or other mystic becomes another thing, it's his or her wandering soul that does the shapeshifting, and there's no conflict between that reality and the simultaneous reality of the body soul. The same occurs for people with multiple gendered souls (in fact, shamanic figures often had these, and having them was often a prerequisite for becoming a shamanic figure).
With Christian soul (and later mind) vs. body polarity, there can only be one "true" self. In animism, all the selves are true and they are not at war with each other but rather companions to each other. So, an animist "otherkin" (which is not at all what we see now) would be someone who has a human body soul and a bat wandering soul. But again, you don't actually see wandering souls as animals in animisms -- instead, you see human wandering souls which experience being an animal in trance or dream.
This idea of "Realists of a Larger Reality" resonates so strongly with me - and love this usage of monsters, too - feels very apt. Have just pre-ordered a physical copy, looking forward to getting hands on it! Congratulations on getting it to this point Rhyd
"Not everything that looks like liberation actually is, nor is every political idea which claims to help people actually helpful. Sometimes, we can dream up things which become nightmares. Sometimes, the left is actually out of touch with reality, with “larger reality.” Sometimes, the theories and frameworks crafted to fight oppression only lead to more oppression. Sometimes, the “impossible” is actually really impossible."
This is so clarifying. I'm really looking forward to the book.
It's all this good. Buy it.
Great intro! Looking forward to getting my copy.
YES Rhyd
I agree that there are still only two dominant competing meta-narratives / frameworks politically but there are some interesting shakeups happening in parts of the "post-liberal" world. One of these interesting post-liberal thinkers, Sohrab Ahmari, wrote a book called Tyranny, Inc., detailing capitalist exploitation of workers from a social conservative perspective. I haven't read his book yet, but it has been blurbed by the likes of Slavoj Zizek and Jacobin magazine as well as Senators Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio…a strange group of recommenders, surely.
So I am interested to see what happens when those sympathetic with what you call "leftist" goals of ending "capitalist and industrialist exploitation of the Earth and of people" also have socially conservative viewpoints around hierarchy, family structure, abortion, sexuality, etc. How do we thread the needle of celebrating some forms of personal liberation without veering into either conservative restrictions/hierarchies on one hand and the unreality of representations that is becoming rampant in an age of isolation, social media and algorithms on the other hand?
Perhaps I should read your book to learn more ;-) But also I would love to hear your thoughts on this new "post-liberal" shift that aims for the same economic goals of the traditional left but not the social ones. Here is a great podcast episode/article where I learned more about Ahmari's book: https://www.vox.com/the-gray-area/2023/8/30/23841383/sohrab-ahmari-tyranny-inc-the-gray-area
Update, I preordered your book!
I hope that doesn't sound edgy, but I'm genuinely wondering why it should be hard to thread the needle between "Let's live like the Taliban" and "I've forgotten physical sex existed and I'm aghast to be reminded" so to speak. Probably anything between those two should be fine, shouldn't it? It's not really the eye of a needle not to veer into insane extremes.
Oh my, if you think the likes of Josh Hawley are anything close to the Taliban, you’ve never been to Afghanistan. I see what you did there, though, equating social conservatives in the US with the Taliban. Do you think that’s helpful?
I'd be curious if you've been to Afghanistan and if so in what function.
But anyway, I wasn't talking about Josh Hawley, I don't know who that is. I was using "Taliban" as a figure of speech to mean 'horrifyingly conservative' to contrast with 'insanely liberal'. I was questioning the previous poster's assumption that the place between these two was thin as the eye of a needle to thread. You then project US social conservatives on the 'horrifyingly conservative' end of the spectrum and get insulted.
You assume much. I’m not insulted, merely pointing out that equating US social conservatives with the Taliban is not helpful. You did that, it’s right there up above in your comment (not a projection on my part). And Josh Hawley is referenced in the original comment to which you were responding. Perhaps you might do a little digging and find out who exactly it is that you are equating with people on the other side of the planet whom you’ve never met.
For my part, I’m not a social conservative (I do value my family....my wife and my daughter, especially, and I do value personal sovereignty, though, so throw whatever label you want on that), but I know quite a few, and they are definitely NOT the Taliban. We need to be able to have conversations with people who disagree with us without using extremist labels.
Perhaps “thread the needle” was the wrong term, but it’s clear to me that our politics are very polarized right now, and I don’t think it’s easy to hold a nuanced position when there are constant pulls to blindly follow the “right side” even when nuance is what is needed. Rhyd wouldn’t have needed to write this book if we were already having nuanced conversations and living in the greater reality.
I am writing from the USA. Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio are US Senators from the Republican party, with populist tendencies (some would say “faux populist” since many of the actual policies of the Republicans make things worse for workers and families). But any movement that seeks to genuinely improve working class lives is something to pay attention to, and improvements in material conditions will hopefully help reduce political polarization as well.
Yeah, that about the polarization is true, and I know it as well. Even though I'm not from the US, I've been on the anglophone internet for almost two decades and I've seen it grow and grow... And I take your point that nuanced conversation aren't happening or Rhyd wouldn't have to write this book.
I don't think the polarisation is deep human nature, I think it's caused by the media most of all. By that split in two media system where publications 'belong' either to the Democrats or the Republicans. They foment outrage and horror and so on to increase party loyalty in their already loyal voters. But because of that, I personally see no possible 'trick' to get out of the polarisation either... The only thing that would do it were if people would stop listen to the media. Maybe if it sinks in that the media are lying all the time?
I loved your story about the bat guy. I just wrote about it on my Substack under the subhead "Miscellaneous brain candy." https://astrologybooks.substack.com/p/echoes-remembering-september-2022s
I have to admit, I was intrigued enough to Google bat sex because I started wondering: do they do it upside down (from our perspective)? While flying? With all their colony-mates watching, or alone? Do they squeak a lot?
The details depend on the species, but perhaps a truly committed Batman would have made a selection (?)
A delicious appetiser. And I'm just wondering whether your date were an undercover philosopher slyly referencing Thomas Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?".
haha!
In the Subcultures seminar I used to teach we talked about the otherkin subculture (they're the ones who believe they are animals, mythical creatures, weather phenomena, and whose pronouns are "dragonself," "cloudself," etc.) But the fun and games can only be taken so far: eventually, an otherkin's self-ascribed identity may collide with entrenched power structures that are unwilling to play along. Someone who believes she's a cat cannot insist on having a kitty-cat language interpreter in court, nor would someone who claims they're a vampire and must not be touched by rays of light be granted a midnight trial, or a diet of human blood if they are incarcerated. A cloudself likewise won't be given accommodations to float down the hall from a room where they're taking a proctored exam - say, a medical board exam - because it's in their nature to be diffuse and move around.
Of course, all I've provided above are examples of the fallacy of "appealing to authority" - I have not proven that these otherkin are not cats, vampires, or clouds. Very few of us would believe they are these things.
But when could a person's claim to "other" be persuasive? For example, would you believe an Indigenous shaman who said they had transformed into an animal (perhaps in trance) in order to gain esoteric knowledge?
I think the key difference between a shaman and the Batman in Rhyd's story is that a shaman offers something to their community. Even if they are a "dark" shaman, it's understood in some societies that there is a balance of forces, and the "dark" shamans will be opposed by light ones, and it's all part of some larger picture. What did Batman offer? Intimacy, but with strings attached, and a new game where he got to make up all the rules - and when he wasn't accommodated he behaved like an entitled b(r)at. In the end, he had nothing to share but an offended ego.
There should be compassion for those who are different, but it doesn't mean they have a right to have all their whims indulged, and it's legitimate to draw a line between roles that can be enacted in public (e.g. in court, in school, in prison ... ) and those that can only be negotiated privately, where others have a right to refuse to join in the play.
I'm looking forward to reading the book!
The key to that problem is offered in the chapter on the Zombie and the matter of soul pluralism, which I think is also relevant to other identity crises in cultures with a Christian legacy.
Christians put a singular soul in opposition to the body, while animists saw a person consisting of multiple souls: at minimum a "body soul" and a "wandering soul." When a shaman or other mystic becomes another thing, it's his or her wandering soul that does the shapeshifting, and there's no conflict between that reality and the simultaneous reality of the body soul. The same occurs for people with multiple gendered souls (in fact, shamanic figures often had these, and having them was often a prerequisite for becoming a shamanic figure).
With Christian soul (and later mind) vs. body polarity, there can only be one "true" self. In animism, all the selves are true and they are not at war with each other but rather companions to each other. So, an animist "otherkin" (which is not at all what we see now) would be someone who has a human body soul and a bat wandering soul. But again, you don't actually see wandering souls as animals in animisms -- instead, you see human wandering souls which experience being an animal in trance or dream.
This idea of "Realists of a Larger Reality" resonates so strongly with me - and love this usage of monsters, too - feels very apt. Have just pre-ordered a physical copy, looking forward to getting hands on it! Congratulations on getting it to this point Rhyd
looking forward to hearing what you think! And by the way, I really like your essays and have wanted to talk to you about them sometime...