Welcome to my new blog series…
As I learn new things, my ideas and opinions expand. This causes me much anxiety when writing. I’d love to know the depths of every topic I write about from the start, but alas, the magic powers I was born with do not include omniscience or quantum speed-reading capabilities.
This is a list of things I learn weekly that excite me and sometimes lead to the exclamation, “THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING.” Whether I ditch my admiration for an old idol (of which I already have so few), or I alter my position or beliefs, these tidbits changed the winds in my sails.
I share these mini-revelations and interests
bi-weekly monthly in an effort to squash my own perfectionism and feed your curiosity.
For my first entry, I have some bits and bobs from over several weeks’ time.
Sartre is Sexist & Freud is a Bore – 2/18/2021
Whilst studying the theory of the three levels of the mind by Sigmund Freud, I found this piece of “wisdom” from the infamous cocaine-loving psychiatrist:
“Elimination of clitoral sexuality is a necessary precondition for the development of femininity, since it is immature and masculine in its nature.”Forever Yours, Freud
RIGHT, my stuff is just a bad imitation of your stuff and must be totally useless since you don’t understand my body.
Same day, I was studying up on philosophical theories around authenticity, so I dug into a little Sartre. What an ass!
His examples of bad faith, aka inauthentic behavior, range from a woman acting like she wasn’t having any fun during sex (when the man KNEW she absolutely was) to a woman not acknowledging, and behaving as expected, that a man clearly initiated a date with her solely on the basis he would be sexually gratified.
Yes, Sartre, it’s inauthentic to not relinquish all individuality, choice, and personhood when in the presence of the all-superior man-boy.
Everything these guys write tells me they don’t see women as actual human beings. These are the lauded minds of psychology and philosophy.
As a result of reading Sartre, I Googled “how did Simone de Beauvoir ever put up with Sartre,” and, “how sexist was Sartre.” I found this incredible piece in The New Yorker revealing just how “authentic” both of these existential thinkers were.
I’ve been laboring over a post about intuition lately. Before I can move on with it, I find it necessary to flesh out where science ends and spirituality begins (as you’ll see below, it’s not so black + white). What can we prove, and what doesn’t require proof? In what cases is it irresponsible to claim scientific proof when all we really have are loose ideas based on other wobbly ideas?
I felt Chapter II of Spectrums of Consciousness by Ken Wilber opening a foundational door with its insights into the duality of most scientific and philosophical theories. The difference between theories with premises in duality and those with premises in non-duality are key to understanding arguments about intuition/consciousness.
What changed for me this week?
I decided to recommit to seeking out the voices of women and BIPOC. These old, white dudes are tiring, and it’s always a good time (and about damn time) to choose better pillars to build upon. I want what I share to be healing to the collective consciousness and to empower those who have been oppressed and objectified.
I’ve also come to accept that I will likely never know any definitives about existence, authenticity, meaning, and much of science too. There are objective truths, but the most complex issues shimmer differently depending on who is holding the torch. All I can do is enjoy the ride and report to you what mysteries I’ve found and the confounding beauty that appears in my viewfinder.