Perceiving complexity (part 13)
Part of the series Perceiving complexity
Now about the Jewish take on this Middle Eastern situation. This is something along these lines: “Look, let’s face it, I don’t have any chance to be on top of the situation with these women, I am just fooling myself I am in control. And the problem is that they exploit my tendency for masculine plateaus of feeling in control of the situation. I hate how this turns me into a fool. I start disliking that state of mind.”
At this point the man wants to be mentally independent. But then an unexpected, confounding surprise awaits him. It is something like in Minem zakonlı hatınım of the Tatar singer Danir Sabirov, only with the specific Middle Eastern dynamics that I will mention below. Here in this video, the woman (the singer’s real life wife) notices how the man has an opening to be a responsible person, only that he is plagued by the problems of the classical masculinity, he lives full of himself in his own world. She has an initial period in which the man is increasingly basing his thinking process on her raw reality perspective. Seeing things from a classical masculine perspective by following linear threads of thought based on straightforward control of the situation, he is oblivious how his basic paradigms are changing.
When it is obvious for the woman that his paradigms have changed, she provokes him to have a reaction of the typical classical masculine nuance he is likely to have in such a situation. Then she withdraws her raw reality support and the man now finds himself with these new paradigms in his mind, while being clueless how to work with them. He is very unprepared mentally for this, nothing works right for him. What is going on with me? It is like I lost the continuity of the threads in my mind and I can’t figure out how and where to reconnect them. When he checks inside him, he feels that something is not right, he checks even more, it is something unsettling, heavy around his decision to react like that in that moment. What does this mean? He is more directly attentive about that and suddenly he notices the new paradigm. Such an overwhelmingly powerful masculinity reveals itself inside him.
The fact that she retreated her psychological support specifically about his decision to react like that and his subsequent inner check to find out what is going on with him puts him face to face with the paradigm of an inner masculinity of such an unexpected mental strength. If you have the mental training to think from the raw reality perspective, someone who only follows straightforward threads of thought as control of the situation turns into your satellite. He finds valuable the fluid psychological support that makes some sense of the raw reality, but he is clueless about what that means, it just feels good and rewarding for him while he keeps living in his own world.
If you have yourself psychologically relevant paradigms to work with the raw reality perspective, to see the bigger picture, then these paradigms become the relevant ones for the other person who turned into a satellite. He is living by his own different paradigms that see only branches growing from a tree as a linear control of the situation. As he leans increasingly on the bigger picture paradigm, his branches start to grow from all kind of unexpected places, it is not a tree anymore, it is a branch growing directly from the earth there, a branch growing from the sea otherwhere, a branch growing from a stone somewhere else and so on. As he is clueless about even the concept of a bigger picture, he is not paying attention to the change of the situation. It is about a limited paradigm that can thrive grafted on a much more authentic paradigm as long as the one with the latter paradigm uses it to give psychological results for orientation to the one with the former paradigm.
Stop providing this orientation and the person who relied on it to grow mental branches from all kind of unexpected places now suddenly has to face all the mental abyss this type of psychological organization supposes. If it is about a man who leaned mentally on this organization while considering himself such a great man with its results, then he has to deal with the real sense of masculinity this organization supposes. Up to that point, the woman had the mental strength that made it possible (with the advantage that she was not the one in action, this eased it to some extent, but it still needs considerable mental strength).
The woman has to be able to stop providing and still be able to have a point of view of her own from the raw reality perspective. The classical human gender relations tend rather to be a matter of co-dependence in these aspects. The woman tends to lean too on the man’s control of the situation from the point of view of the “meaningful world”. She may find difficult to have a sustainable point of view of her own in the raw reality perspective. And also many times the women do not have the mental strength to provide such a valuable raw reality organization, able to really take the man out of his paradigms and lean on the raw reality paradigm. In fact, lots of women do not have some personal awareness of the possibility of a better raw reality paradigm and they just follow with their minds how to dribble the “meaningful world” organization.
This is also as a disclaimer towards women who may think that this raw reality experience is a panacea for any problem. If you use it in a selfish way, then you don’t have a better paradigm and you are still moulding yourself after the “meaningful world” organization, you are just fooling yourself (and it also depends on how fool the man is too). You need to have the mental strength to sustain a more authentic raw reality paradigm.
The example from this video is an Altaic take on this situation, in which the woman has the mental strength to take the man out of his paradigms and then leave him stranded because she is able to not depend herself on his “meaningful world” organization. The man then has to face a masculinity inside him of an incredible psychological strength, which appears as the woman’s father. It is a masculinity that uses the raw reality perspective, able to think fluidly, not as a linear development like the growth of a tree. It also assumes the responsibilities incumbent in facing the mental abyss of this perspective, as you need to assume some psychological responsibilities if you don’t want to go nuts with all that complexity. In this Altaic take, the woman keeps nudging the man towards that masculinity and, if the man is not entirely up to it, she will continue to assume herself some or all of its responsibilities (i.e. she will continue to assume herself “her father”’s role).
In the Middle Eastern context, the women have the raw reality expertise to create a background organization able to take the man out of his classical masculine paradigms, but they do not have alternatives to the classical masculinity supposed to be in charge of the “meaningful world” (the Altaic women have such alternative that likely resulted in the distant past from the difficult life, as I get into detail in the series specifically about the Altaic mindset). The Middle Eastern women like to see the men powerful from the classical human gender perspective, which, given all this female expertise in raw reality organization, tends to turn the inexperienced men into masculine blondes.
(I should find another term instead of “masculine blonde”, as it looks like I need to use this concept often. But, for the moment, I don’t have other idea to convey this nuance of an airhead person sustained psychologically by someone else who is assuming some deeper responsibilities.)
The Jewish take on this situation is about a man who, in who knows what kind of historical context, finds impossible to continue this situation. He wants to be more independent, he is riled up enough to break out of this dependence on the feminine psychological support (the woman may have been more responsible than the usual Middle Eastern woman too), only to find this unexpectedly strong masculinity inside him. Then the man has to face by himself all the mental abyss this masculinity supposes, it is not like in the Altaic context of the previous video in which the woman continued to create a supportive environment for him in dealing with “her father”. The atmosphere in such an Altaic context is that this is the mental abyss you need to face and its incumbent responsibilities as a man. With my psychological expertise I am going to support you in facing it, but you need to face it squarely, I stop shielding you by assuming myself all the responsibilities and providing you only with the valuable results these responsibilities can produce.
The initial Jewish man has no such support, he is just facing this tremendous masculinity by himself. A “father” on an utterly different level of authenticity from his real life one reveals inside him, he now sees things from a very different perspective, lots of things in the local society look like a bad joke now. The local tenets of belief appear so unrealistic when compared to how this “father” can provide a deep perspective of the complexity behind everything.
A story says how Abraham’s father, Terah, happened to be an artist creating statues of the gods from the local pantheon. One day when his father was not at home, Abraham enters his workshop and smashes all those statues. When Terah comes back home, he is shocked to see the disaster. What happened? Abraham replies that some of the gods started a quarrel with other gods and it degenerated so much that they began fighting each other until they destroyed themselves. His father: what are you talking about, how can some statues do this? Abraham: if they are just some lifeless statues how comes you believe in them?
This episode marks the beginning of a fragile Abrahamic approach to this masculinity immersed in the complexity of the raw reality perspective. It is about a man who lives with such a masculinity inside him, but he as a man does not have much psychological expertise to make some sense of it. He just perceives that it is about a paradigm that utterly trumps the current paradigm of the society he lives in, but he does not have much expertise how to work with it. He has the tendency to enter in classical masculine plateaus of mental stability, plateaus that are supposed to represent that authentic fluid complexity, hence very fragile in contact with the lifestyle of the people who go by the classical human mindset. It turns into a sense of vivid truth that is defiled at any contact with people who are not focused on it.
One day things are more clear, probably like some sort of “grasshopper hopping”, and this “father” tells Abraham “go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you”, with a promise of great things awaiting his descendants. This is the moment when he became Jewish, until that moment he was not Jewish. Being Jewish supposes a specific state of mind. Much of the initial Jewish story line is about peregrinations in the wait for that promise, people without significant military strength who struggle to survive in the political contexts of those times.
The moment when Moses enters the Jewish scene represents a simplification of the relation with that complexity, which permits the possibility of a direct organization that can take that authentic paradigm in consideration. It was in the style of the aforementioned Daler of Rajvir Jawanda, a man who gives the central role to another powerful man seen as a “bad guy” master of the unknown. I can’t assume the whole responsibilities of the raw reality complexity because this bad guy usurped the leading role (while in reality I find an opening in this, I am rather relieved that I don’t need to face squarely those responsibilities myself as I don’t have by myself the psychological possibilities to plunge into that unknown; this is basically the point where the original feminine use of the raw reality perspective stops).
Only that the Jewish take on this situation goes in a direction different from Daler, it is not about the resurgence of the “good guy” by being able to embody himself that tremendous masculinity (still, later on, the Christian and Muslim self-centered poor quality knock-offs will assume the “good guy” role). It is rather about that tremendous masculinity giving strength to Moses to express in front of the Pharao the other paradigm and give him opportunities to relate to it squarely. If the latter dismisses it and just sticks to his usual view of the situation, then Moses’ expressivity creates facts on the ground.
The Pharao and the rest of the Egyptian population may keep sticking to their own paradigm and see it as the valid one. But deep inside they sensed how Moses’ paradigm works through his expressivity and their minds slid into leaning on it for meaning in life. This makes a fool of their poor quality paradigm, they don’t have a mental organization of their own anymore, which turns them into psychological satellites with a messed-up organization.
This may have been as well a personal interpretation by some marginal people of troubling situations happening at some time in the Egyptian society. They may have interpreted them as God’s punishment for enslaving the Jews, providing an outlet for expressing how the Egyptian paradigm is faulty. The Pharao may have not even known about this interpretation, but those who wanted to break free psychologically needed to explain to themselves how the organizational structure with the Pharao at its apex was wrong, while staying focused on the more profound paradigm, not entering in an “I am better than you” psychological entanglement.
The difference from the original Middle Eastern feminine take on this situation (in which they can’t find a way to take a direct stance in the classical masculine “meaningful world” and thus they just control the men in the background) is that Moses, with God’s backing, can stand visibly with a firm point of view in the “meaningful world” by drawing his mental strength from his immersion in the raw reality paradigm. He can do this because he is open as a man to face that paradigm, in his personal case with the additional catalyst of seeing his real life father figure (the Pharao) on the wrong foot. With his own paradigm he can see squarely how the Egyptian “meaningful world” paradigm is inconsistent and wrong when it is about keeping the Jews slaves. Each request to set the Jews free with Moses’ clear expressivity of the raw reality paradigm makes the Pharao face that paradigm squarely and think from its point of view (and if he keeps sticking to his own paradigm, the latter becomes grafted on the more profound paradigm).
Given the psychological resources he had available (no female expertise support to help make some bridges about how to use the raw reality perspective) I see Moses’ specific way of action as a great feat, he managed something revolutionary. Normally, it should be about a man facing the raw reality paradigm by himself, but this requires a too steep learning curve if he is to figure out by himself how this paradigm works. He found this simplifying opportunity in casting the Pharao as a “bad guy” and further on building on that as a relation with the raw reality perspective.
This thing about “bad guys” supposes a belief in classical masculine thinking based on plateaus of stable order. There is this overall order in life, but here comes a “bad guy” to abuse it. I see myself as the “good guy” and I want to restore the good order. But when confronting the “bad guy” I need to face all the underlying complexity of the human social order. What was until that moment a fuzzy impression of order turns now into squarely facing the complexity of human social life. How am I going to make sense of it? Lots of people in these moments actually end up clinging to the “bad guy” as a buoy, as a device that can float on top of the underlying fluidity of the real complexity of human social life.