Month: March 2021

The Arrogant Eye

crimson

Before I begin, I wish to acknowledge that the term I have used as my title today is not my own creation. I’ve borrowed it from Marilyn Frye, specifically from the book “The Politics of Realty, Essays in Feminist Theory.” My discussion today is heavily influenced by Frye’s ideas and words, as well as the ideas of Simone de Beauvoir and others. Of women.

I recently watched the 2020 film “Promising Young Woman.” This is an amazing and impressive work whose underlying critical thoughts are likely missed by most of its viewers, especially the male viewers. I would strongly urge you to watch this film, if you have not already done so. Do not read any synopsis of the film ahead of time; the synopsis I found and read actually took away from the charm of the story (the synopsis had spoilers in it). Instead, I offer this description of the film:

A troubled young woman goes around luring men to take her home under the guise of being blackout drunk. In truth, she is stone cold sober every time, and uses the opportunity to confront the men who are simply trying to take advantage of her for their own pleasure. As the story unfolds, it becomes clear that she may not be as troubled as is initially assumed.

I was not raised a woman or a girl. I do not have the experience nor conditioning that accompany such an upbringing. Instead, I was raised a man. Much of my conditioning and experience was focused on presenting the world to me in such a way that “the world is my oyster.” I was raised to oppress and control. I was raised to seek ownership and possession of all that is in my purview. I always had troubles with these ideas, seeing the inconsistencies and flaws in such a world-view. Unfortunately for me, being aware has not always been enough to stop be from doing the things I ought not do. But I try to this day to be more than I was raised to be.

Today, I must speak from my perspective on this topic, because that is the perspective I have. I cannot speak for women, as I am not a woman. I did not have those experiences. I do not fully understand where my insight came from, but it is here nonetheless. I hope I can do justice to and properly convey the idea I have planned to convey.

In my last year at university, I had an ongoing discussion with a friend of a friend of mine. A young man who considered himself “woke.” A young man who believed he treated women well. A “nice guy,” to borrow a term used in the film mentioned above. We discussed a number of topics, but one of them recurred frequently. The idea of approaching a woman in order to pursue a relationship with her. He would come to me suggesting the best and most appropriate manner in approaching a desirable woman; a manner that he considered to be properly acknowledging the woman’s autonomy and status as a free conscious being. Every time, I had to tell him that I believed he was mistaken. His approaching a desirable woman (for any reason really) is already flawed before he begins. This is what I will explain, and I hope to make it clear why I am correct.

I will first break down the process that leads him to approach the woman. His method of approach matters little, as you will see. First, he sees the woman. Then he decides she is attractive. In finding her attractive, he desires to pursue a relationship with her, which leads to the question of how best to approach her in order to realize this relationship. Presented more susinctly:

[1] Man sees woman (this is discovery: he comes to understand that the woman exists)

[2] Man judges woman (from [1] and using his world-view, he assesses the qualities of the woman)

[3] Man finds woman attractive (from [2], man determines that woman’s qualities are desirable)

[4] Man desires to possess woman (from [3], man wishes to exercise his desire by possessing the desirable thing)

[5] Man tries to determine best course of action to achieve [4]

Of course it is always possible that after [2] the man determines that the qualities of the woman are not desirable, and then [3], [4], and [5] do not come about, but this simply exacerbates the situation and emphasizes my point further. I will return to this later. For now, I will address the situation where the man does find the woman attractive.

Step [1] above is the ONLY step that is not wrought with sexism or other negative ideas. It is basic discovery in the world. To be clear, the sort of thing I have in mind here is the most basic, primitive form of seeing. Before this step, the man is not aware that the woman exists at all in any way. After this step, he is aware of her existence, simply at the most basic level. Enough so for him to proceed to step [2]. One cannot begin to judge a thing until one is aware that there is a thing to be judged. Basic awareness of existence.

Step [2] begins the first, and in my opinion most insidious, problem with the situation. We all judge. It is part of our nature as free conscious beings to do so. We assess our world, deciding the value of everything around us. It is possible that I might borrow a valuation offered to me by others, such as the systems in place in society, but it is still me who applies and exercises that valuation. In the case of the woman, the man assess her qualities (whatever qualities he is able to glean by seeing her). If her qualities measure up to the valuation he has established (a.k.a if he thinks she is beautiful based on his pre-established valuation of beauty standards, which are often given to him through his upbringing in a patriarchal society), then he finds her attractive. This is the first problem, and one could stop here if one wanted to.

Step [3] follows from step [2]. If the woman’s qualities are such that she is valuable, she is then desired. He desires her, for she has value to him. It isn’t any more complicated than this. He sees her as a commodity with value. He has objectified her. One might argue the objectification occurred at step [2], and I would not really argue against that. However, I would point out that when I judge, I do so to everything in my world, indiscriminately. I cannot see my world without judging ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING I see. On some level, I have decided the value in everything around me, and a woman is no different than a stone in this regard. Even my own body is subject to this judgement. This is what it means to be embodied, as Beauvoir might agree with me; simply having a body subjects me to judgement and assessment. To have a body is to, even if just in part, be objectified. The trick is to not allow this objectification to overwhelm the other possible interactions I might have with a particular body, such as an acknowledgement that the body is more than a mere body, and may also include a free conscious being with its own desires and projects.

Therefore, it is at step [3] that the majority of problems occur. Sexism rears its ugly head and establishes the nature of the relationship between the man and the woman even before the woman knows what is happening. Specifically, the man decides the woman’s value is merely in her embodiment. The man has reduced the woman to a mere object, without regard to any other aspect she may possess, including her own desires. Ironically, if he decides she is unattractive, the same is still true, as he has reduced her to a valuation which has made her undesirable as well. He has still disregarded any other possible aspect to her as a free conscious being when he dismisses her.

This is why we do not even need to proceed to step [4] or beyond. Step [4] is simply the man deciding to pursue the woman in order to possess her as a valuable object, or to dismiss her as an object with little or no value. In other words, If the man decides he wishes to pursue this woman at this point, he does so simply in virtue of her objectivity. Any attempt he makes to approach this woman is tainted by a stain of desired oppression. And, as I was reminded by my partner, her desire to be or not be approached is also being dismissed.

Put another way, his reason to approach the woman is flawed at the outset. There is no determining the best way to approach the woman because the simple desire to approach the woman is the problem. It is all about the “why.” Why does he want to approach the woman? If he does so because he is attracted to her, then he is already at fault of expressing sexism. If he wants to pursue a relationship with her, then he is objectifying her. He has chosen a course of action rooted in his valuation of her. One might even argue that what he desires is not the woman at all, but his perception of value that he believes the woman possesses. That is, what he desires is the abstract qualities he believes have value, and he has subconsciously assigned to the woman. He desires the idea of the woman. Either way, he has disregarded her as a free conscious being, having her own desires and projects.

This is, as I see it, one of the major issues women face in our world. The thing is, this analysis can be just as easily applied to racism and other forms of prejudism. It’s in the name itself. To judge before one gets to know the other parts or aspects of the entity in question. To base one’s opinions, and especially valuation, upon simple visual qualities. To judge a book by its cover, as the saying goes. To establish that the value of a person is somehow based on what they look like, or other features of their appearance. And to dismiss even the possibility that they may possess other features that one cannot see. Or, if you prefer, to dismiss the significance of those other features, giving inappropriate weight to those features that are seen through the arrogant eye.

Silence

crimson

It is not like me to have nothing to say. Talk to anyone who knows me; I am notorious for talking at length about almost anything. The fact that it has been nearly three weeks since my last post seems strange, at least to me.

This blog is for me. It is for me to write what is on my mind, when I wish to write. Perhaps I simply do not wish to write? I don’t think that is the issue. Honestly, I think it is a question of priorities. Many of my priorities have changed over the past few months, even the past few years. Those things I considered particularly important have now become much less so. Last year, I graduated secondary school, earning my first degree. This blog was, for me, a way to continue practicing and exercising my logic and reason. A way to continue writing. However, since graduating, I have slowly been sliding back into other areas of interest.

From a very young age, computers have been an integral part of my existence. I started programming at about five years old on a Texas Instruments TI99/4A. I learned to program in BASIC back then, a very slow and clunky language intended to make programming easy for people like me to learn. BASIC is very basic.

Among the reasons I think programming appealed to me was the fact that I could control something. In my life, I have observed that there is very little I have actual control over. My parents were a bit overbearing, and definitely overprotective. I had very few opportunities to express a freedom, assuming such a thing even exists. I am not surprised that I doubt the existence of free will when I consider my upbringing. I find it strange when my parents disagree with me on the topic of freedom; I guess they were on the other side of that equation.

I find myself frequently thinking about oppression and slavery. About situations where people are in some way forced to make certain sorts of decisions and choices. When I think about this long enough, I realize that everyone is a slave to determinism. That is, all the choices I make are influenced (heavily) by all the things that have come before. The insidious chain of cause and effect plays its part on all the choices I make, as much as I try to avoid it. Like an adversity to touch hot stoves, my upbringing led me directly to the point I am today. Not only was this situation I find myself in inevitable, but I really could not have done otherwise.

This is the point of contention I expect most people to dispute. This is the point my own mother argued against vehemently. As she suggested, if fate ruled then I ought to walk into the street in front of a moving bus; her reasoning was that if fate truly ruled, I’d somehow not be hit. Unfortunately, it is my belief that my mother did not truly understand what I was saying. Of course I would get hit by a moving bus were I to jump in front of one. It is just silly to suggest otherwise. After all, cause and effect is just as valid in that situation as any other.

However, I try to understand her point of view in this. I think she was trying to suggest that I don’t have to jump in front of a bus. After all, I understand the consequences of such actions, and therefore I can choose to do otherwise. That is what I think she was trying to suggest. Unfortunately, this simply reaffirms my side of the argument: I would never step in front of a moving bus because I KNOW that I would be hit by it. It is really no different than the hot stove at all, and my knowledge of how cause and effect works has already made my decision before I am aware of it. Like when the Oracle tells Neo that he has already made his choice, he only now must understand why he has made the choice. “Know thy self.”

This is why I am so passionate regarding recognition of the structures of society. This is why I fear patriarchy and consumerism. I KNOW that their influence has a hold on me, and on all those around me. I KNOW that when I feel the urge to control another person, especially a woman, it is patriarchy that has deemed that I do so. I KNOW that when I feel the motivation to make lots of money and buy lots of things, consumerism is behind it. I am smart enough to understand that control over other people is pointless, as is the accumulation of stuff.

It is at this point that I always remember what my professors told me during my education: if you don’t agree with the way something is, you need to be able to provide an alternative if you plan to argue it coherently. I can suggest that patriarchy and consumerism are the worst inventions that have ever been, but unless I can suggest an alternative system to exist under, my point is mute. What would life be without patriarchy or consumerism?

I hurt people, unintentionally, when I work my way down this rabbit hole. When I tell my wife that it is not her appearance that impresses me, but her empathy, she seems both happy and sad at my statements. I think she is happy because I see her, in the way Marilyn Frye suggests women should be seen. She is not a stage hand, she is the star of my show. However, I also think she wishes I looked at her as being the most attractive woman in the world, in the way that she exemplifies the eternal woman of patriarchy. She seems often depressed at her inability to attain the perfect hourglass shape and incomprehensible weight, the statistics fed to her through all the mass media we are exposed to. So when I indirectly suggest her appearance is not important to me, I think she might interpret it to mean that she is unattractive. Like how people, when trying to be polite about an ugly person, they suggest that the person’s personality is what is important. It is a veiled insult. I swear that is not what I intend at all, but we are all part of that same system, and so those sorts of interpretations are common.

What is the alternative? I cannot say. I don’t know. When I consider myself, all these systems and structures stripped away, it seems to me I would be nothing. That is, every aspect of my being is infused with these structures. One way or another, I am a victim of my conditioning. I am a slave. I see no escape from it. Only one thing ever remains in my deep thought: my raw consciousness.

To be clear, it is not the consciousness most people would think about. When René Descartes strips away everything he can doubt in his meditations, he suggests the only thing that remains is his existence: “I think, I am.” There is debate as to whether this actually works, but I will give him this. What comes next as he travels back to the world is where I find myself disputing. Because he follows a path brought about through his conditioning, conditioning brought about through his lived experience. He would not consider such things if he had not first lived and experienced the world, in some fashion. The very idea of God comes from lived experience.

For me, what I mean by raw consciousness is that there is this thing I have, or I am, that I cannot really describe or explain. The other term I often use is my “first person,” a term to denote that it is my perspective on the world. I recognize that this raw consciousness is fed information through the incredibly flawed interfaces that have been provided: my eyes, my ears, etc. I know that even those interfaces could have been hijacked, through something akin to simulation theory. In fact, unlike Descartes, I don’t even agree that my exercising a thought is sufficient to suggest I exist, as a particularly good simulation might be doing the work of thinking for me.

The best I can sort of suggest is that I am like a passive observer, receiving all this information from somewhere. And due to the causal nature of everything, even my choices and decisions could have been (likely are) also hijacked. I feel like the “job” of my formal consciousness (the consciousness that most people think of) is to tell stories. That is, stuff happens and I make choices (which are predetermined by causality), and my conscious mind finds a way to justify and explain what happened and why I chose as I did. My mind tells a story to explain the occurrences in the world, and the occurrences in my mind as well. That I am simply a story telling machine.

The story goes something like this: I am a raw consciousness, a passive observer of experience. I, in some fashion, inhabit this body and this mind, both which provide for me experiences to observe. But this body and this mind both are subject to a deterministic universe, where causal relationships have been playing out for some time. I have no control of this mind nor this body, I am simply a passive observer. It is sort of like watching a very long film.

It is even possible that what I think is my body, and what I think is the world, both do not exist as I think they do at all. It is possible that the experience information I receive is fabricated by some massive system, as in simulation theory. However, if this is true, it matters little. A fabricated reality is still a reality. The rules and laws of one universe don’t need to resemble the rules and laws of another, so long as there is at least some consistency. To be honest, even the question of consistency is irrelevant.

The purpose of my mind is to tell a story. Using the faculties of reason and memory, my mind tells a story about how things have come about and why, when it is able to consider a why. When a why is unavailable, magic often suffices. This is definitely why I can do something without good reasons; it simply means my mind is failing me at telling a good story, or perhaps even a bad one. If the story is unconvincing to me, then I am a hypocrite and a liar. If it is, I am honorable and trustworthy. As a person, I am really only as good as the stories I can tell.

In the end, I am always left with one thing that could possibly be me: this raw consciousness, this first person passive observer. Strip away patriarchy and consumerism, and the countless other systems and structures that exist, and I am nothing more than a remote feeling. A slave with absolutely no control over anything at all.