My feelings about having good degrees from good schools, and about having enjoyed the schools I chose, are guilt and shame. That is because I was made to feel guilty about my studies when I was doing them, not trusted to be able to do them anyway, and shamed for having done them when I finished. This is most unfortunate and I am not pleased with the situation; I believe I shall reject it.
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
A victim of cultural anti-intellectualism. Does one ever recover from this?
A friend was explaining a certain version of right wing-ness tonight. It seems thought and learning are dangerous as they open you to Satan!
Ahem! I’ve got it all figured out. Men are told be successful so you can have what you want. Women are told give up what you want so you can be successful.
OMG that is brilliant!
Take that, Neetschy!
The inability of Neetschy to understand the real dynamics of gender, despite his other very fine insights, is a source of humour to me. His male followers inevitably adopt his misogyny, despite the fact that the writer himself warns that his misogynistic views are merely his own truths and are not philosophical facts.
Once the contemporary guy takes on a slimy coating of misogyny, though, he can kiss any relationship with women good-bye. Unless he meets someone who is either male or whose IQ is in the basement, he will not find someone who will settle for him. Not unless he is very tricky.
He maketh a number of mistakes, that are very unattractive.
1. That in order to become great, I must adopt somebody’s else’s point of view and values. (What is wrong with your original ones, and why are you advertising your rejection of them in this way?)
2. That Nietzsche was trying to attract followers and should receive a following in terms of this kind of emulation of his 19th century predilections.
3. The assumption that there must be a link between misogyny and greatness. (NO! — rather, there is a link between honesty about unpalatable facts about oneself and a certain kind of greatness in the Nietzschean sense. This relates to the fact that honesty about oneself actually does not guarantee success — but is indeed likely to compromise such success in the real world. Anyone who can nonetheless be honest, despite understanding that this is the way one’s success is compromised, shows a plenitude of strength (in the Nietzschean sense, which is always an individual psychological sense, and presses towards self-honesty. If, however, one then falls down (which is likely) and then blames others for his sense of demise, he demonstrates his cowardliness only.) In terms of the whole of Nietzschean psychology, he has failed.
4. The confusion of psychology (Nietzsche’s actual viewpoint) with metaphysics (the idea eternal and unmoving ‘truths’). Those who think they have found in misogyny a center for unyielding metaphysical truths should be required to think again.
5. The problem is they have never thought independently to begin with, and even when they fall down, they are unlikely to be provoked to think. That is because they have bought the idea of strength as unyieldingness — which is the opposite of the Nietzschean psychology of strength. One cannot be honest with oneself so long as one is in the grip of rigid beliefs.
Sorry, here is the url:
http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-nietzsche-and-his-band-of-merry-men.html
So, I’m not up on Nietzche enough to comment, but I will ponder this more slowly.
From the other thread — the unpredictability comes from flexibility, in contrast to what is criticized in point 5 here.
Yeah, and that is also the link to Buddhism (flexibility) especially warlike Buddhism as Bruce Lee practiced it. Sorry if this appears schlocky but there is actually a depth of wisdom to it:
Lee: Teacher?
Teacher: I see your talents have gone beyond the mere physical level. Your skills are now at the point of spiritual insight. I have several questions. What is the highest technique you hope to achieve ?
Lee: To have no technique.
Teacher: Very good. What are your thoughts when facing an opponent ?
Lee: There is no opponent.
Teacher: And why is that ?
Lee: Because the word “I” does not exist.
Teacher: So, continue…
Lee: A good fight should be like a small play, but played seriously. A good martial artist does not become tense, but ready. Not thinking, yet not dreaming. Ready for whatever may come. When the opponent expands, I contract. When he contracts, I expand. And when there is an opportunity, I do not hit. It hits all by itself.
Teacher: Now, you must remember: the enemy has only images and illusions behind which he hides his true motives. Destroy the image and you will break the enemy.
That is actually very good!
It talks about the advantages of living in a way that is not centred on the ego. So actually there are some tactical advantages.
I think Reeducation was in large part an attempt to install a lot of ego (in the guise of “self awareness”).
Interesting that this was the remedy I tried on myself also when I could not adjust to the abusive aspects of this culture. Actually it was certainly narcissistic compensation, but it was necessary at that time to avoid feeling some of the pain, which was on the psychological level of third degree burns. I needed this form of ‘compensation’ to facilitate psychological numbing. But at the same time I was trying to figure out how “Westerners” actually thought, and to buy myself some time to adjust to a different set of cultural affairs.
Now, I think the only thing I need is this kind of Buddhism. All the same, one must pass through an egoistic stage in order to be able to understand how ego is not only a buffer against feeling belittled, but also imposes a limitation on one’s actions and perspectives.
In Reeducation, though, ego was being installed not as a buffer but so there would be something to belittle. I haven’t fully figured this out, however.
Just Christianity, then.
Moving from a combative ego state to one that is more Buddhistic has been a very good move for me. I seem to attract the trolls less, although they still poke their noses around sometimes — only less so. Also I realise that what I think I want sometimes isn’t really what I want. For instance I do not want to be positively appraised by people of all walks of life, including those who share very different political and philosophical worldviews from me. An ego orientation can make you think you want these things, when really you would be happy to be liked by those who are kind and friendly and so on. I have been so lucky to find that the Shona people tend to be so much that way. There are people who are my friends when I seem to have commited little time to get to know them. We just understand that we won’t hurt each other and this seems to be enough. I think that reverting to a simpler level of understanding is very helpful, if the opportunity is there for you.
I guess it was just Christianity. Less combative, yes. If you don’t depend on l’autre to appraise you positively, you don’t have to work for that.