I have been cleaning out my books and files. They are excellent, if I do say so myself, and I need to spend much more time with them. Looking at them makes me realize how much more I need to read, but also how much I know. And now that I have almost extirpated Reeducation entirely, I should be able to read them without interference.
As may be well known by now, my primary objection to Reeducation was its invalidation of my being in general, my scholarly being in particular, and my research field most specifically. That is why it was impossible to coexist with Reeducation, although I really tried to do this; ultimately, it was also necessary to extirpate all of its residue.
For many years I felt that the extirpation of Reeducation was complicated, but in reality it is simple. All I had to do was decide I was simply not guilty of the things Reeducation thought I was. To decide that, of course, was to break Reeducation’s most important rule – the rule against rejecting its propositions – but of course, if all of Reeducation’s residue is to go, that rule has to go, too. This does not mean, of course, that we cannot consider individual propositions from Reeducation. It only means we are no longer required to do so.
I have been aware that I had a psychological problem since I was about five. The problem was not knowing how to handle overbearing people and bullies, although it took me at least four more decades to be able to put it in those terms. At about age eight, I learned that there was treatment for psychological problems, and decided to seek treatment for mine as soon as I could afford it. At 34, I finally could, and that was when my saga with Reeducation began.
I dislike Reeducation because it said I could not know who I was or what I wanted. Only it could know. One thing it was sure it knew was that my being a scholar was a very bad thing. Another was that my choice of research field was proof that I “should have been disabled for life” (and I quote textually). I disagreed with these assessments, of course, but as even my more casual readers surely know by now, disagreement was never legitimate – it was “denial.”
This is of course ironic because as we know, I had gone to Reeducation to learn how to deal with overpowering individuals and bullies. In Reeducation as I experienced it, it was assumed that everyone had far worse, and far more Gothic problems than they were willing to admit, and any form of disagreement was suspect. Still I find it hard to believe that any legitimate Reeducator, of any stripe, would actually try this circular number on people. Indeed, I found it hard to believe at the time: This cannot be happening. They cannot possibly mean this. I must have misunderstood. And so I stayed. And when I left, it stayed in me. But now, it is almost gone.