Note: “El escritor argentino y la tradición” is next, so no, you are not free. And it appears that being only seems to exist because time seems to pass.
No hay tal yo de conjunto. Grimm, en una excelente declaración del budismo (Die Lehre des Buddha, München, 1917), narra el procedimiento eliminador mediante el cual los indios alcanzaron esa certeza. He aquí su canon milenariamente eficaz: Aquellas cosas de las cuales puedo advertir los principios y la postrimería, no son mi yo. Esa norma es verídica y basta ejemplificarla para persuadimos de su virtud. Yo, por ejemplo, no soy la realidad visual que mis ojos abarcan, pues de serlo me mataría toda oscuridad y no quedaría nada en mí para desear el espectáculo del mundo ni siquiera para olvidado. Tampoco soy las audiciones que escucho pues en tal caso debería borrarme el silencio y pasaría de sonido en sonido, sin memoria del anterior. Idéntica argumentación se endereza después a lo olfativo, lo gustable y lo táctil y se prueba con ello, no solamente que no soy el mundo aparencial -cosa notoria y sin disputa- sino que las apercepciones que lo señalan tampoco son mi yo. Esto es, no soy mi actividad de ver, de oír, de oler, de gustar, de palpar. Tampoco soy mi cuerpo, que es fenómeno entre los otros. Hasta ese punto el argumento es baladí, siendo lo insigne su aplicación a lo espiritual. ¿Son el deseo, el pensamiento, la dicha y la congoja mi verdadero yo? La respuesta, de acuerdo con el canon, es claramente negativa, ya que estas afecciones caducan sin anonadar me con ellas. La conciencia -último escondrijo posible para el emplazamiento del yo- se manifiesta inhábil. Ya descartados los afectos, las percepciones forasteras y hasta el cambiadizo pensar, la conciencia es cosa baldía, sin apariencia alguna que la exista reflejándose en ella.
Observa Grimm que este prolijo averiguamiento dialéctico nos deja un resultado que se acuerda con la opinión de Schopenhauer, según la cual el yo es un punto cuya inmovilidad es eficaz para determinar por contraste la cargada fuga del tiempo. Esta opinión traduce el yo en una mera urgencia lógica, sin cualidades propias ni distinciones de individuo a individuo.
The discussion started on Facebook and continued here. My postscript is that this is the currently official psychology for the masses. (I am told it is elitist to say one does not have a lumpen-mind, and I know there are many professors and intellectuals who do have lumpen-minds, but I do not.)
In the 1990s one was exhorted to be depressed, recognize one’s depression, and so on, and I think this was because people could more easily afford that then and because drugs were being marketed. Now people cannot afford that and the drugs have been exposed as less than perfect.
We adults are to be “positive” and the students are to be “resilient.” I am not surprised, for instance, that the resiliency campaign was announced by Counseling and Testing at the same time as a sexual assault policy had to be created.
Connecting these two things, I infer that if it will now be possible for students to file and win on sexual assault, we need to be ready to insist they be “resilient.” And if they claim greater harm than we can repair, we can say they were not “resilient” enough or have not worked hard enough on their “resilience.”
That is just a hypothetical example. More broadly: now that decisions have been made which do make the future look grim — rising seas, drought — there is nothing left but to “be positive.”
I woke up this morning very clearly aware of the reason I do not like to wake up: waking up means waking up to the university slapping me in the face and then putting me in a barrel of water and covering it, so that I will drown. I will then have to spend the rest of the day trying to get out of the barrel, which I will achieve sometime after dark. While I am in the barrel, the university will tell me how I must learn to sacrifice more. If I learn to sacrifice more, I will not be slapped around so much or put in barrels of water to drown.
Consider the opposite: is the answer that I must learn to sacrifice less?
I am so tired of this behavior and attitude of theirs, though, and I am so tired of hearing professors with good circumstances, well employed spouses, and so on, talk about how all problems are problems of “time management” or of “not knowing how to write” or of “not being serious.” And about how people in my class who left little teaching colleges saying they had not done the Ph.D. for this, were called arrogant, or considered traitors to the “profession.” It is the excoriating professors who are arrogant.
Remember that this week’s themes are conceding to power, rather, not conceding to it.
About practical life, I have said before that I am spread too thin and there is no way I have found so far to cut that down, in the circumstances I have. I do not fit in. I should be an enthusiast of second language teaching with one research interest.
But perhaps there is yet a way to time-manage the situation into submission.
Kristeva has that famous title Desire in Language but what about joy in language? Arguedas referred to himself as a “demonio feliz” speaking in Quechua and Castilian. Vallejo is a similarly happy demon, surfing seas of metaphor, watching the dance of words. Logopoeia.
This is fun to say but one cannot say it without looking into some things — reviewing Arguedas’ contexts, reviewing the possible value of reading Kristeva with Vallejo. (There are so many things I would like to study.)
Psychanalitique: there were two perceptions yesterday. One, on acquiescing to power, acquiescing to irrational power. Two and related, on the double identity. I have already talked about this and I can expand.
The third, and only apparently paradoxical point has to do with that comment upon myself as free spirit and challenging for that reason.
There was something I heard from an unexpected quarter about nation and state as separate things, or things working separately, and that I would like to reencounter. I saw a film of an anti-MOOC symposium in which a literature professor talked about the large, live lecture as a way to model close reading and to do such reading collectively. A theatre professor talked about the large lecture as theatre and the benefits of this. A psychoanalyst talked about presence, the live presence of the professor, as important, and about the pedagogical exchange as an event over which neither teacher nor student has full control.
There was a dream I had, where my mother was sleeping on the floor in my room, as all the dead women before her in our line have long done from time to time. There is the fact I was also married in that dream, to someone I would not have thought of for this and who is also long dead and many states away. I was surprised but not displeased, I remember, thinking “Well, if we did this there must have been a good reason.” I was not surprised or disturbed that my mother was sleeping on the floor.
For psychoanalysis, there is my perception that I lack self-respect much more than most people. And that I live in this state of submerged terror all the time, some people in power will come to harm me, or some further block will be put in the way of career development (which means autonomy, liberation, freedom) and that I will be too crushed to fight back.
For academia, I have realized that we were exceptionally organized and focused as undergraduates and later, graduate students. I think the reason academic advice is as it is is that it is directed to a large group of people who really did go through school without getting all the skills and focus we did, even though they became more “professionalized” than we did in certain ways. It also came to me that the presupposition in the “take a job, any job” dictum is that the candidate is a man and he will be bringing an only partly employed wife to the said job, and that she will humanize the place for him.
Mostly though, I would like to call attention to academia as an unsafe space. Not college or graduate school, in my memory, but professordom. You have to live in dangerous parts of the country, and in dangerous neighborhoods — that first of all. More serious is to work with people who have destruction uppermost in their minds and first in their hearts. Every day the question is what the legislature will do to destroy your institution, what your university will do to impede the development of your career, and how they will work to convince you it is all your fault. The feeling of precarity and instability always.
I am in the mood never to break or lose anything out of carelessness due to feeling distraught again. Those things only started happening to me when I started putting Reeducation’s life ahead of my own. I am in the mood never to miss a deadline again, or to miss fewer of them. I am in the mood for calm and stability.
About needs: some of our professors said we were complaining, spoiled, and entitled and we internalized this, but they were speaking for themselves. They were the ones with the hystrionics. Should you really work against your own professional needs and the needs of your field? Should you really expect yourself, unrealistically, to flourish where no plants bloom … do people who say you can do anything, anywhere, really believe their own words? I need stability and a non-undermining atmosphere, if not a nurturing atmosphere then one where development is not systematically impeded, and I need peace of mind. I do not think these things are so much to ask.
A friend who called me said I was amazing because I never complain, and I have a very positive and balanced attitude, and I try again and again. This is a perceptive person who knows me well.
Someone told me one should never review a book with a chip on one’s shoulder and I thought this was a brilliant comment that should be extended to everything — never do ANYTHING with a chip on your shoulder. Certain projects I have failed to complete: how could one, on shifting ground and with scolding and recrimination of different kinds, dissonant with each other, coming in from every side?
These attacks of panic that I have come to experience are in part the breaking after taking the last blow I could tolerate. They are about exhaustion from handling and putting up with more than any one person can. They are about trying to handle, or tolerate, or resist boundary invasions that threaten to finish me off.
I am in the mood not to allow any of these things any more.
It is verbal abuse. “If you were not willing to put up with just any treatment to stay in the relationship, then you never cared about this person in the first place.” That is so amazingly fatuous, but never mind.
I do always notice that if you translate what academics say about the profession to what people say about dating and marriage, you can find out exactly what the paradigm and dynamic are, and where the flaws lie.