Perceiving complexity (part 10)

Part of the series Perceiving complexity

Perceiving complexity (part 9)

In the previous part of this series I wrote about how a man may begin to get some idea how the feminine raw reality perspective makes sense it its own unexpected way, like in Aldoqchi qiz of Botir Xon, in which the man discovers the mental “back side” with all its multidimensional possibilities of thinking. He is not so all over the place and messed up like the man in the booking office in Habeit Ya Leil of Nawal El Zoghbi or Ammy Virk in Haan Kargi. He still follows classical masculine patterns, by chasing pre-existing plateaus of stable meaning, but he begins to get the idea of noticing utterly unexpected points of view.

Now let me write about what may happen if he does not assume the psychological responsibilities incumbent in this way of seeing things. The situation can turn, for example, in something like in Natasha qalay of the Uzbek singer Odilbek Abdullayev, in which the same actor from the previous Aldoqchi qiz immerses in a debauchery of manipulative practices once he got the idea of thinking beyond classical masculine pre-existing plateaus of stable meaning.

The reason he ends up badly in this case is because he has no pertinent organization in his mind anymore to create a “meaningful world” adequate to the situation when he annoyed the strong man. At a first glance, you would think he would have much more success than in Aldoqchi qiz if he does not give a damn anymore about pre-existing plateaus and manipulates perceptions as he pleases. But here comes to the fore the fact that the human sense of meaning is not really a “hard” meaning, but it is based on a personal input of being in control of the situation. When he is cheating the system, the man in the video perceives the social structure as made of “hard” meaning that he can just manipulate with his backside multidimensional view. He thinks the others have a static mindset as he was thinking himself as a man having this mindset.

His thinking process is like the decision process of the authorities in this Japanese municipality, who closed a baseball field because of the coronavirus situation. The field is indeed empty, but then the man filming shows the bigger picture, that field is part of a bigger park and if you look a bit on the sideline, you can see lots of people crammed in a small place nearby. This kind of decision making process is the classical masculine thinking based on the sense of being in control of the situation and following with your thoughts only those aspects that entered in your awareness as part of your mental realm in which you are in control of the situation.

While this can function as a direct patchy organization (and the humans tend to be used to it, this is all they know, they don’t have yet other viable alternatives), it is not a good idea to use it to cheat the system with that raw reality perspective. If you do this by following only threads of thought as if you are organizing your life in a classical masculine manner, you will learn the hard way that there is a bigger picture in life you didn’t even dream of as a man. If you are using this perspective and you go beyond the local social structure created and improved by men across generations with “rooster’s crowings”, then you need to pay attention to the complexity of the situation.

That was about the fact that the man was not paying attention to the bigger picture of his actions. The other problem was when he was facing the annoyed strong man. He just became blocked mentally in that moment. In such a situation it appears more obvious that the men, while they officially believe in a spider web of mental structures in their mind that they developed in time as control of the situation, in real life, at a rather sub-cognitive level, if the consistency of that spider web is challenged, they do not really believe literally in it. They are very disposed to go to the other side of the Moon to defend “creatively” their control of the situation.

The creative part in this defense is based on the fact that the spider web in their mind is taken as a representation of the world, while in fact it just follows some simplistic threads of thought based on projecting control of the situation. This while they have some idea about the bigger picture, but they do not have much respect for it, it is about the classical human gender relations, about dominating that bigger picture (while the woman has the responsibilities to make some sense of it in order to create a psychological landscape of that bigger picture that the man can dominate).

In the previous case of that decision of the Japanese municipality to close only that baseball field, if the incompetence came to the fore, the authorities may have the psychological liberty to come with all kind of excuses by focusing on upholding the initial control of the situation and manipulating as they please the rest of the bigger picture. They will continue to focus on the broad idea of the representation of the bigger picture without much practical interest in what is that bigger picture about, while seeking some simplistic mental threads as expressing the control of the situation in that bigger picture.

If their initial decision comes under pressure of accusations of incompetence, it can thus morph on the other side of the Moon into a new representation of the situation in which, for example, they divert the attention to other decisions they made in order to create the image that they still took the bigger picture in consideration as control of the situation (it’s the overall feeling of control of the situation that matters, not that specific decision to close only the field). Or they will find a way to transfer the onus of the fault to the people, or they will create a mental image in which that decision is still good by being able to create a new “meaningful world” even when someone brought to attention its incompleteness. Or they will abandon the fact that in the past they made that decision, while still projecting the control of the situation by scapegoating someone from the lower echelons of that administration, by finding a way to cast that decision as his.

This is about the general lines I notice the masculine thinking tends to follow worldwide. There are also particular cultural nuances, for example, in this case, if you are some accepted authority in the Japanese society (not necessarily state authority, but an authority accepted by the society at the psychological level), if you bring the problem to light, they may apologize profusely. If you are not established as someone with authority, they tend to get snobbish and apply the previously mentioned manipulations. They even treat such manipulations as a self-respecting duty in confronting the chaos you bring with your unexpected point of view. Who the heck are you to tell me this? You are just a piece of chaos.

There is a way to talk empathetically with them and avoid highlighting the fact that they were not in control of the situation and focus on the practicality of the situation. You can get from some of them an empathetic ear for that, but others may be hardline snobs from previous challenges to their control of the situation and/or from the environment they grew up in.

In general, in all cultures, I see this dichotomy in paying some sort of attention to established authority (with a variety of specific nuances, the previously mentioned Japanese one is just one of them) and treating the unexpected point of view as a dangerous piece of chaos while giving free reign to self-serving manipulations, if it came from a source with no established authority. The concept of authority is about projecting credible control of the situation in facing the complexity of the real life. In itself, it is not something immuable, people can gain more or see it diminished. Obviously, this approach is not necessarily good, I am mentioning it to draw attention to its problems.

And this projection of authority is the issue the actor from Natasha qalay discovered when he faced the annoyed strong man. In that moment he found how the masculine fluid side of his mind that mobilizes psychological resources from the depths of the psyche was not working anymore. That is about being fluidly creative as a control of the situation and project authority, like in Aldoqchi qiz. How can you work with that if you already pay attention at how to exploit the unexpected perspectives in other people’s organization? The latter approach supposes not to believe in the control of the situation.

In that moment, two ways of being psychologically fluid collided in this mind. One was to project credible control of the situation, another one was to notice unexpected perspectives in the existing organization. In facing that annoyed strong man in both Natasha qalay and in Aldoqchi qiz you need to go to the other side of the Moon to see the context fluidly, that is a creationist moment, you are a bit of a psychologically powerful god in that moment that can suspend belief in all his mental structures while still having mental control of the situation. With that suspension, while still keeping inner mental control, if you choose the particular response of this actor, you see the context in a way that favors the continuity of the control of the situation, you try to find a way in which you still show credibly that you are a master of the unknown.

In Natasha qalay, up to that moment he was paying attention to unexpected perspectives as in the feminine approach. It was a patchy attention because of thinking like a man organizing his life without paying too much attention to the bigger picture. Still, for good or worse, he managed to do that. This is because, officially, the masculine mind is about believing in a spider web of mental structures you develop in your mind. The men are living within this belief, they under impression that they work with “hard” meanings, they don’t seem to realize the “god” side of them in which they don’t give a damn about those “hard” meanings and they manipulate them as they please to suit their overall control of the situation.

The man learned that the hard way, by facing a difficult context when he found out blocked his “god” side that he did not pay much conscious attention to up to that moment. In Aldoqchi qiz, this side came naturally when facing the annoyed strong man. But in that case he was still a man clueless about the “back side” of the mind with all its unexpected perspectives. The “god” side of the classical masculinity, in its basic approach, is not honed to take directly in consideration the raw reality complexity. And when these perspectives meet, lots of questions appear about what to do with all this human psychological legacy, both masculine and feminine (sometimes questions that come to the fore the hard way, like in the case of the characters of this Uzbek actor).

The “god” moments are based on the concept of masculine bestower of meaning, with the man creating a meaningful world. It has something oxymoronic, it is supposedly about an order based on hard facts, but in reality it relies on the fluidity of personal will and control of the situation. The fact that the fluid part in this oxymoron is something sub-cognitive enables its functioning as a clear organization apparently based on “1 plus 1 equals 2 facts”.

If a man discovers the feminine approach to the mental fluidity, while keeping the masculine organizational approach and thus immersing in a psychological debauchery of doing whatever he pleases, then it comes a moment of reckoning when he realizes he cannot use the masculine approach to mental fluidity. When he annoyed by mistake the strong guy and realized that he is about to be beaten, he just looked at him like a deer in the headlights. In that moment he was in his usual masculine “god mode” in control of his life, only to find that the fluid side of this mode was inaccessible.

In Aldoqchi qiz, he was too in “god mode” when facing the annoyed strong man, but there his mental fluidity was in that mode too, he used it to find new fluid approaches to project power, he was not seeing the mental fluidity through the feminine perspective. In Natasha qalay, he likely had the impulse to use the mental fluidity in “god mode”, but, when to unleash it, it suddenly had to face directly the feminine use of mental fluidity, which is not based on the concept of a god bestowing meaning in life, on the contrary, it is rather subversive to its oxymoronic structure.

I have other things to say about how to take in consideration both these mental fluidities, I will write about this in future articles. Well, in a few words, it is about assuming responsibilities about the complexity of that raw reality perspective. But there is still more that can be said about the practical applications.

In general, the masculine manipulative practices to defend apparent “hard” meanings tend to be less visible because of the lack of awareness and respect for the possibility of a bigger picture. In the previous example of Arthur Conan Doyle faced with simple magicians replicating with tricks what he was considering “paranormal activities”, people most likely would see him sticking to his convictions and that’s about it. Only those convictions come to the fore and whether they are right or not and whether there are other contending convictions. Something in the usual public conscience outside of this? At most a nebulous, scary and rather sub-cognitive apprehension of chaos outside of it.

Compare this with the video about that decision of the Japanese authorities, first the man filming that baseball field and talking about the specific decision. Then he reveals the bigger picture, in which the field is actually part of a larger park and you can spot so easily how the purpose of that decision is defeated. In the classical human thinking, the focus is on the idea upheld by someone as truth, and the investigation is whether it is really true or not and how does it compare with other ideas. It is like a tree growing with branches in all kind of directions, while it does not matter what is in between them.

If you pay attention only to that, it appears all the time that it is about some consistent branches. But if you are aware of the complexity in between those branches and you have the mental training to see from that perspective (and, as a side consequence, not be conditioned by focusing only on the branches and see everything else as chaos), then you may notice some other aspects. You may see how someone whose consistency of the branches is challenged is going “to the other side of the Moon”, he liquifies them there and resolidifies them in a way to respond to the challenge.

Most likely Arthur Conan Doyle had some liquid moments when he took notice of the new information challenging his understanding of the situation. On “the other side of the Moon” he gave some thought about what was challenging, but he saw only chaos in it from his “branch view”. Nevertheless, to get back to “the side of the Moon facing the Earth”, he had to liquify his so-called “solid branches” and resolidify them in a way to appear consistent to himself by taking in consideration the specific challenge.

It is important to pay attention to these liquid moments at people who stick to their beliefs. In some cases, the melting and resolidification is about how to make them look about the same while dismissing the challenge. But in other cases, people make significant changes while being focused on the overall control of the situation. And then it is fascinating to notice how in practice the new branch is different, but everybody, both the believer and the challenger see it as the same. A quick example that comes to my mind is the contemporary Islamic militantism. If everybody sees only the branches, even the one who challenges the consistency of someone else’s branches is thinking from the point of view of his own branches, as if his own are obviously solid. Thus, he does not pay attention to the liquid moments of the other party.

Perceiving complexity (part 11)