|
Links:
Contact
rén
email me
Assembler's Blog
Index
home
Gerbil Pi
A World Trasnforming
Neoliberalism
intro
Eco Sanity
cultural
hubris
immersed in form
Nature Therapy
Values Based Economy
Geopolitical
maps
Fiction & Poetry
Elk at Fallen Ancient
The People Without History
The
Key
Pieces
of Oakland Sky
uneasy
dry
In a world without fish
Crazy Dog
Gerbil Pi
| |

Introductory Concept: Binary Oppositions and
Pi
Gerbil Pi
Inside, those little wire boxes
with little wire wheels,
circumferences, the irrational number pi,
befuddling in never-creations,
go purveyors of binary opposition.
Round and around they go!
A world of circles,
and they never, ever "know"!

rén 10/09/07
What is the fundamental human drive to
know all about, anyway? Why do humans want to
know, to come to a complete sense of knowledge? Why do they use this tool,
this rational tool we express with language, a tool based on the basic binary
oppositions: that/not that. That being a concept, not
that, another concept... or ultimately, space... infinity.
I once asked a good friend, a very
intelligent, very capable person, if she could rest with a sense that she
couldn't know, that knowledge was ultimately incomplete. After a bit of
wrangling with thoughts she finally concluded, no, that she believed ,complete
knowledge was possible, even if she couldn't know it, and that complete
knowledge was God.
The cage door to infinity is always open!
Thinking
about Thinking
When I think about thinking, what I see myself doing is engaging in a learning
to learn process. In order to learn to learn, I see a necessary ingredient
in that process to be an ability to see what I am actually doing in my own mind
when I think. Doing this remains an ongoing process, a mapping process and
the understanding grows as the process unfolds, just as the complexity of
thought grows. Complexity in a vertical vein of rational thinking can go
on indefinitely, analyzing and defining, making the understanding of the details
of that vein more "re"fined. The process is something like the question,
is there a limit to how small an object can be? Is an imaginative movement
towards smallness, refined-ness, perhaps just as
infinite as expanded is infinite? And how is it that in physics it is
theorized that a wave and a particle can be the same, but the wave can be
everywhere at once, while a particle just happens to be where we look?
The whole question of infinity, then, may not even have a rational starting point to begin
an attempt at a definable measurement. One merely begins where one is
at the moment. When we think, using a rational,
conceptual process, we are thinking within this infinity of ultimate
unknowableness, and while we attempt
to enclose and measure, so we can "know" whatever it might be we try
to imagine we can know, the very nature of infinity -- or the ultimately
indefinable
no-"thing"-ness of it -- makes a completion of that effort at definitive knowing
conceptually impossible if we are completely honest about what we are doing. For some this may seem a curse, for others a
freedom. Sartre addressed that problem in his extended essay, Being and
Nothingness. I'm going to attempt to address it in my own small way
here.
Sartre's exploration suggests to me that an effort at completed definitive knowing
is an effort to create deterministic thought, while including the ultimate truth
of infinite "no-thing-ness" makes that effort at determinism ultimately impossible to achieve. This creates a dilemma, and that
dilemma results in many different types of efforts to avoid that truth.
Sartre attempted to encapsulate those efforts into an identification of human
thought he labeled malfois.
Occasionally I'll introduce the term "binary opposition" into my discussions,
and I thought it might be worth some effort to explain what the term signifies
to me, and why understanding it might be worth anyone's while. So, for anyone
curious about what can be a fascinating topic -- at least for epistemologists --
this is an effort to put together a more concise explanation of the place of
this concept in our globalized Euro-American world.
I feel it's worth the effort, because binary opposites have so much to do with
the way we organize our categorized internal worlds, and the results of that
internal form in both the form of our very way of life, and the way political
discussions get folded into repetitive opposing sided boxes, like copied
suburban houses in those ticky tacky housing developments surrounding our cities
these days.
Think of it... binary opposites are easy to find, we all use them in our
conceptual thought process, and sometimes the very way we value our thoughts is
based on preformed hierarchical patterns that set the stage and create a
momentum that almost pre programs where a discussion will go, and at another
level, where societal behavior may go. Some of the first to do this in any
codified "scientific" way were a group of philosophers and social scientists
known as "Structuralists." In recognizing this pattern and it's more or less
ontological force, some explorative folks have begun to try to figure out
whether it's necessary that the structure of language and thought be so rigidly
predictable, or if there might be some strategies for breaking out of what might
well be called "the box."
So, then, "binary opposition" is really a simple and elegant abstract concept. I
first encountered the term somewhere in my studies of philosophy, logic, and
anthropology -- it's been so long I can't remember precisely where. Following
you will find a couple of very brief descriptions from Internet sites, there are
many sites that discuss it, if one simply does a search, so for that one poor
misbegotten soul who follows me around, there's really no need to do that,
pointing to my own binary oppositions, one can simply learn to observe one's
own:
A binary
opposition is a pair of opposites, thought by the Structuralists to
powerfully form and organize human thought and culture. Some are commonsense,
such as raw vs cooked; however, many such oppositions imply or are used in
such a way that privileges one of the terms of the opposition, creating a
hierarchy. This can be seen in English with white and black, where black is
used as a sign of darkness, danger, evil, etc., and white as purity, goodness,
and so on. Another example of a contested binary opposition is rational vs
emotional, in which the rational term is usually privileged and associated
with men, while emotional is inferior and associated with women. The list goes
on. Deconstruction sometimes involves identifying the oppositions working in a
text and then demonstrating how the text itself undermines the hierarchy
implied or asserted by the opposition.
And:
KEY TERM!
BINARY OPPOSITION
This is a sophisticated but important
idea that will help you understand how ideas and meanings are being shaped,
created or reinforced in a text. It is 'a theory of meaning' and an idea that
can be applied to all texts; it is especially useful when analyzing poetry
where meaning has been 'compressed' into a very few words.
In the mid-20th century, two major
European academic thinkers, Claude Levi Strauss and Roland Barthes, had the
important insight that the way we understand certain words depends not so much
on any meaning they themselves directly contain, but much more by our
understanding of the difference between the word and its 'opposite' or, as
they called it 'binary opposite'. They realized that words merely act as
symbols for society's ideas and that the meaning of words, therefore, was a
relationship rather than a fixed thing: a relationship between opposing ideas.
For example, our understanding of the
word 'coward' surely depends on the difference between that word and its
opposing idea, that of a 'hero' (and to complicate matters further, a moment's
thought should alert you to the fact that interpreting words such as 'hero'
and 'coward' is itself much more to do with what our society or culture
attributes to such words than any meaning the words themselves might actually
contain).
Other oppositions that should help you
understand the idea are the youth/age binary, the masculinity/femininity, the
good/evil binary, and so on. Barthes and Levi-Strauss noticed another
important feature of these 'binary opposites': that one side of the binary
pair is always seen by a particular society or culture as more valued over the
other.
When studying any kind of literature,
it is worth looking for the ways in which layers of meaning are being created,
shaped or reinforced by this sense of 'binary opposition'. In Simon Armitage's
poetry, for instance, you might notice the binary opposition he creates
between the ideas we associate or attach to 'sincerity', 'genuineness' and
'truth' because of our culture's utter dislike of their binary opposites,
'insincerity' and 'lies'.
Recognizing such binaries can open up
the ideas the writer is trying to express. Look out for these oppositions as
they can allow a deep understanding of what is happening in the text as well
as alerting you to the "BIG PICTURE"
(see below) - what it is all about.
(here's the:)
BIG PICTURE
Whenever you need to discuss aspects of
a text, remember never to skim read it. Before you can write in any meaningful
way about it you will need to have grasped its big picture. This means gaining
an understanding of exactly what it is about, who it was written for and why
it was written.
You will also need to consider what
might have motivated the writer to write the text and the circumstances under
which it was created, that is aspects of its writer's context. It can also be
important to take account of genre conventions and expectations as well as
aspects of the reader's context as interest and interpretation can sometimes
vary according to the reader's own situation.
With these details you can then open
your answer by creating an effective overview of the text - of its content,
genre, audience and purpose. Details of its style are left for the remainder
of your answer.
It is an unfortunate fact that each
year many students give shallow answers in exams that show they have skim read
their texts. The moral of this tale: don't be a skim reader!
So the question might be, why take notice of binary oppositions? One can find
many reasons to take notice, once onto them. Think of our fearless leaders
taking us to war against those evil doers. Yes, good and evil. It can drive even
the most secure nations with the biggest military forces into a frenzy of
strange behaviors.
Those of us who are intrigued by the intellectual efforts of trying to get out
of the box of our conceptual thinking, are often drawn to it because of the very
social paradigms of hierarchy we find ourselves in, ultimately derived from
valuing one element in a starting binary over another, valued elements which
themselves accumulate to set up conditions of authority, all based on on a
progression beginning with that first step of judging a better and a not better,
a that and a not that. Even our computers work in that simple way to create
their complexity of computation.
Sort of reminds me of Joseph Tainter's
Collapse of Complex Societies. Societies can over burden their
energy resources because they become excessively complex, that complexity
results in social hierarchies, and the very structure of hierarchies require
extra energy to maintain. Think of the cost of the middle management in a
corporation where the management is not directly involved in its production
capacities. In order to pay for its own maintenance, the middle management
must use its intelligence to manage production in order to achieve an excess
margin of production. It's because of those sorts of margin production stresses
that societies such as the Roman Empire collapsed.
Some are comfortable with authoritarian structures that go with complexity,
comfortable with their promises of daddy
state security, or whatever... and some of us aren't, that's about all I will
offer on that at the moment. Just wanted to mention it, because
authoritarianism is a subject that runs through my ideas as an ongoing subtext,
and I will be bringing it up from time to time. Authoritarianism has a
number of features that I consider problematic, not the least of which is my
personal sense of abhorrence of authorities.
To be interested in this, it's important to recognize the tendency of that
interest to be based on cognitive acts of judgment. I put it that way because I
want to call attention to the simple feature that making a judgments is an
action, a cognitive, abstract action. One does not have to make a
judgment, judgment can be suspended and one can be in an open state of
observation and wondering, even more actively, questioning. Just call
attention to that little innocuous action of thought, a judgment, harmless seeming, for the most part, even
sometimes necessary when observing that a
rhinoceros is charging at you on the open plain. So simply be aware that it's a part of our basic
biological make up even. That's important to be aware of because distinguishing
and judging is at the very beginning of the binary process itself! And if we are
trying to understand how we trap ourselves in boxes made up of the binary
process, then it's important to be aware of how it works, and where it begins.
Do that without forming a judgment, if possible -- and that will involve doing
it without attaching a value to it -- and then just observe where it goes;
that's the best I can offer.
When I call attention to a binary opposition, that's essentially what I'm doing,
just noticing the tendency, and noticing that a valuing may be taking place, and
that from there, a process unfolds based on that primary paradigm one sets up in
one's own thought process. Notice, too, that this is a phenomenological
experience. No one can know if you are aware of the process going on or not.
That's why it's worth calling attention to it. It can be like a shared signal
that people can recognize. Or like turning on a flashlight in the dark.
Now, why would that be helpful?
How about we introduce an
Irrational Concept
for starters?
How about pi, an irrational number?
Since this basic structural duality can be so helpful in understanding our very
universal human interest in mythology, literature, and metaphor, I'd like to
start with something both literary and metaphorical. The movie Pi, not
the least because I enjoyed the movie immensely, but also because I found a
nifty site that actually deals with the issue using the movie as it's
paradigmatic focus to discuss the deeper implications of binary oppositions.
(Click on the picture of Max below, it's a link to the site).

Pi (see
Pi the
movie) is not, as most critics
claim, a schizophrenic science-fiction thriller.
We refuse to fall into the naive
pseudo-psychological interoperation but it’s is a very important movie to be
with us, while we rush to the next millennium.
We also attempt to say meaningful
things about the movie without categorizing it as others do, in the
science-fiction genre, to be more precise, we actually categorize it for the
sake of decategorization.
As Sol tells us in the movie itself,
we filter everything through our obsessions and concepts. In this text, we
filter Pi with some of the concepts found in postmodern and fuzzy logic
theories, and then we attempt to go further…
The story of Pi can be told through
deconstruction of its content into binary oppositions, and by defusing these
oppositions using a critical tool we suggest in the text - fuzzy
deconstruction.
We claim that it is possible to
continue where deconstruction stops in silence. We use 'Pi' to demonstrate
this. This will hopefully allow you to watch (or re-watch) it from a slightly
different perspective…
Can you hear that whirring, rattling
sound?
That's the gerbils running frantically
in their wheels.
We are the giants who've entered the
room, they both fear us and want our attention, since we feed them. So they run,
as fast as they can, desperate to get our attention, and to get away at the same
time. The infernal binary opposition.

Strange animals.
Maybe all they really want is to get
out of their cages.
The wheel turns and turns and they run
and run, staying in one place -- a dead heat in a ferris wheel.
We don't need them, they need us. We
can go our way, pay no heed. The rattling is not so loud as to disrupt.
All they leave us are their droppings
in the tray under the cage. That's the genius of the wire boxes, the droppings
fall through.
Still, I never liked cleaning up after
them. That's why I never wanted one for a pet.
The problem for the spinning gerbil gets to be something like this:
Inside his little six sided binary
opposition cage he's spinning that wheel with the circumference of the
irrational number pi, and he's running and spinning so much he gets to thinking
he's running things.
And then what do you get?
You get an a narcissistic, self
absorbed authoritarian gerbil.
And the more you ignore him, the more
he runs, thinking all the while he's running things.

Liminality -- The Territory Beneath the Maps
of Binary Opposition
Nature is gray scaled, Life can’t be reduced to deterministic numerical
pattern and true knowledge is available only at death. Max's search can be
seen as the saga of the 20th century that is doomed to fail since
it uses the wrong tools. Other tools are available, they mustn’t necessarily
be non-scientific, other logic systems, set of axioms and interpretive methods
are possible. The story of movie Pi unfolds when we reveal the underlying
binary oppositions that are woven through it...
But, aren't binary oppositions just the same as
dialectics?
A dialectic, when I think of it, is more of a spiral, a process. A series of
binary oppositions building off a first point. Maybe that's why a spiral
can be represented as a circle, especially when viewed from the rear, or from an
inside perspective, like the gerbil in my poem. A circle's circumference
when calculated becomes the irrational number pi. A binary
opposition is essentially the two parts that may begin the dialectical process.
And a dialectic would be a series of binary oppositions that form a circular
spiral going off infinitely, just as the calculation for the circumference of a
circle. A series of "thats" and
a "not thats" beginning with a single "that." Computers use that simple binary
component to compute with as well. It's really the fundamental basis for
Western rational thinking. And it goes back at least as far as the Greeks.
Understanding it can open many doors, or perhaps open the tops of boxes, the
kinds of boxes dogma can create -- dogma being a statement of "that,' with at
least an implied "not that," or in other words, a binary opposition.
When observing how thought occurs in the mind, recognizing a binary opposition may
merely be seen as an identification of the first steps in a rational thought
process where one can identify, with concepts, a particular rational set: "that,
not that."
Mathematically speaking, binary opposition is itself a concept that attempts to
describe a raw, cognitive process that precedes culturally loaded values.
"Views" are only one of the many possible concepts that can be included in a set
of two -- that is, the conceptually recognized "that, not that" separated from a
whole field of perceptions and distinguished. Noticing this is noticing our
cognitive rational process at work in us.
Another set of concepts that can be used as cognitive tools for observing our
inner process has been offered as "subliminal," "liminal," and "supraliminal."
These are offered as an attempt to identify levels and types of consciousness.
Supraliminal would be associated with processes that have more of an emphasis on
abstract, rational thinking. This can be very complicated to describe, and a
whole set of rational concepts have been developed to describe it.
What is meant by "liminal"
consciousness, and then, "supraliminal" consciousness?
What makes them different? How does that difference effect
a consciousness of environment, the moment, and an interactivity amongst humans
in their cultural enclaves.
"Liminal state" is a rational effort to describe, or maybe better
"point to" an awareness that is not
"distorted" by the duality that rationality itself presents. With that as an
understanding, then, liminality cannot be accessed directly through rational
descriptions, only pointed to with it; the rational then is the supraliminal. A
split that creates a seperation, a duality. Those who quest a vision are said to
be questing to re-enter the liminal state, to be in a sense, non-dual. What that
means conceptually is difficult to describe with words, but in essence, one lets
go the rational supraliminal translation of perception and "enters" a state of
consciousness where perception is "allowed" without judgement of what is, the
mind will take care of that, consciousness does not have to be active to allow
perceptions to occur. In that sense the assumptions that often precede behavior
are not enacted. Let the people who do vision quests try to explain it:
The Western
psyche has been split asunder by the dualistic assumptions inherent in our
way of seeing the world. Foremost among these assumptions is that humans are
separate from and superior to Nature. Many of us suffer from this
fundamental distortion of reality. We have been uprooted from our original
spiritual 'home' in Mother Earth. As a consequence, our hearts long for
something but we're not quite sure what it is.
The School of
Natural Wonder (SNW) seeks to mend this wound to our psyches by offering
experiential, nature-based programs designed to help people connect deeply
with the natural world, themselves, each other, and Spirit, however that may
be experienced. It is believed that Nature, as the dwelling place of Spirit,
is our first and foremost teacher. Because we are not separate from Nature,
the rhythms, inhabitants, and relationships of the natural world mirror back
to us aspects of our own souls.
Dwelling upon
the Earth in a sacred way returns us to our true nature. Buried beneath the
masks of civilization lies an indigenous soul within us longing to emerge
into the light of the sun, to sing and dance with joy, to reclaim that which
is wild, holy, and free within us.
Towards this
end, SNW offers a sacred, supportive container in which participants can
experience contemplative, participatory, and ceremonial ways of being in
Nature. The basic model for all our programs is the Vision Quest, an ancient
rite of passage, which we have adapted for modern use drawing on many wisdom
traditions. The Vision Quest places participants alone and fasting within
the womb of Mother Earth where they can give birth to the truth and beauty
of their own souls.
The
Vision Quest can serve different intentions. It is a powerful, ceremonial
way to mark, honor and celebrate any life change, to discover one's own
meanings and purpose, to seek renewal, to heal old wounds, to connect with
Spirit. In addition, it is a particularly powerful vehicle for helping young
people negotiate the momentous passage from childhood to adulthood.
Ultimately,
for us, 'vision' comes in the moment that we are fully present to our inner
life and the presence of the 'Other,' whether human, animal, tree, rock,
river, wind…. With that vision we are transformed and the world as well.
We invite you
to join us on one of our transformational programs, so that you may discover
your true nature in the heart of Nature.
"Furthermore, we have not only to risk the adventure alone; for the
heroes of all time have gone before us; the labyrinth is thoroughly known;
we have only to follow the thread of the hero-path. And where we had
thought to find an abomination; we shall find a god; …where we had thought
to travel outward, we shall come to the center of our own existence; where
we had thought to be alone, we shall be with all the world."
-Joseph Campbell
Anthropologist E. Richard Sorenson has made a study of
liminal consciousness integral to his life's work. Liminal consciousness may not
be easy for us Westerner's to imagine, since we are enculturated from birth in a
supraliminal cognitive environment. Nevertheless, here's one of Sorenson's
efforts to describe it from an essay, Preconquest Consciousness:
Liminal Awareness
Most of us know about subliminal
awareness—the type of awareness lurking below actual consciousness that
powerfully influences behavior. Freud brought it into the mainstream of
Western thought through exhaustively detailed revelations of its effects on
behavior. But few, including Freud, have spoken of liminal consciousness,
which is therefore rarely recognized in modern scholarship as a separate
type of awareness. Nonetheless, liminal awareness was the principal focus of
mentality in the preconquest cultures contacted, whereas a supraliminal type
that focuses logic on symbolic entities is the dominant form in postconquest
societies.5
Liminally focused consciousness is
very different from the supraliminal type that has almost entirely replaced
it. Within the preconquest cultures observed basic sensibilities (such as of
identity, number, space, and truth) shape up in unexpected ways. So does
human integration. Preconquest groups are simultaneously individualistic and
collective—traits immiscible and incompatible in modern thought and
languages. This fusion of individuality and solidarity is another of the
profound cognitive disparities that separate the preconquest and
postconquest eras. It in part explains why even fundamental preconquest
cultural traits are sometimes difficult to perceive, much less to
appreciate, by postconquest peoples.
From the Latin language underlying
our Western heritage we can understand that liminal awareness, by
definition, occurs on the threshold of consciousness. This concept, though
abstract, provides a useful term. In the real life of these preconquest
people, feeling and awareness are focused on at-the-moment, point-blank
sensory experience—as if the nub of life lay within that complex flux of
collective sentient immediacy. Into that flux individuals thrust their inner
thoughts and aspirations for all to see, appreciate, and relate to. This
unabashed open honesty is the foundation on
which their highly honed integrative
empathy and rapport become possible. When that openness gives way, empathy
and rapport shrivel. Where deceit becomes a common practice, they
disintegrate.
Where consciousness is focused within
a flux of ongoing sentient awareness, experience cannot be clearly
subdivided into separable components. With no clear elements to which logic
can be applied, experience remains immune to syntax and formal logic within
a kaleidoscopic sanctuary of non-discreteness. Nonetheless, preconquest life
was reckoned sensibly—though seemingly intuitively.
With preconquest consciousness
largely unencumbered by abstract concepts, it remained unconstrained by
formal categories of value and cognition (i.e., rules and stable cognitive
entities). Only when awareness shifted from liminal to supraliminal did the
notion of 'correctness' become a matter of concern—e.g., behaving
`properly,' having `right' answers, wearing `appropriate' clothes, etc.
`Improper' aspirations, inclinations, and desires were then masked as people
tried to measure up to the `proper' rule and standard. They used rhetoric
and logic argumentatively with reference to norms, precedents, and
agreements to gain and maintain dignity, status, and position. It was an
altogether different world from that of the preconquest era where people
freely spread their interests, feelings, and delights out for all to see and
grasp as they lurched toward whatever delightful patterns of response they
found attractive.
Sorenson also attempts to give a contrasting view of how a
Westernized supraliminal consciousness transforms from a liminal consciousness,
which is one way of saying what it is to be supraliminal:
The outstanding economic condition (edit: of
preconquest cultures) is absence of private property, which
allows constant cooperative usage of the implements and materials of life
for collective benefit. The human ecology engendered by the interaction of
these outstanding conditions makes the forcing of others (including
children) to one's will a disruptive and unwholesome practice. It was not
seen.
Any form of subjugation, even those barriers to freedom imposed by private
property, are the kiss of death to this type of life. Though durable and
self-repairing in isolation, the unconditional open trust this way of life
requires shrivels with alarming speed when faced with harsh emotions or
coercion. Deceit, hostility, and selfishness when only episodic temporarily
benumb intuitive rapport. When such conditions come to stay and no escape is
possible, intuitive rapport disintegrates within a brutally disorienting
period of existential trauma and anomie. With no other models about except
those of conquerors, a `savage-savage' emerges from the wreckage of a once
'noble-savage'. These more brutal beings adjust to the postconquest milieu
by adopting formal group identities. First they internalize various abstract
ideas of space, boundary and kinship introduced by their conquerors. They
then use them to anchor claims of their own to turf. They devise rules and
customs that clearly identify them as a distinct people with formal rights.
From this process different kinds of cultural elaboration emerge in
separated regions—until a harsher level of conquest presses their uniqueness
to extinction.
Sorenson - Preconquest Consciousness
Imagine you have been walking and you come to an ocean for
the first time. You are standing at the edge of the water, watching the waves
roll in. You see and feel the water, it looks like a blue plain stretching off
forever to the horizon, but you cannot walk on it. You have the beginnings of a
perceptual "that, not that" right there: The "terra firma" you have been
walking on, and the water you sink into. What you do with that basic
construct will have much to do with your culturally developed consciousness.
That process can happen with no necessary hierarchical value, that is, no "one
is better than the other" value; that value would come with another operation of
thought in the cognitive phase once the "that, not that" has been conceptualized
and separated out (or perhaps better put, as focused upon) from the whole of
perceptual awareness. If your consciousness is rational, as Western
consciousness tends to be, you may begin a set of binary oppositions with a
developing set of values and judgments, creating hierarchies about these now
conceptual abstractions.
Try another angle on this: Imagine that you live next to the ocean in a warm
climate, with a collection of relatives and friends who you've been with from
birth, or from the birth of new ones who came along after you, and you have canoes and you fish,
you and your group have names for all these things
you live with every day, and everything has been much the same in the past for
as long as anyone can remember as it is today. But then one day you see something far out to sea,
gradually, as it comes closer, it becomes clearer, and you see that it resembles nothing
familiar to you even though with all your memories you try to see something
about it that makes sense. You thus have no "idea" what it is, you just see a new form (some
folks have even asked if the first natives to see a ship even "saw" anything at
all), but you have no actual correlative words for the forms you see, because
nothing in your environment has those characteristics.
After awhile this curious object that has your attention is near
enough that you can see humans moving around, and something drops from the bow
with a big splash with something attached that you recognize, a line (because
you do make rope-like things to do all sorts of things to make your life
possible, so you understand that concept), and then the as yet unidentified,
unnamed thing stops moving. Perhaps it is changing shape and poles and sticks
are being revealed as the large, whitish floppy things are shrunk up to the
cross poles at the tops of the vertical poles. How would you make sense of that
with your language and experience? Rationally, the process is identified, at
least in Western Cultures, as a process of "that, not thats" working together.
Humans are born into a world with a language that already has much historical
residue of meanings in place, where conceptual identifications of "that, not
thats" are are shared in the organic process of environmental perceptual
recognition and language development from birth, and I would correlate that with
such notions as "ethnic programming," ideas of racial differences and the
valuing that goes with them, and all sorts of ways of coming to judgments about
others in the world.
Is there a natural sense of unfriendliness that is a state
of mind before that cognitive process begins, or is that cognitive process
itself integral to the creation of a state of mind that exhibits unfriendliness
towards others? Is unfriendliness a cognitive creation based on rationally
conceived concepts that create walls, or abstract senses of separation from
others through a process of binary oppositions, identifications, measurements
and judgments?
Some very serious questions
have been asked about that. One of my own early explorations into that
realm of wondering was through the works of Jiddu Krishnamurti in such works as
The Awakening of Intelligence. I'm not sure if there can ever be a
satisfyingly definite answer to that sort of question without some real life
experience, pure, like a laboratory might be able to create, to base it on, but the very questioning can
at least open us up to
"seeing" our own cognitive processes, and perhaps offer us an existential answer to our
own states of mind regarding how we perceive others. Yes, we can appreciate that we have an
enculturated
programming process that involves creating images and attitudes, with patterns that people
follow in their own ways, but isn't there also a moment of space where our own
awareness of this acceptance of the pattern, our own acting upon it can be observed?
As Sorenson noted above in his description of how a
supraliminal consciousness is transformed from a liminal consciousness:
With preconquest consciousness largely unencumbered by
abstract concepts, it remained unconstrained by formal categories of value and
cognition (i.e., rules and stable cognitive entities). Only when awareness
shifted from liminal to supraliminal did the notion of ‘correctness’ become a
matter of concern—e.g., behaving `properly,’ having `right’ answers, wearing
`appropriate’ clothes, etc. `Improper’ aspirations, inclinations, and desires
were then masked as people tried to measure up to the `proper’ rule and
standard.
Sorenson may have actually experienced such a real life
laboratory, as I suggested above, in his work as an anthropologist. In the above
linked essay, after describing liminal awareness, he attempts to answer the
question of just how such an awareness is spawned in a cultural context.
He attempts to describe it through childrearing practices in the following
section of the essay:
Spawning Preconquest Consciousness
Preconquest mentality emerged from a sociosensual infant nurture common to
its era but shunned in ours. When I first went into those isolated hamlets in
the deep New Guinea forests I was dumbfounded by the lush sensuality of infant
care I saw in the southern reaches of what the new Australian administration
called ‘South Fore’.6
This type of nurture was studied in greatest detail among the New Guinea
forest-dwelling hunter-gatherer-gardeners on the southern slopes of the Kratke
Range just after Western contact in the early 1960s. They provided the initial
model for liminal consciousness. Bordering them to the north were people whose
adoption of sweet potato as their staple was despoiling forest lands and
undercutting the free range requirement of their traditional preconquest
way-of-life. Among them an indigenously emerging supraliminal type of
consciousness was coming into being.
In the isolated hamlets in the southern forests, infants were kept in
continuous bodily contact with mothers or the mothers’ friends—on laps when they
were seated, on hips, under arms, against backs, or on shoulders when they were
standing. Even during intensive food preparation, or when heavy loads were being
moved, babies were not put down. They had priority.
There was always a place for them against the body of a ‘mother’ or close
associate. Loads could be shed or lightened, but babies were simply not put
down, not deprived of constant, ever-ready, interactive body contact—even when
the group was on the move under difficult conditions.
Babies responded to this blanket of ever-ready empathetic tactile stimulation by
tactile responses of their own. Very quickly they began assembling a
sophisticated tactile-speech to transmit desires, needs, and states of mind.
They didn’t whine or cry to get attention; they touched. While babies everywhere
are liminally aware, the constant empathetic tactile contact required to produce
a sophisticated type of preverbal communication is rare—except among preconquest
peoples.
Eliciting delight from babies was a desired social norm, and attentive
tactile stimulation was the daily lot of infants. It included protracted
body-to-body caressing, snuggling, oral sensuality, hugging, fondling, and
kissing. The seductive aspect of the play was frequently collective as older
children singly or in combination used their inventive wiles to delight a baby.
In their hamlets crying might be heard in reaction to accidental pain, but I
don’t recall a single case of disgruntled whining or demanding crying.7
Regarding sibling rivalry, these southern hamlets also contrasted
considerably with those of the sweet potato farmers in the north. Only in their
villages could sibling rivalry be seen.8
I tried hard to find at least one occurrence in those remote forest hamlets of
the south, but it did not appear.
With nourishment, comfort, and stimulation constantly on hand, infants did
not have to wait helplessly to have their needs met. They had no emotional need
to anchor their libidos to abstract concepts of time, place, or kinship; and
abstract foundations of awareness such as these were not imprinted on their
nascent consciousness
As babies grew, their interests widened to the materials, objects, and
activities at hand. They had amazing freedom to explore momentary whims and
interests. At first, they did so with one hand on the ‘mother,’ the other
reaching out. Then they began making short sorties further and then further out
from their ‘mothers’; just a few steps at first, then some more. Such moving out
was on their own. Though a ‘mother’ or a ’sibling’ might nod to encourage a baby
who seemed uncertain about proceeding, they did not intervene or direct the
baby’s interests or directions. They stayed just where they were, doing whatever
they had been doing—but as bastions of security to which babies could return for
comfort, assistance, or a sense of surety. Though elders did not go with babies
on their jaunts, they were ever ready to assist with whatever might be brought
to them. Babies joined the activities of elders; elders did not join theirs.
Not put aside when work was being done, infants remained constantly in touch
with the activities of life around them, their tiny hands ever reaching out to
whatever items or materials were in use, and onto the hands, arms, and muscles
of the users. In this way even as tiny babes-in-arms they began accumulating a
kinesthetic familiarity with the implements and activities of life.
This familiarity, supplemented by a rapidly developing ‘tactile-talk,’
produced in toddlers an ability to manage objects and materials safely that
might be dangerous elsewhere. When first sojourning in those southern hamlets, I
was repeatedly aghast to see toddlers barely able to stand upright playing with
fire, wielding knives, and hefting axes—without concern by anyone around. Yet
they did not burn down their grass/bamboo abodes or chop off their toes and
fingers. During all the years I spent within their communities, I never saw
these babies hurt themselves while engaged in this type of independent
exploration.
When tots explored outward, their antennae stayed tuned to the affect, mood,
and musculature of those they left behind, thereby maintaining affective
connection across space. With adults and older children constantly a source of
gratification rather than obstruction, toddlers had no desire to escape from
supervision. Even slight intimations of concern from those behind, such as a
tensing of musculature, was enough to stop a baby in its tracks and cast about
for cues. While mothers in many places feel within themselves the kind of pain
that might be looming for their baby, it’s not so instantly perceived. Faster
than any words of warning could be formed, these New Guinea tots were already
responding. No words necessary. If some subtle ‘all-clear’ cue did not quickly
come, the infant made fast tracks to ‘home base: No reckless plunges onward, no
furtive tricks to escape supervision.
When babies began acquiring verbal speech, their words and sentences floated
out atop a sophisticated body-language already well in place. Even after
acquiring spoken language, tactile-talk continued taking precedence in much of
daily life. It conveyed affect better. It was faster and more direct. Most of
all it touched more deeply and more quickly into the hearts and minds of others.
Tactile-talk was affect-talk. It integrated the spontaneous affect of
individuals, often many at a time. So adept did young children become at this
that they would at times merge actions into wordless synchrony.9
With such rapport surrounding them tots could also safely enter into the
rough-and-tumble play of older children. There were no games with rules, no
formal skills to measure up to. Play was spontaneous, improvised, and
exploratory, so small children were never in the way. Instead, their wide-eyed
enthusiasm was a constant source of pleasure for the older children. The younger
children were always welcome and were handled with intuitive regard and delight.
If some aggravation unwittingly occurred in the course of active play, it
withered quickly within the collective empathy. Negative feelings thus faded
before they had a chance to grow. Full-blown expressions of, for example, anger
or sadness, were therefore very rare. That, too, contributed to the intuitive
rapport that so delighted them.
Up to about seven or eight years of age, boys and girls played together,
disporting in mixed groups in the gardens amid the plantings. Boys continued
garden dalliance until about the age of eight or nine; then their interests
shifted and their hearts turned toward exploring further regions with other
boys. Small gangs went first down one trail, then another, through all the
dispersed hamlet segments to the furthest gardens and beyond. Girls did not like
this moving all about. They preferred the sensual relaxation of garden life,
quiet, tactile play with one another and with smaller children. By 12 to 13
years of age they were merging garden sensuality with cultivation skills so
artfully and seductively that they were attracting older males.10
By their early teens they were often married.
Boys that age continued hunting and exploring out into the forest with
like-minded comrades. Acquiring much of their own food there, they often ate and
slept together in the ‘boys’-houses’ they constructed or took over. During
adolescence, their rapport intensified. A rapid flow of synchronous regard began
uniting them even more closely as they scattered through the forest, each
constantly enlivening the others by a ceaseless, spirited, individualistic input
into a unified at-oneness. The phenomenon was alien to my Western consciousness,
and so beyond the English language that there are no good words for it even in
the Oxford Unabridged. So, when trying to describe that kind of unity in
English, the words bump up against each other as if contradictions—as in
individualistic unified at-oneness, a phrase self-contradictory in English, and
yet another indication of the magnitude of the gap separating these two types of
consciousness. The following event illustrates:
One day, deep within the forest, Agaso, then about 13 years of age, found
himself with a rare good shot at a cuscus in a nearby tree. But he only had
inferior arrows. Without the slightest comment or solicitation, the
straightest, sharpest arrow of the group moved so swiftly and so stealthily
straight into his hand, I could not see from whence it came.
At that same moment, Karako, seeing that the shot would be improved by
pulling on a twig to gently move an obstructing branch, was without a word
already doing so, in perfect synchrony with Agaso’s drawing of the bow, i.e.,
just fast enough to fully clear Agaso’s aim by millimeters at the moment his
bow was fully drawn, just slow enough not to spook the cuscus. Agaso, knowing
this would be the case made no effort to lean to side for an unobstructed
shot, or to even slightly shift his stance. Usumu similarly synchronized into
the action stream, without even watching Agaso draw his bow, began moving up
the tree a fraction of a second before the bowstring twanged.
He grasped the wounded cuscus before it might regain its senses and slipped
out onto a slender branch that whizzed him down to dangle in the air an inch
or so before Agaso’s startled face. The startle had begun its standard
transformation to ecstasy, when Usumu startled him again by provocatively
dropping the quivering cuscus onto his naked foot, as he flicked a tasty
beetle he’d found up in the tree into the pubis of delighted young Koniye (the
youngest of the group). Doubly startled in quick succession, Agaso was
wallowing in an ecstasy, then shared by all, until he abruptly realized that
the cuscus might come back to life and dash off.” Then in a mirthful scramble
they all secured it.
Within that type of spirit they roasted both beetle and cuscus on an open
fire (to which two friends exploring separately added grubs they’d found in a
rotting log). As night came on, one-by-one, they all dropped off to sleep
together, entangled in what can only be described as a contagiously subdued
rapture coalescence. It took many years for me to understand the underpinnings
of this guileless hypersensual interactive unity (another example of the kind
of language awkwardness that arises when speaking of events across eras).
In these isolated southern groups, such rapport by exploring boys was not
restricted to comrades; it radiated out to strangers, too. With heightening
elan, these youthful gangs would radiate into the graces of new faces in the
forest. The following bit of oral history shows how a band of ‘Fore’ boys
seduced even the aversive, warlike Awa,’ a people from an altogether different
setting, way-of-life, and language family.12
I heard variations of this story in many hamlets throughout the Waisarampa
Valley in the 1960s. It tells of the first contact between the
hunting-gathering-gardening southern ‘Fore’ and the instinctively hostile
taro-growing Awa’ from the great grasslands of the upper Lamari Valley. It is
reconstructed here from several accounts:
One day, somewhat before World War II, two bands of youths, one Fore the
other Awa, were ranging out from their widely separated hamlet homes into
the dense uninhabited forest ranges that stood between these different
peoples. It was the first time either group had ventured out so far.
The Awa boys had darted from a side trail out onto a knife-edged
promontory down which they were proceeding above the Lamari River, when they
found themselves between the rear and forward elements of the Fore boys
going out there too. With both front and rear blocked by Fore, and ridge
sides at that point too precipitous to scramble down, they had no place to
turn. They were hemmed in too closely to think of raising bows—or perhaps
they were too young to think of it, or perhaps because they were so young
their funny-bones got tickled, or the situation was so strange they simply
went agog. For whatever reason, the antagonistic Awa nature didn’t surface,
and despite a gaping language barrier amity broke out.
They compared bows and arrows (the Awa had the best), then food (the Fore
sweet potato was an instant hit). They examined each other’s different kinds
of dress and compared physiques.13
When showers threatened, melding diverse building styles, they improvised a
leaf-thatched shelter and spent the night close onto one another in the Fore
sensual style. By morning they were bosom buddies.
At first light, they were up and out along the ridge on a hunt together.
They showed off their different hunting styles, bagged a tree-kangaroo,
cooked and ate it with the remaining sweet potato. When they separated to go
back home, they made a date to meet at the same shelter at next full moon.
The Awa promised to bring arrows to exchange for sweet potatoes.
Following this second meeting, two younger Awa boys, entranced by the
prowess of their stronger new Fore friends, returned to stay with them in
their hamlet for several days. Two Fore boys then went for a sojourn in the
Awa hamlet of Yakia. They took a sack of sweet potatoes to trade for arrows.
In this way the two gangs became good friends and built a boys’-house
near the famous knife-edged ridge to stay in together. Soon that site became
an entrepot for Fore-Awa trade, mainly arrows for sweet potatoes. A larger
house was built to accommodate the flow. The Awa boys picked up Fore words,
and the Fore, ever fond of playing with new expressions, picked up theirs.
Soon all were speaking a Fore-Awa blend.
Later, two Fore sisters married two of the Awa youths and took possession
of the older boys’-house (which then became a women’s-house). The just-built
new boys’-house then became a men’s-and-boys’-house (by virtue of the
marriages). With wives in residence, more gardens rapidly appeared. A sister
of an Awa boy married his closest Fore comrade. So another women’s-house was
built, which she occupied with her unmarried Awa girl-friend (the
13-year-old sister of one of the original Awa boys). She soon married one of
the Fore boys.
In this way the first mixed Fore-Awa hamlet in the region came into
being. As more cross-marriages occurred, a genetic merging of those Awa and
Fore began. More mixed hamlets came into being—on both sides of the Lamari.
When the government arrived, they called those on the east side of the
river, Awa,’ those on the west side,’Fore’.
This account shows how the sensual verve and spirited amiability of
exploratory Fore boys could unite quite different peoples. From an
accidental meeting began a merging of ‘Awa’ with ‘Fore’ that was later
clearly seen in blood-gene distributions. The event demonstrates how the
Fore huntergatherer-gardeners made friends, how they segmented and
recombined, and how dialect chains emerged between different language
families.
Moving Between Binary Oppositionals
I've introduced liminality, now, so
maybe it's time to build a bridge of symbolic connections from
Pi (tag
line "faith in chaos) to the language of liminality, which was what primarily
inspired me to study symbolic anthropology, an aspect of the field that made an
important contribution to the post structuralist studies (post modernist is
another descriptor, since modernism, which led to the liberal thought of the
U.S. Founders, was derived from an epistimology with its foundations in
Cartesian duality) that followed the Twentieth Century works of such well known
figures as
Claude Levi Strauss.
Strauss is a signature figure in
cultural anthropology, who brought to bear on the study of culture the
analytical power of the binary opposition, which is perhaps the heart and soul
of the structuralist's tool kit. In his well known tome, the Raw and the Cooked,
he brought his now famous two by two matrix, a binary opposition technique, to
the study of such ethnographically recorded behaviors as exotic people's
culinary practices. In doing so, he revealed possibilities of meaning
theretofore unimagined by this daily and necessary human function of eating,
that led to all sorts of ways of making sense of nearly a century of
anthropologist gathered ethnographic data. So while he did go into the field to
do ethnographic research of his own early on, for the most part his re-analysis
of the research of others was the technique he used to develop his structuralist
theories, and how he managed to transform the whole of anthropological thought
into a new theoretical paradigm, much as Einstein transformed physics.
Then Victor Turner came along and went
beyond, into the unknown and the irrational, and did an astounding exploration
into the realm of Pi, as I would suggest, and why I began with looking at the
movie. When I'm looking at what appear to be meanings from a field of binary
oppositions, I'm doing so with my explorations into what Turner coined "anti
structure" to go with Van Gennep's liminality in mind, and aided by readings
into the exploratory works of Victor Turner:
Turner sought to gaze upon interstices which 'provide homes for
anti-structural visions, thoughts and ultimately behaviours' (1974:293). That
such times and spaces are regarded as necessary sources of resolution, is the
crux of Turner's perspective. Meta-explorations beyond, beneath and between
the fixed, the finished and the predictable, his later work consists of an
extensive journey into such times and spaces, pregnant margins, the cracks of
society, necessary thresholds of dissolution and indeterminacy through which
socio-cultural order is said to be (re)constituted. And, through observation
of culture unkempt and unclothed, in its drunken, ludic and inchoate moments,
one may obtain a clear apprehension of the ordered world.
His project is founded upon a sense that society is in-composition,
open-ended, forever becoming, and that its (re)production is dependent upon
the periodic appearance, in the history of societies and in the lives of
individuals, of organised moments of categorical disarray and intense
reflexive potential. This is most powerfully articulated as liminality, a
concept which has sparked the imagination of cultural observers attempting to
apply meaning to a phalanx of public time-space zones demarcated from routine
life, yet harbouring unquantifiable social possibilities. It is in such zones
of experience - the 'realm of pure possibility' (Turner 1967a:97) - where the
familiar may be stripped of its certitude and conventional economics and
politics transcended. They are occasions where people, often strangers to one
another, may achieve an ineffable affinity, where sacred truths are imparted
and/or social alternatives explored.
(From: Alternative
Cultural Heterotopia: ConFest as Australia's Marginal Centre - by Dr. Graham
St. John)
Turner's "anti structure" is not so
much a conceptual opposite to structure -- as for instance raw might be to
cooked; for him anti structure was the field, and structure was the map through
the field that set up the boundaries that defined people's lives in which the
dramas of their lives took place. Hence the title of one of his books:
Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action
in Human Society. When I
discovered Victor Turner's work upon stumbling upon this book in my
anthropological studies in college, it fit into an obsession that began shortly
after I returned from 'Nam, around 1970, after my big "Rite of Passage" (a
concept which is an important focus in Turner's work) and continues to now. Much
of the work in the intellectual work in various fields during the late 70s, 80s
and 90s reflects this what I found embedded in Turner's thought -- and I'd argue
that it's certainly seeded into post modernism and semiotics -- and it came out
most creatively in a number of different fields, including the cognitive
sciences. Intellectually this
was a very creative period, a breaking down of the certainties that one finds in
the scholarship of structuralism which made up the bulk of the field I found
most fascinating at the time -- anthropology --as exploratory thinkers moved
into the realms of liminal thought, where that thought is characterized by
ambiguity, openness, and indeterminacy. This is the stage in a traditional rite
of passage where a sense of identity dissolves -- at least to some extent --
bringing about a sense of disorientation. This is a period of transition, maybe
even transcendence, where self definitions and their inherent conceptual limits,
and related limits on behavior are relaxed, and opens the mind to the
possibilities of new perspectives.
So, then, another term for liminal that
Turner uses in his work is anti structure. If we see that society is made up of
codified rules, or norms of behaviors, those are in essence the features we
recognize as structures of society. For most within a society, these are
considered "common sense" ways to behave. Most of them go unquestioned for the
most part, until something "odd" comes to attention. Anti structure would be
behavior outside those norms. Some may be defined as "pathological" by a
society, like, perhaps, killing another human being. Some may be behaviors that
don't have such clearly definable contours, but as a whole, people tend to know
what "odd" is when they see it. People who are put in a category like "insane"
for instance, may be doing nothing to violate another's socially defined rights,
they just may not be acting according to the accepted norms. Here are the lines
worth revisiting in regards to what I'm trying to describe, from the above quote
from St. John's PhD dissertation:
Meta-explorations beyond, beneath
and between the fixed, the finished and the predictable, his (edit: Turner's)
later work consists of an extensive journey into such times and spaces,
pregnant margins, the cracks of society, necessary thresholds of dissolution
and indeterminacy through which socio-cultural order is said to be (re)constituted.
And, through observation of culture unkempt and unclothed, in its drunken,
ludic and inchoate moments, one may obtain a clear apprehension of the ordered
world.
As you might see, this intellectual
tool quickly lends itself to a task of theoretical analysis of society. That is,
it does so once we grasp the notion of relating the abstractions of ideas
involved in norms of behavior to structure/antistructure (also the word
liminality, or the idea of irrational numbers that refuse to behave strictly
according to mathematical code and be neatly defined and contained like a
rational number). With this tool we can move thought to another abstract plane,
and from there it then becomes attractive for some of us to begin theorizing
about the macro possibilities of how any given society could or should work.
In order to try to develop this thought
a bit more, I'm going to introduce the model of a process I've already mentioned
-- the rite of passage. Rites of passage fascinated me when I first encountered
it because it provided me with a conceptual form that enabled me to objectively
conceptualize one of my most life changing experiences, and thereby put it in a
perspective that helped me make sense of a lot of things I found myself deeply
troubled about after I'd returned home from being in the military. I mentioned
the Dutch anthropologist
Arnold van Gennep earlier, he is
credited with being the first to formally define the distinctive structure of a
rite of passage at the turn of the
Twentieth Century. I want to
work on putting something together that's not just one of my stream of
consciousness hodge podges, but that might offer me a way of opening up and
sharing more about what I see in this core thought about binary oppositions, and
hopefully to thereby give it some form to help make sense of these notions of
structure, and antistructure -- or liminality -- that I've introduced. Other
words for the concept of structure, by the way, would be terms like "metaphor"
or "symbol" and thus we have the connection to how structuralism is also a
powerful intellectual tool used in understanding literature -- and in fact all
the arts. Recall that I alluded to that idea earlier with some quotes about the
importance of understanding binary oppositions in the analysis of text.
Here's a very brief description of
Gennep's notion of the rite of passage:
According to van Gennep, rites of passage have three phases: separation,
liminality, and incorporation. In the first phase, people withdraw from the
group and begin moving from one place or status to another. In the third
phase, they reenter society, having completed the rite. The liminal phase is
the period between states, during which people have left one place or state
but haven't yet entered or joined the next. It is a state of limbo.
And so to connect this with the forms I
was seeing at the beginning of this essay when I constructed those lines I
called
Gerbil Pi:
(Pi the
Textual analysis)
Pi stands as the unbridgeable gap between the purity of the mathematical
perfect circle and all physical circles. To know Pi in 100% precision (Which
math proved is impossible since there is always a next number to the
fraction), is impossible since it will bridge math and reality. But this is
impossible since reality is not pure, not black and white but in shades of
gray. Everything in reality is a matter of degree…
.............

...Our mathematician is intrigued, he walks to the object and observes it’s a
sea shell.. He picks it up and observes it carefully as he turns it with both
his hands – He observes the spiral pattern, the same pattern he tries to
impose on nature throughout the movie… One scene later he picks up a piece of
computer board he crushed into the floor in a moment of crisis. He treats the
board as the shell… This is the focal point of the story, it has double
meaning. The computer board contains chips, units of integrated circuits that
operates with Binary Logic (i.e. 0’s and 1’s). The shell symbolize nature, it
was created in a natural process and shows a pattern that our Archimedes tries
to break into code. This is the essence of the story right here – Break nature
code with binary computation. As we’ll later show, and as we see in the movie
– this will end in an inevitable crash. Nature simple does not obey the law of
Aristotelian logic. Attempt to reduce nature, life, you name it to a code, a
mathematical formula, is doomed to fail. Science must admit this before any
significant achievement in AI can happen. Max sees the simplicity of the
circle and tries to reduce chaos back to it, but the circle is not simple in
the first place, it is fuzzy…
This is really fascinating symbolic
mental play land, for me at least, and I want to introduce something that all
societies seem to share, and that's formal rituals that flirt with the
categories that make for the definitions of normalcy, abnormalcy and pathology.
This particular description of this ritual offers a fairly well elucidated
description of the structural elements of this rite of passage type of ritual
for those not familiar with it, and with that, an interesting formal discussion
of it's meaning. Being a
graduated Shellback myself, having crossed the equator twice, I've been on both
sides of the ritual, so this particular ritual has very real and personal
meaning, but, more so, it's also one of the better descriptions I've run across
of a kind of rite of passage we do practice in Western societies, for some, a
geniune "crossing the line" ritual -- in this the equator -- and a four hundred
year old maritime ritual for recognizing that fairly abstract human culturally
developed knowledge that would go into knowing that there is an equator to
cross. Notice in particular in
the article, references to "ritual inversion" practices, where the normally
homophobic sailors do ritual transvestitist practices, among other symbolic
gestures. Another is "the Pollywogs' Revenge" which takes place the day before
crossing the equator. In the literature of symbolic ritual action, this
represents the moving into the liminal, the chaotic, the realm of "dangerously
undefined" and also the important region of creativity where artists and others
(various types of shamanic persons, priests, scientist) draw from. In the
literature this is considered something societies recognize as necessary in
order to recognize the importance of divesting oneself of one identity/form (a
pollywog in this instance) to become another (a shellback -- shellback is a word
for turtle).
The following is from the
Introduction in the article: Crossing
the line: sex, power, justice, and the U.S. Navy at the equator (military
rituals) in the Journal: Duke Journal of
Gender Law & Policy, 22-June-2002:
I. INTRODUCTION
When my father came home from a seven-month Gulf War cruise in 1991, he told
me about his participation in a bizarre ceremony when his ship crossed the
equator. He talked of men receiving unusual haircuts, being paddled and
insulted, being smeared with garbage and old food, and, most curiously, of a
number of the men on the ship dressing up as women for a beauty pageant. He
showed me photographs of men covered from head to toe in filth and being
beaten with pieces of fire hose, and other pictures of men flashing massive
false breasts to a crowd. As intrigued as I was, I was not surprised at the
content of the ceremony. Having grown up a Navy brat, living near or in
large Navy communities my entire life, I had grown used to the antics of
Naval personnel. I had no problem picturing many of the Navy sailors and
officers whom I knew participating in and laughing at the abuse and
delighting in the garbage. And despite, or perhaps because of, many of the
men's beliefs that women and homosexuals had no place in the Navy, I was not
at all surprised at their amusement and willingness to participate in the
transvestite pageant. Inexplicably, it just seemed to fit.
Yet, considering the accusations of homophobia, sexism, and sexual
harassment that have arisen over the past twenty years, how and why would
these same men would willingly submit to being spanked and straddled by
other men? What was so important about this ceremony that would make sailors
shave their legs and don false breasts and teddies? More importantly, why
did I automatically interpret these actions as being normal for this group
of people?
The Navy's resistance to women in its ranks is second only to its resistance
to homosexuals. Until 1991, women were denied the opportunity to fly fighter
jets in the Navy, and only within the past few decades have women been able
to sail on ships previously staffed only by men. (1) Where other militaries
have found ways to accommodate women and homosexuals in their ranks, it has
been a slow and violent process in the U.S. (2) There seems to be no strong
logical argument behind the extreme reluctance of the Navy to permit women
equal rights, or to permit homosexuals any rights at all. (3) As one gay
comedian stated in response to military concerns over the ability of gays to
serve, "... what does the military think? That the gays are so sexual that
they can't be trusted? What? In the heat of battle they're going to want to
have sex with the enemy? `I couldn't shoot him, captain--he was gorgeous!' I
don't think so." (4)
In examining the Crossing the Line (or "Shellback") ceremony, it becomes
more apparent how intimately these issues are interwoven in the ritual.
Through ritual play, ideas about gender, sexuality, and power are acted out.
Although this is only one ritual, and one that not all Navy personnel
participate in, it does offer one view into how political issues in the Navy
are played out and resolved.
A. The Great Fraternal Order of the Raging Main
The Navy ceremony of "Crossing the Line" is a tradition which originated
over four hundred years ago, and which continues in strong form today. (5)
It is a vivid and unexpectedly sanctioned Naval event in which the
uninitiated Naval personnel who have never crossed the equator pass through
a series of tests which induct them into the realm of the initiated. It is a
brutal and sometimes dangerous transformation. Members are beaten, yelled
at, covered in garbage and filth, and made to perform denigrating tasks. Yet
the ceremony not only continues, but is fiercely defended by many of its
participants, including all the Navy members whom I interviewed.
What is so fascinating about the ritual is the power that it wields. This
power comes in several forms. Internally, the drama of the ceremony aids in
the manifestation and affirmation of deeply rooted beliefs about gender
roles, sex and domination. The drama itself contains much power, as the
brutality, beatings and humiliation are not only permitted, but encouraged
as tools of transformation. Finally, the ceremony itself is of such
importance that men in the stringently hierarchical Navy would deliberately
disobey orders in order to ensure its continuance. (6)
The ceremony is complex and varied enough to be considered a ritual. There
are two groups of participants, the initiated and the uninitiated. The two
groups are distinctly characterized, placed in opposition to demonstrate the
difference between the undesirable qualities of the uninitiated and the
desired qualities of the initiated. The uninitiated are physically and
psychologically tested by the initiates until they are proven acceptable.
Throughout the ritual, the initiated take the male position and the
uninitiated take the female position. As uninitiated become initiated, they
assume a masculine identity that is defined in relation to the feminine
characters which they just portrayed. At the end, all participants embody
the particular positive, male qualities of the initiated and become members
of the "Great Fraternal Order of the Raging Main," under the great leader,
King Neptune.
B. The Players
The two groups of participants in the ceremony are the "shellbacks," who
have been initiated into the Great Fraternal Order of the Raging Main, and
the "pollywogs," who are uninitiated. The uninitiated name can be spelled
either "pollywog" or "polliwog," or shortened to "wog." All three names are
used interchangeably in the ceremony and in this text. The image associated
with shellbacks is that of a turtle, while the meaning of pollywog is that
of an infant frog, before metamorphosis.
Women's roles, both as characters and as participants, are important in the
ritual. As characters, they work in the ceremony to illustrate ideas about
women's social positioning in relation to each other and to men. As
participants, women break the previous all-male discussion of gender. In
this sense, a comparison of the ritual with and without the presence of
women is revealing of how the men in the ceremony understand gender, and how
they are forced to change that understanding when women are present.
As more women are introduced to this ritual, the meaning and form of the
ceremony continue to change. The U.S. Navy is a male-dominated organization,
and, until recently, women were not permitted to serve on ships or
submarines. The first exceptions to this ruling were small ships called
"tenders," which tended the needs of larger ships such as battleships or
carriers. These ships are responsible for repairing and supplying the larger
ships or submarines. Three cruise books of one of these ships, the USS
Samuel Gompers, were reviewed and compared to other, entirely male-staffed
ships and the differences and similarities are discussed later in this note.
(7) Because of the rarity of female-staffed ships, however, the ritual is
reviewed and analyzed in the context of an all-male setting. Historical and
contemporary issues of women's participation in this ritual will be
addressed, but until recently they have played a minor role in this
ceremony. As the dynamics of the Navy change, with more and more women
serving on larger ships as seamen, officers and pilots, the ceremony will no
doubt change with it.
C. Organization
Part II of this note establishes the background of the crossing the equator
ceremony. It will discuss the origins, development, and meaning of the
European ritual as it grew over four centuries. Part III will examine the
current day ritual, outlining the passage of the pollywogs from days before
the crossing until they receive their shellback certificates. Part IV will
follow the pollywog through the ritual process. The life, death and rebirth
of the pollywogs as shellbacks will be discussed within the ritual, along
with the impact this transition has on the participants' understanding of
relations of gender and sexuality. Parts V and VI will delve more deeply
into these relations, with the former examining the ritual's understanding
of women and of male/female relationships, and the latter examining the
ritual's understanding of homosexuality and of heterosexual/homosexual
relationships. Part VII will view the ritual in its entirety, and will
examine masculine identity in the ritual and in the Navy.
Much of the contestation over women and gays in the military stems from the
understandings of gender and sex that exist in the military today and that
are expressed through the ceremony. This note attempts to examine how ideas
of gender, sexuality, hierarchy and power are played out in the ceremony,
and to explore how these ideas impact the development of military legal
policy.
II. THE HISTORY OF "CROSSING THE LINE"
The first documented ceremonies at the equator were found in accounts of
journeys of French ships in the early sixteenth century. The expansion of
trade routes and the funding of exploration of foreign lands at that time
allowed European vessels to regularly cross the equator. Regular crossings
of the equator, a location marked as "0" degrees latitude and conceptualized
as the dividing line between north and south, set the stage for the
development of a rite of passage. (8) Shortly after a regular route across
the equator was established, various accounts of ceremonies at the line
began appearing. (9) These early ceremonies were comprised chiefly of two
parts: a religious ceremony of thanksgiving for having passed a certain
point, and an initiation (baptism) symbolizing the passing from one stage to
the next. (10) By the mid-sixteenth century, sailors had begun to regard it
as an ancient right that they baptize those who had not been over the
equator before, and they did so by blacking themselves and dressing up in
costumes. (11) The equator initiation ceremony soon spread to other European
ships and quickly became more complex in form.
To the Europeans of this era, crossing the equator literally inverted their
world. The equatorial line was present on world maps before the time of the
first accounts of the ceremony, and there were many superstitions about the
world and people below the line. It is especially interesting to note that a
popular belief at the time was that "anyone of another race who crossed the
equator would become a Negro." (12) Hints of this belief can be seen in the
use of black-faced police characters who controlled the movements of the
uninitiated, in the placing of "Negroes" in positions of power, and in the
application of shaving substances so that the man's face was half white and
half black. (13) This clearly illustrates the position of the man on the
line of inversion.
Although the ritual's purposes are difficult to ascertain because of lack of
first-hand information, one can picture the ritual as a testing of new or
young shipmates. The crew had only each other to rely on for months at a
time. Thus it became absolutely necessary to be able to depend on one's
shipmates. The ritual could therefore be viewed as not only the testing of
inexperienced shipmates, but also as the remaking of the crewmember in the
ship's image. The uninitiated (greenhorns) were literally and figuratively
put on trial - literally in the ceremony with a mock trial, and figuratively
because the ritual tried the strength and character of the inexperienced.
The greenhorn then effectively gave his body over to the initiated to be
recreated. Different ceremony characters performed numerous invasive
"operations" to heal and "clean" the greenhorn, and to bring the greenhorn
back to a newborn state: shaven and covered in blood. Afterwards, the
greenhorn was baptized and was given a new name or a password. Thus, the
ritual produced a man who had stood trial, passed the tests, and emerged as
a new man and as part of the brotherhood of the crew.
Although the first accounts described a fairly simple ceremony, usually
involving dunking new crew members and feasting afterward, the British, and
later American, Crossing the Line rituals developed into complex rituals. As
the social context changed, so did the shape of the ritual, and so did its
meaning.
III. PIECING THE RITUAL TOGETHER
The most striking thing about the Crossing the Equator ceremony, as it has
been performed over the past 30 years, is a fluidity of style around a
distinctive infrastructure. When piecing together the ritual today, it is
difficult to find one format that all ceremonies follow exactly. Traces of
the historical rituals appear in much of the current ritual, but they have
metamorphosed into a form which is meaningful to the contemporary
participants.
A. Setting Up the Crossing
For several days or even weeks before the ceremony, menacing cartoons and
flyers are posted around the ship by shellbacks. Some of the flyers are
targeted at specific people (usually chiefs or officers), but many address
pollywogs in general. (14) Shellbacks assail pollywogs with threats and
stories of past horrors, attempting to create a feeling of dread for the
next day's proceedings.
The day before the ceremony is marked by two major events: Davy Jones' visit
and the wog queen ceremony. Davy Jones is a character whose origins are
unclear, but who in the eighteenth century was believed to be an evil spirit
of the sea. His first name is thought to be a corruption of "duffy" or "duppy,"
West Indian words for devil, and his last name is thought to be derived from
the biblical character Jonah, who was swallowed alive by a whale and who
symbolizes death and misfortune. (15) "Davy Jones Locker" is a sailor's term
for the depths of the sea--a repository for drowned sailors. (16) In this
situation, he works under orders from King Neptune and delivers
announcements which are necessary in setting up the ritual.
In a small ceremony, Davy Jones (a disguised shellback) "arrives" on the
ship to warn the captain "that he [is] trespassing into the Royal Domain"
with slimy pollywogs aboard. (17) Accompanied by a small entourage, Davy
reads a formal message from Neptune regarding his impending visit and then
outlines what must be done to prepare for it. On behalf of King Neptune, he
outlines special watches and dress codes for both shellbacks and pollywogs.
The watches are absurd creations such as Coriolis Swirl watch, Bow watch, or
Chief of the Smoke watch, the purpose of which was to "make sure that the
ship does not make smoke in excessive quantities which might offend King
Neptune." (18) There are always, of course, special lookout watches for the
"Line." The men on duty for these watches must wear bizarre outfits and are
often equipped with silly instruments, such as binoculars made of two rolls
of toilet paper, and have to follow strict rules of conduct.
The subpoenas that were delivered to the pollywogs are also farcical in
nature. Filled with ridiculous accusations and insults, they are often
printed as formal certificates. Any sailor who does not have a shellback
card receives a subpoena, regardless of rank. The following are sample
pollywog subpoenas from the USS America crossing in 1968 and the USS
Bainbridge crossing in 1980:
In the highest court of the raging main, the domain of Imperium Neptuni
Regis sends greetings to all slimy pollywogs. You are commanded to appear
before the royal court on April 24, 1968. A complaint has been filed with
the government of the domain of Imperium Neptuni Regis, state of the Raging
Main, against you. You are charged with the heinous crimes of brown baggery,
mopery, doping off, chit requesting, apple polishing, sympathy seeking, gun
decking, procrastination, gold bricking, liberty hounding, and reveille
neglecting. You have conspired to enter the royal domain without visa,
passport, or proper authority. Davy Jones, Royal Scribe. (19) Here ye, here
ye! It has been brought to his royal highness, Neptunus Rex, through his
trusty shellbacks, that certain of ye boxcar tourists and park bench
sitters, hay makers and other landlubbers attached to the good ship and soon
to enter my domain, are treating his royal highness with contempt, and are
committing acts of insurrection and sedition. Know ye, and take dire notice
accordingly that such words and such acts meet with his royal majesty's
profound displeasure and will be punished by eternal pickling or such other
torment as this royal highness may deem appropriate. The beginnings ... a
message from the royal scribe, Davy Jones. (20)
Each shellback, to prove that he is truly a shellback, and not a pollywog in
disguise, must present his shellback card, which is received, with a
certificate, at the end of the ceremony. In several unfortunate cases, a
shellback has lost or forgotten his shellback card, and so must go through
the ceremony all over again.
Before, during and after Davy Jones' visit, harassment of pollywogs
continues in many forms. Pollywogs are often dressed as dogs, with eyes and
noses blackened, leashes and dog collars attached, and signs worn which
attest to their status. There is even a "wog dog auction" to raise money for
events or causes. Shellbacks may purchase or select wog dogs and order them
to crawl on hands and knees, bark, and attack or hump other wog dogs. (21)
One account describes it as such:
[W]e always had--we called them wog dogs. When you're a shellback you can
pick one or two wogs as your personal wogs; you put them on a leash and run
them around the ship. And I had this guy.... I often had him screwing or
getting screwed by other wogs.... (22)
Other wogs can be seen in photographs as sweeping or cleaning the ship while
tied to a leash, or shining the shoes of a shellback. (23) There are also
accounts of pollywogs receiving unfortunate haircuts, pollywogs being
painted like "Indians on the warpath," and groups of pollywogs being made to
sing songs or recite prayers. Certain pollywogs are given strange tasks such
as aboard the USS Cutlass, a U.S. submarine:
During all this, three pollywogs were disturbing the peace, on orders. One
of them ran through the boat carrying a beer tray and an ash tray and
yelling 'I'm a trash can,' another following close behind with a bell and
announcing that he was a fire engine; while the third paraded with an
inflated `safety,' yelling at the top of his lungs, `I'm a prophylactic!'
(24)
In many accounts, shellbacks stand by, armed with paddles or pieces of fire
hose, to punish pollywogs who do not do exactly as they are told. If hungry,
the wogs are allowed to eat food off the deck or are served supper in a
trough from which they must eat without silverware and often without hands.
The latter tactic is also used for wog breakfasts on the day of the
ceremony.
A "pollywog prayer" was mentioned in several cruise books and sources as a
plea to God (or King Neptune) for support during the upcoming initiation
ceremony. Oftentimes, pollywogs are forced to memorize the prayer and to
recite it early in the morning of the day of the ceremony. Some appeal to
King Neptune for forgiveness:
Oh King Neptune. As we lowly pollywogs gather this morning we pray that
today you will have mercy upon our poor souls and very weak bodies and
minds. Please, Oh King, forgive us our many trespasses as we forgive
shellbacks who trespass against us. Guide us through the night and keep us
from going into passageways and by-paths of the unknown. Please, Oh, King,
forgive us our landlubberly sins and we shall follow you and your loyal
subjects. (25)
Still others are written in response to the shellbacks' threats, and appeal
to the Christian God, who is presumably not a shellback.
Our Father, who is not a shellback, please look over us "wogs" through this
upcoming humiliation and torturous initiation. Forgive the shellbacks, our
Father, for they know well what they are about to do. As we enter the land
of Neptunus Rex, may your "anti-shellback presence" be with us and guide us
with dignity to endure the tortures of flogging, volleys of garbage and
pools of foul seaweed. Let us fear no shellback, knowing you truly rule the
equator. (26) Great God in heaven, you are our life, our strength, and our
joy--an ever-present helper and defender. Look with loving mercy upon this
ship. Guide us into a better knowledge of your will and of the beauty of
your holiness. May your servants of this great navy, and especially upon
this ship, make choices of spiritual integrity and show forth the spirit of
him who gave himself for the world, Jesus Christ, your son, amen. Oh, and
one more thing, Lord: hold back your wrath from the despicable shellbacks
and have pity on their sad estate. With their lice-infested bodies,
perverted and fermented minds, their unintelligible language, repulsive
habits and otherwise rebellious spirit, they are indeed at the nadir of
life, yeah in its darkest shadows. Forsake not the selfish shellback, but
have mercy on them for they know not what they do. (27)
The latter two examples are also part of the "pollywog uprising," a part of
the ceremony which is found in numerous instances.
B. The Pollywogs' Revenge
The "pollywog uprising" is a sometimes-successful attempt by the pollywogs
temporarily to refute the authority of the shellbacks. If successful, the
pollywogs capture hapless shellbacks for a short period of time and perform
the same initiation procedures as will be performed the next day by the
shellbacks. Sometimes the uprising is merely a subversive tactic, such as a
pollywog chef serving old pork disguised as breaded veal to shellbacks while
reserving the veal for the pollywogs. (28) Other times it is much more
violent, involving the capture and humiliation of shellbacks. Shellbacks are
sentenced to
... dance ring around the rosy; [are] lashed to the rail and wet down;
dance, sing and tell sea stories; run a paddle-wheel gauntlet and be dumped
into a pool; be lashed to the deck or to stretchers; be given an egg
shampoo; give an exhibition of trucking; furnish sandwiches to the pollywog
court. (29)
Still other attempts aim at undermining the shellbacks' plans for the next
day by putting pepper into vents leading into shellbacks' quarters or by
trying to destroy initiation equipment. (30) A fairly universal trait of the
uprising is the creation of and attempted flying of the pollywog flag. There
are also poems and songs written by pollywogs that threaten King Neptune and
declare the supremacy of pollywogs. (31) The uprising is ultimately futile
because it never succeeds in overturning the next day's events, but it is
nearly always attempted. Regardless of the measure of its success in being
carried out (sometimes shellback spies discover the uprising plans and stop
them before their fruition), whoever is discovered to be directly involved
in the operation is given twice the harassment the next day.
C. Wog Queen Pageant
Another event that is crucial to the ceremony and which often occurs the day
before the crossing of the equator is the "wog queen pageant." It is
ordained by Davy Jones that the best looking pollywog shall be crowned "wog
queen" and may sit on King Neptune's court--the only wog with that
privilege. In this pageant, a group of pollywogs, usually consisting of a
pollywog from each department, is selected to participate in a fashion and
talent show for the shellbacks. These male pollywogs dress as women and
perform seductive or funny dances, songs or acts. (32) The wog who is
crowned queen is the one who most convincingly portrays a woman. Photographs
of these men show a range of portrayals, wearing everything from see-through
lingerie with long blond wigs and spike heels to classy dresses and
sophisticated wig styles to short skirts and ridiculously massive plastic
breasts. (33) Almost all of the men wear large fake breasts, makeup and high
heels. An interesting twist that occurs on some ships staffed with
significant numbers of women is dual cross-dressing, where men and women are
paired up and must dress in clothes of the other sex. Davy Jones' orders in
this case are quoted in a cruise book:
`For you must...
To summarize: the set of concepts I have been pulling together in this
section are an attempt to illustrate the core rational duality cognitive
operation of creating a that/not that concept, like a binary opposition, is not
so simple a mental movement as some might be led to believe simply because it
appears so basic and clear. Perhaps this may seem a little more understandable
when we recognize that these little computers we use in our homes are capable of
such amazing processes, but all which occurs in what appears to be an
inaccessible magic box -- especially to many who are in no way technically
literate about such things.
What I wanted to try to bring out was how this is also embedded in the very
fabric of our very complex culture, and is observable in aspects of our daily
lives, once the tools for looking at how we conceptualize can be recognized.
What I hoped to illustrate that by understanding it's fundamental place in
Western society, that awareness can lead to, well, pretty much anywhere the
rational/irrational thoughts can go, including the complicated process of how we
codify and sanctify like the actions of those who can go off to do killing for
us. We can see, perhaps, why such nonsensical behaviors as the rituals we put
ourselves through also have a form that is intended to transform our thoughts
about what we can and can't do. Thus the act of killing is "sanctified" by
rituals that also use form "transform" the actors in the rituals of passage that
usually begins a training, like a "boot camp," so that they can be "sanctioned"
to keep the order we "value" in our socially constructed world, by doing acts
none of us are normally legally sanctioned to do. It's part and parcel of any
"suggestion" to "look and see what thought is doing" that spiritual thinkers
like Jiddu Krishnamurti as anyone interested to do.
|