Flowers for nanci blu

In the story "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes, Charlie is a mentally challenged janitor who becomes part of an experiment, first championed by Algernon the lab mouse, to artificially augment his limited intelligence. The process is a success, at least at first, and Charlie becomes a genius as the drugs he is taking work their magic. As a result of this, Charlie himself goes on to take over the experiment, his mental acuity and capabilities now so much more than anyone around him. The story takes a turn as Charlie realizes, working thru the calculations and such as he works further on the experiment, that there is a flaw in the basic foundations of the experiment, and that according to his calculation, he will start to experience a decline in his newly acquired mentality, returning to his prior mentally challenged state. The story is told from the POV of Charlie, and we get to witness firsthand Charlie's remarkable ascent from simpleton to genius and in disturbing detail, his fall from that lofty state.

Regardless of the controversy surrounding the relative values of genius/simpleton and the mentally challenged, this is a rough parallel of what is happening to me, emotionally, and in some regards, cognitively. Happily, I have experienced a year and a half respite from the months long depression periods that I have been accustomed to experiencing yearly for over twenty years now and had thought that I had overcome my 'disability,' but it now seems, at this point, that that is not the case. Over the last couple of weeks I have begun to experience the behaviors and such that characterize and mark these periods of despond. Some of them are: a marked decline in my mental acuity, procrastination on all levels that require personal motivation, a general disregard or caring for appearance and cleanliness, an inability to get out of bed unless absolutely necessary, a general sense of dystopia, finding no satisfaction or joy in anything that I do, even to those things that I most cherish (music, writing, ice cream etc). Where I am usually optimistic and confident in my approach to life, during these times I find myself if not pessimistic, at least with no confidence in my abilities, even to the point of feeling embarrassed regarding my former state of confidence and optimisim and the conclusions I may have drawn at those times. Where before I was interested, interactive, and motivated, now there just ain't no 'wanna' anymore, and everything is a fight to escape an internal inertia that keeps me nailed to my bed. And even when I do do convince myself to get up and out, the rest of that time is spent actively waiting to get back to bed. An upshot of this is that I find myself committed to things that I am no longer able to do, really, other than cursorily.

This last is not satisfactory, with special regard to my feelings of competence and responsibility, and so, as I have done in the past, I am suspending all those activities that need more than surface level participation. To those this inconveniences, my apologies, but better this than me not showing up when expected, or showing up and not being able to perform to the level that is required.

See you on the upswing

With regret

nanci blu

The Reaction Zone 1

I post my third regimen of suppression of external expression, at least anger wise. I had an incident, wherein a fairly large button was pushed. I was able to suppress my external reaction, regarding appropriate behavior, and move into another scenario, the post of which I am still learning about.

So it seems to have taken me a couple of days to finally be free of the initial reaction. I did well, but how to minimize this. How to go with the flow, and not let my 'identifications' with whatever that is stored in my brain take over. This was different, in that it was low level active, staying in my system for a couple of days. It is gone now, I now no longer have the need to 'resolve' this. I just move on. Small footprint.

And I am hooking this into my go with the river thing, and watch for the opportunities. I am tuning in to the universe, or whatever, and it presents the opportunities. The ones I strive for are where I don't need to go. The smokes were an interesting one. Two smokes, enough for the pot, out of thin air. Handed to me. Just like that. And on I go. So i don't worry about the incident thing, i just keep on keepin' on, doing what i got to do and it will all unfold just right. Arggggh. It's easy to lose sight of this.

Addendum - seems that this incident is not over, and I have ended up deciding to force the issue. Why, because emotionally, it is eating me up. And this is a lesson learned re the rules of conflict avoidance thing I am learning at VAMP. I totally caved, accommodated as it were, as i thot I  could live with that, that that was the mature thing to do, and I have found that I can not. And I have suggested collaboration, or at least a working solution that includes me in my role as a stage manager.

Another malignant, bigoted, talking hed exposed: Kirk Cameron

February, '12


Kirk Cameron Tells Piers Morgan Homosexuality Is 'Unnatural,' 'Ultimately Destructive'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/kirk-cameron-piers-morgan-homosexuality-unnatural_n_1318430.html?ref=mostpopular

Well there you have it, another moral moron spews zer's* bigoted, hateful and prejudicial opinion around for anyone to hear. You'd think these people might have an inkling about how transparent and disingenuous they appear, using biblical talking points like they meant something to anyone that doesn't particularly believe in that unsubstantiated collection of opinions.

What's 'destructive' to society Mr Cameron is prejudical and ignorant (of empirically substantiated) attitudes such as yours that incite, divide and exclude. We need tolerance and understanding in society, not blind allegiance to out dated and fallacious ideologies that hinder people from forming a consensus based in some kind of mutual, systematically verifiable accord.

The open minded, are real Mr. Cameron, and are not going away. How can they? They are what they are, not what you think they're supposed to be. And as far as I can tell, anyone who has a 'moral' problem with some one else's lifestyle is either a fucking nazi, or a secret admirer of that lifestyle. So either come on out of your closet with your best frock on or drop your need to impose your beliefs on the rest of the world. Join the community of the open minded Mr. Cameron. You'll feel a lot better, and you won't be such a pain in the ass.

Wake up and smell the Armageddon. It's coming wether you like it or not, and your beliefs are no more valid with regard to that than anyone else's.

March 6th
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/kirk-cameron-homosexuality-piers-morgan-controversy_n_1324195.html
Kirk Cameron Responds To Criticism For Homosexual Remarks
"I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years -- without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach 'tolerance' that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.

And there it is, just to reiterate. Your beliefs are based on the bible, which as I have said, is nothing more than a conglomeration of unverifiable and uninformed opinions. There a whole lot of other people out there who have their own beliefs, and yours are no more valid than theirs, or mine. That's why we have the idea of separation of church and state. Because beliefs are like assholes: everyone has one, and no one's is any more 'right' than any one elses. And just because you hold the bible in such great esteem doesn't make it the grand arbiter of morals that you think it does. Same as "especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years" thinking that just because something has been around for a long time makes it right. Beating women was, and still is for some, something that has been around for a long time too. Doesn't make it right. How about the earth is flat thing. Flown over the edge of the world lately? Grow up and quite trying to make the world in the bible's image. It ain't gonna float, and I'm just a little bit sick and tired of you guys, and you know who you are, telling everyone that everyone else who's not in your little club is ruining everything. And screw off with the "I should be able to express moral views" thing. Whiner.  You;re not expressing moral views, you're prosletyzing: that is, promoting a moral absolute pertaining to your own, narrow and bigoted beliefs. Fuck off and take some LSD, get a grip on reality for fuck's sake. Or just go away and practice your own beliefs and leave everyone else alone. That's what we're doing. Just because we don't try to shove our beliefs down your throat, doesn't mean we don't have any. 

"that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards." No one is trying to do this. What the open minded are trying to do is give everyone a fair shake down the line. That means agreeing upon the things that we can agree upon, like drinking glasses, tables, Copernicus's assertions, or contraception. Everyone should have the same right to take it or not take it. And that means that everyone that operates under the same governmental umbrella plays by the same rules. You, or your boyfriend, oops, did I say boyfriend, silly me, don't have take contraception if you don't want to. Just don't hide behind your dogma to block others from exercising their right to self determination. We are, after all, all Gawd's children.

'

*he she, zee, it; him, her, zer; his, hers zers. gender neutral pronouns

Separation of church and state

Work in Progress (March 10'12/nb)

Rick Santorum and the religious right: an analysis

So I heard Rick Santorum on Hardball the other night and zee said something that points out exactly what is disingenuous about his position vis a vis the separation of church and state. Zee has taken Kennedy's "I beleeve in an America (sic) where the separation of church and state is absolute...," interpreting it to mean that faith based people have no say. Not at all what the Catholic Kennedy had in mind. Santorum takes a statement which is about an equal playing field where all get to have their say, regardless of a leader's personal beliefs, and incorrectly twists it into a statement that put limits on people of faith. And that is patently just not true. For one, just because people do not believe in Rick Santorum's version of what happens when we all die doesn't mean they don't have faith. Everyone has some kind of faith. It's just not necessarily the same as any one else's. Santorum then continues; "Where people of faith are out of bounds." And this is where zee really turns the egregious screw, because it is here, as zee talks to his evangelical, Christian base, that zee makes it sound like the evangelical, christian faith is the faith that is being limited. Because as sure as I am that I am sitting here writing this, I am sure that the Rick Santorum is not talking to any of the other 'faithful' out there other than zers own. Because in zers eyes, as in many of the elitist, bigoted and prejudicial 'faiths' out there, zers is the only faith, because of course, everyone else is wrong, and need to be brought into his fold. And that is where he is ded wrong, and the separation of church and state is what saves us from the dark ages of religious intolerance.This is where no one's unverifiable and personally held 'religious' viewpoints are held up to be the arbiter of all without some sort of universally agreed upon vetting system, and that's where science, and it's empirical method of evaluation comes in. And that's the problem I have with Santorum, because he is an intelligent man, an educated man, and he should know better. And that poses a big question. Does zee know better, which makes zer no more than a rabble rouser and a dishonest man, or  does zee indeed actually not see this.As in, is incapable of seeing this. And what does that mean, personal development wise, for to not be able to see this point indicates, at least to me, an immature psyche. A hubot: one who is run by subconscious programs over which the conscious has no control. And I'd just as soon rather not have an incomplete or out of control person at the wheel of the greatest nuclear power on the planet.

There are beliefs we all share, and there are beliefs that we don't share. The ones we can share, we see and use every day. Soap, air travel, twinkies. These are what we can agree upon and regulate to the satisfaction of all. To the others, beliefs and such, these are personal domain, debatable, and of nobody's business but the owner. These we can not regulate. The Rick Santorums of the world don't want to acknowledge this. Why. Who knows. The point is, zee* has not a leg to stand on, other than the sheeple who know no other way in life but to follow. The problem arises when those who think their beliefs (i.e. things theoretical which they can not substantiate by anything more than faith and blind obedience to that faith), are more right than someone else's, and try to impose those beliefs on others. The contraception issue is one, and more on this. In order for it all to work, everyone has to have equal rights. That means that churches etc, have to be subject to the same rules as everyone else. I can't help feeling that Obama fucked up with his decision to let churches off the hook. It's absurd, and they do nobody any service when they behave this way. That they can't live and let live is, well, one of the conundrums of life I guess.

*he she, zee, it; him, her, zer; his, hers zers; they, them, zem: gender neutral pronouns

The Politix of Subterfuge

I think I'm getting the hang of this. Basically, I have been looking for a way to be able to see both sides of the political polarity, USA wise, and the recent fuss over contraception in the USA is a perfect example.

Rush Limbo, the republican rabble rouser, has fanned the flames with his incendiary and insulting rhetoric. Faced with basically a lose lose primary situation, facing an incumbent president who's fortunes are on a positive trajectory election wise, the republicans are looking for any issue that will muddy the waters, and make the election story about anything other than what is working for Obama. Enter red meat issues, like contraception, and religious 'rights' etc.

And where I am now learning to see, is how the democrats fall for it, time and time again, letting the republicans set the agenda with their incendiary, rabble rousing histrionics. Incredible. I can see both sides, as Lucy fakes holding the ball once more for Charlie Brown. And Obama has fallen for it too, making allowance for 'religious' scruple, giving churches an exemption on a 'right' that is for everyone. Let's see this cat out of the bag.

I Hubot

The goal of all organic life is to become completely and wholly whatever one is. A seedling becomes a sprout, a cub, a sapling, a heifer or whatever it is on its individual path to maturity, eventually becoming the actual cow or bull, or flower; regardless of the stage it was in, it always was at least the potentiality of its cowness, its flowerness. So it is too with homo sapiens, with one notable difference: Humans have the ability to subvert the natural process of actualization, with the aid of their programmable super computers.

1. Everyone is on a path of actualization. In the organic way, a child becomes the teen, becomes the adult, and the elder. The brain, however, an infinite mchine of variation, can be programmed in a myriad of ways that may not
2. Psycho/self actualization in humans is the process of becoming ?% conscious: that is, when one has freed oneself from the constraints of early programming, peer pressure, and basic needs.
3. Hubots - human beings who are motivated by anything other than consciousness. Until one has individuated, or at least, differentiated, one may be subject to motivations the which of one has not conscious control. One is not actualized while one is subject to unconscious motivations.
4. Self-transcendence - Viktor Frankl later added Self-transcendence
5. Sexual Competition: Sexual selection, a concept introduced by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, is a significant element of his theory of natural selection. The sexual form of selection
   

   “

   ... depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring.[1]

   ”

   “	... when the males and females of any animal have the same general habits ... but differ in structure, colour, or ornament, such differences have been mainly caused by sexual selection.[2]

1. Sexual Completion: my subjective opinion on this that in human men, the desire for orgasm is the driving force that keeps the human world going round. There may be a psychological or evolutionary drive here, but the simple act of having the male orgasm is the prime motivator. That some men are driven by a need to prove their potency is one thing; the orgasm is another beast entirely. The stronger the drive, the more children that may be produced.
6. Maslow thinks some people are driven by 'being' needs as oppossed to others who are driven by 'deficiency' needs, i.e. food, water, sex etc. 
1. I think all people can be psychologically held back on their path of self actualization by overriding psychological forces, such as early programing which does not allow the psyche to develop into its natural state.
7. Complexes fit in here somehow. The autonomous systems is a complex. It has an agenda: to keep the machine running in spite of anything that may threaten is extinction, short of the actual extinction.
8. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs makes basic assumption of human nature, such as:

Notes: 

A review of Maslow's: Toward a Psychology of Being, starting with the first essay: Towards a Psychology of Health. Below is a list of Maslow's basic assumptions of human nature. I am, by way of validating my experiences, past and present with these assumptions, validating his hypothesis of self actualization. 

Basic Assumptions (pgs 3-4)

1. We have, each of us, an essential biology based inner nature, which is to some degree 'natural,' intrinsic, given, and in a certain limited sense, unchangeable, or, at least, unchanging. I think this has to do with Jung's perception, and mine, of libido. This is the life force that we all are, and that connects us to the universe. This is what I got in touch with when I took on RLE and especially, when I changed my name to nanci blu, this name embodying both the frisson I felt and feel when considering all things frilly, and the fear my precious biker/loner persona felt when confronted with the gay label. It is my belief that at this time, i came into touch with my libido, my inner self that is connected to the 'now.' 
2. Each person's inner naure is in  part unique to himself and in part species-wide. ala Jung again and parallel to the collective consciousness. Also, as unique to zee self, that is where I run up against this feminine identity attachment I feel is mine. Not that I feel I, or anyone else for that matter, is either feminine or masculine, but rather that we inhabit our sexual context, and that is, or has been, almost impossible for most to separate themselves from. That I identify with the feminine rather than the masculine doesn't make me so much female as it does make me sensitive, emotional, gentle, i,e, all those attributes that in my society are identified as femanine, but in another species, say a praying mantis, might be something else entirely. 
3. It is possible to study this inner nature scientifically and to discover what it is like (not invent, but discover). For me, this what has happened. I have been discovering all of this since 1989, and have recently come to the juncture of individuation and self actualization, as far as I can tell.  Most of what I read that connects to this is more of validation and vocabulary than it is of anything else.
4. This inner nature, as much as we know of it so far, seems not to be intrinsically or primarily or necessarily evil. The basic needs (for life, for safety and security, for belongingness and affection, for respect and self-respect, and for self-actualization), the basic human emotions and the basic human capacities are on their face either neutral, pre-moral or positively 'good.' Destructiveness, sadism, cruelty, malice, etc., seem so far to be not intrinsic but rather they seem to be violent reactions against frustration of our intrinsic needs, emotions and capacities. Anger is in itself not evil, nor is fear, laziness, or even ingorance. Of course, these can and do lead to evil behaviour, but they needn't. (the thing i, and some others i assume, have difficulty with here is the sometimes difficulty in separating the behaviour from the individual. Also, I do find that whereas once I was self-destructive and isolated, I am now the opposite, and am indeed, kind, and good. I spent fifty years of my life reacting to the circumstances of my youth. This is, happily, no longer the case). This result is not intrinsically necessary. Human nature is not nearly as bad as it has been thought to be. In fact, it can be said that the possibilities of human nature have customarily been sold short. And not only cut short, but consciously maligned, as in the doctrine of original sin. This is a pernicious and self serving lie, set up by the sanctimonious to manipulate the masses, and possibly one of the greatest evils ever done in the world, considering how many people and how many negative and destructive situations it has ultimately been at the root of. 
5. Since this inner nature is good or neutral rather than bad, it is best to bring it out and to encourage it rather than to suppress it. If it is permitted to guide our life, we grow healthy, fruitful, and happy. Thus is the context of my life at this time, having finally emerged from the state of reactive unhappiness that was my lot post-alienation from my parents.
6. If this essential core of hte person is denied or suppressed, one gets sick sometimes in obvious ways, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes immediately, sometimes later. My way was manic depression. 
7. This inner nature, is not strong and overpowering and unmistakable like the instincts of animals. It is weak and delicate and subtle and easily overcome by habit, cultural pressure, and wrong attitudes towards it. I would amend to say that once one becomes aware of this inner nature, and connected to it, that there is no personal force stronger. Anyone not operating from this base of self is by definition weaker, having no solid foundation for what they present. Witness the Christ myth. He was conquered physically, but never could they have taken away from him what he was. That is an impossibility, as once one accepts what one is, there is no going back, and the world be damned.
8. Even though weak, it rarely disappears in the normal person-perhaps not even in the sick person. Even though denied, it persists, underground forever pressing for actualization. I would say never. It is always there, for it is at least part of whatever it is that is the life force in all of us, flora and fauna alike. 
9. Somehow, these conclusions must all be articulated with the necessity of discipline, deprivation, frustration, pain, and tragedy. To the extent that these experiences reveal and foster and fulfil our inner nature, to that extent they are desirable experiences. It is increasingly clear that these experiences have something to do with a sense of achievement and ego strength and therefore with the sense of healthy self-esteem and self-confidence. The person who hasn't conquered, withstood and overcome continues to feel doubtful that he could. This is true not only for external dangers; it holds also for the ability to control and to delay one's own impulses, and therefore to be unafraid of them. Not really sure about this. For me, the change started to come when I gave it all up, and faced my own demise, real time. After that, after a long period of... gestation perhaps, I started to come around, with no prerequisites, and to a new sense of identity. I did, however, face a rather substantial fear down, twice as a matter of fact, and I do consider these integral to my actualization. I would also add to this Alice Miller's list of the basic rights of children, and to that I would add that given the basic assumptions above, in that no child is evil, that any treatment of children not consistent with the above leads to 

• One of the premises of this book is that it is easier to work towards a healthy psychological state, a personal growth model, instead of trying to undo a 'sick' one.We see this today in the move towards positive role and healthy educational models. 

• pg 7, p2 - "In essence, I am deliberately rejecting our present easy distinction between sickness and health, at least as far as surface symptoms are concerned. Does sickness mean having symptoms? I maintain now that sickness might consist of not having symptoms when you should. Does health mean being symptom-free? I deny it. Which of the Nazis at Auschwitz or Dachau were healthy? Those with stricken conscience or those with a nice, clear, happy conscience? Was it possible for a profoundly human person not to feel conflict, suffering, depression, rage, etc?" and... pg 8, p2 - Clearly what will be called personality problems depends on who is doing the calling. The slave owner? The dictator? The patriarchal father? The husband who wants his wife to remain a child? It seems quite clear that the personality problems may sometimes be found to be protests against the crushing of one's psychological bones, of one's true inner nature. What is sick then is not to protest while this crime is being committed. And I am sorry to report my impression that most people do not protest under such treatment. They take it and pay years later, in neurotic and psychosomatic symptoms of various kinds, or perhaps in some cases never being aware that they are sick, that they have missed true happiness, true fulfilment of promise, a rich emotional life, and a serene, fruitful old age, that they have never known how wonderful it is to be creative, to react aesthetically, to find life thrilling.   In my own  words, having symptoms of depression for instance is not illness: it is a symptom of another issue that needs to be resolved. Just as one would not prescribe pain killers to cure a broken leg, one should not prescribe anti depressants to 'cure' depression. This actually goes deeper as some would argue that one has to give the 'health consumer' medication to 'calm them down' or stabilize them. I would argue that even then, and perhaps more so, we need deal with them on their own terms, not ours. Medicating them just buries the issue deeper and deeper. The argument is specious, based on 'practicalities' and such, staffing issues and such, and not on the best interests of the health seeker. Which points to another issue: jobs. Not enough of them. And why do we not have jobs for people to do these things, instead of trying to patch people up so that they can join the lists of the unemployed? And so, who is sick here, the one with the presenting symptoms, or those who prop up a sick and destructive status quo? 

Review: "Dangerous Methods." Jung and Freudians alike, beware

"Dangerous Methods," a film by David Cronenberg, is at heart a boy meets girl flic with a not so dry wit, the Freud/Jung/ian in-jokes not so in as off. The on film relationship between Jung and Sabrina Spielrein (a patient of Jung's in the early days of his career) is an unsubstantiated S&M fantasy compliments of Mr. C. et al. Spurious and superficial, there is no discernible attempt to show how this relationship may have informed Jung's growing ascendancy as one of the world's foremost trailblazers in the fields of psychology and, some might argue, spirituality; or indeed, the connection between the two.

Nor do we really get any insight into the relationship between the two principals, Jung and Freud, the boy 'beats' girl motif the main focus in a forest of plodding narrative and trivial detail. The auters of this piece are obviously not too familiar with their subject, and in their ignorance, do the field of psychology great disservice. Unfortunately, the principal actors too get caught in this pseudo psychological farce, turning in earnest but ultimately superficial performances of what should be fascinating exposes of two brilliant but obviously disturbed minds. Now there's a good title for what this piece could have been.

Those with a vested interest in broadening their knowledge of either Jung or Freud need not bother adding this piece to their portfolios. Dangerous methods indeed, Mr. Cronenberg, and applicable more precisely to the methods used to produce this piece. For those with serious interest in the subject, try Deirdre Bair's, "Jung*:" a captivating and in depth biography navigating the jungles of time and partisan politics with intelligence and impartiality. (*review - www.robertboynton.com/articleDisplay.php?article_id=9).