Discussion on Lloyd de Mause, Mother-Bondage, Absent Fathers, Metzitzah B’pe, Individuation & Autism

What follows are my responses to three comments at my last post, the one about Lloyd de Mause and the Killing Mother. I have made it a new post so that it doesn’t get lost among the comments section and in the hope of encouraging other people to contribute.

Debbie: There are plenty of writers who have suggested that the dominant male culture developed aggressively as a response to the subjection they experienced in mother goddess cultures (Eisler, Stone, Sjoo, et al).  But I cannot recall anyone theorizing that underneath that lies a matrix (mat-er) of birth trauma.

It may very well explain male violence, both in giving blood to feed the blood need of the goddess, *and* to sever ties to her.

But this would seem to me to give an answer to the male experience of mother-induced birth trauma, not the female experience of the same.  If this was a species-wide response, why are not women more violent?  (I am not suggesting they aren’t, of course women are, but not historically at the level of organized war that male-dominated societies produce).  Or perhaps, it is not species-wide.  Maybe it truly is a male reponse to mother-induced trauma.

My emphasis was less on birth trauma than on individuating from the mother’s psyche. Off the top of my head, I would say that it is not equivalent for a woman to be immersed inside a feminine psyche, because she would not experience it as suffocating or emasculating. For obvious reasons, it would empower her rather than disempower her.

If so, this might also allow the cycle of passive/impotent/absent males and dominant/smothering females to continue.  While boys who identified with the mother would be unable to develop a strong sense of self, women would not be crippled in the same way, but would potentially develop a stronger sense of identity—albeit an inauthentic one.

This is not to lay blame on “devouring mothers” who refuse to let their sons grow up (a la Mrs. Bates). It’s only to say that the root cause of the situation can be traced, I think, to the failure of infant boys to separate from their mother’s psyche. That failure can’t be laid at the door of the infant, obviously. Since it is mother instinct not to let the child go, the father is required to “fish” the child out of the mother-psyche at the right time. If he, or an equivalent figure, is not present or interested enough to do so (take the son hunting, playing soccer, whatever), it just won’t happen. The boy will grow into a man who is split in two opposing directions: half of him will be trying to get back to the mother’s body (Freud’s “lost object”), back to the womb (usually through sex, drugs, alcohol, etc.), while the other part is trying to get free of psychic enmeshment to the same—through masculine, “worldly” activities such as joining a gang, making money, becoming a somebody, developing his intellect (writing!), conquering space, waging war, and so on.

In my own and Strieber’s case, this tragi-comedy plays out in an almost classical sense in the use of our minds—and pens—as a weapon to cut the psychic umbilical cord and get clear of the poisoned placenta. Since it’s done unconsciously, we end up waging war against the feminine part of ourselves (and stirring up conflict with men around us), rather than using our other “tool” (our erotic as opposed to intellectual side) to bring about loving union with that part (and making love with women, not war with men). Of course, this isn’t a choice, per se, since the de-eroticization of the psyche (death of Mars) is a central part of the child’s unconscious defense against the mother’s sexuality (i.e., her all-consuming psyche), and an unconscious imitation of the father’s lack of “uprightness.”

It’s Oedipal, though there’s a lot more to it, needless to say, and it’s one of the things I am getting to look at more closely via the Whitley-work, which is taking up most of my spare time. But those are a few thoughts which I hope will keep the discussion going here.

Pueokeo: de Mause is not the only one to have skipped over the crux of the problem, at least as far as I see it.  Indeed, almost everyone has skipped over it,  seeing as how metzitzah b’peh is hardly discussed anywhere as the possible root of human conflict for over three thousand years.    It is my theory that the matrix became a problem for men with the rise of Judaism, and specifically with the rise of metzitzah b’peh.   Before that,  the matrix was not a problem for men because women, on a collective level,  were not suppressing their rage.  Under the new religion of Judaism,  women began to suppress their rage and began to feel helpless as male babies were being made subservient to man (for life) through the rite of metzitzah b’peh (the mixing of saliva of  man with blood of baby boy  —   the man sucking the freshly cut bloody penis of the week old boy).  

One of the things that stood out most dramatically for me as I looked more closely at Strieber’s pathological “model” of human evolution is how blatantly he mistakes effects for causes and so ends up like a rabid dog, chasing its tail with murder in its eyes. Suggesting that a barbaric blood-letting ritual is the cause of 3000 years of war is like saying that alcohol is the cause of alcoholism. It leaves unaddressed the question of why there is such a substance, or ritual, to begin with.

It will never ever work, IMO, to try and trace a problem to a particular set of people, belief, or activity; all problems must be found to originate in the natural process itself, since a problem by definition comes about when a natural process is prevented from occurring in the proper way, or keeping to the natural time-frame.

Admittedly my reading here, by way of LdM, begs the question of how exactly things started to go “wrong” with infant-individuation, and why males became increasingly ineffective in their primary parental role. But at least we are potentially moving closer to an understanding, and not going off on a tangent.

Tangents can lead to discoveries; but more often they lead nowhere. The longer we follow them, the harder it is to find the spot where the trail was lost. A person may wind up, like Whitley seems to have wound up, working himself into exhaustion to turn the tangent into an end-point. Hacking away at the brush telling himself that there IS a path here – or worse, that he is forging a new path for others to use – when what he’s actually doing is digging the hole he fell into deeper and deeper. This probably comes from an unconscious desire to escape whatever truth he was about to uncover.

I certainly worry about doing this myself. Maybe Strieber is my own tangent?

For the mother-bonded male, the truth that our whole lives are unconsciously devoted to avoiding is this – a full, conscious separation from the mother’s psyche, abandoning all hope to regain the lost object, and the resulting powerlessness and despair of standing, solely and wholly, on our own two feet.

And doing it without the father to help us!

It is akin to Jesus’ moment on the cross – “Father, why hast thou forsaken me?!” It is the moment of truth.

Boys and teenage boys need to learn how to do violence well

I guess you mean hunt and kill? That’s probably true for some, what with the collapse of civilization and all. But I don’t think it is necessary to individuation per se, because there are many ways for a male child to have a sense of his own body and individuality that don’t require violence. This view sounds suspiciously American to me – the whole “regeneration through violence” thing, which is all sourced in male compensation for the psychological emasculation of mother-bondage. (There’s a big difference between killing an animal to eat it and killing it as a ritual sacrifice. Only a mother-bonded—non-individuated— male would try and curry favor of a god, or goddess, by offering blood.)

I do think that it is important for a community to know who the autists are because they are not persons who should be made to do physical violence as the other boys should be made to do by the (real) men of the community.  

So autistics are not real men?

Perhaps the autist is always going to be a part of the mother’s psyche by his nature ?

I think you have it backwards; autistics do not take to culture and are immersed in an even larger psyche than that of their mothers (with whom they tend not to bond at all). They are resisting the “matrix” the only way they know how.

The predominant (“NT”) culture that glorifies war is the one that idealizes the mother. If autistics are not violent, that would indicate that they are less mother-bonded (or at least more aware of the suffocating pressure of the mother-psyche, hence have withdrawn from it), not more so.

As a man who knows how to do violence well matures,   the inner work becomes a replacement for his usual ways of doing violence.  The inner work, after all,  is a form of doing violence, so indeed the violence never ends for man.

There is an element of destruction in spiritual inner work, but it’s not violence, just the opposite. It is the honesty of letting oneself see the distortions within us that destroys them. Doing violence to them is a way of keeping those complexes alive, in my opinion. Dissociation, for example, is inner violence. It is an aggressive act by which the psyche splits itself off and creates a surrogate reality in which it can be safe (or “free” from the devouring mother). Unfortunately this is generally what passes for inner or “spiritual” work in our present culture—probably because it’s necessary to create a counterfeit kind of individuation that won’t entail facing the terrifying unknown of a full separation from the matrix of mater.

Integration is the inverse of violence—i.e., sex, or what Keats called soul-making. It’s when we allow ourselves to re-experience the original trauma of separation and draw back those split-off fragments, banishing the phantoms of mind that have kept them at bay (by projecting our trauma onto the world, and Gods and Goddesses, at large)

Patrick: Reading de Mause and Grof, I felt the slight electrical sensation of synchronity-gnosis.  Without wishing to disclose too much, I am going through a transitional period involving issues of rebirth and separation from my mother, and the concepts explored here resonate with me in a very timely manner.

Great. Maybe everyone here is going through that same process, one way or another. Refusing to go through it is part of the process too, however: just as when the infant takes a step away from the mother and rushes back to her arms in anguish.

12 thoughts on “Discussion on Lloyd de Mause, Mother-Bondage, Absent Fathers, Metzitzah B’pe, Individuation & Autism

  1. Excellent responses Jasun! And thank you for taking time to write these. I can see your point more clearly now and can agree more fully. I would like to briefly clarify my thoughts on the separation of the female child from the mother’s psyche, as it relates to autistic girls.

    You wrote, “women would not be crippled in the same way, but would potentially develop a stronger sense of identity—albeit an inauthentic one.” I think that is absolutely true, for many girls. The key word is inauthentic. They become their mothers when they are adults, and, it is my observation, they are either very needy or very dominating, and never find a way to mature into a more authentic self unless they do the cutting of the psychic cord themselves. And that is often at the cost of their relationship to their mother.

    Again, speaking for myself as someone who is on the autism spectrum, I was crippled in much the same as a male child would have been. I had a mother who had wanted a boy, had a male adoption in place when she found out she was pregnant with me, and because of her age and health problems, could never have another. Her anger was directed pointed blank at me and no other (no siblings), when I was very young, and as I grew older – I believe the term is “benign neglect”. She simply stopped interacting with me except where necessary after about the age of 12. Because of her lack of even somewhat good mothering, she effectively sexually neutered me and then did everything in her power to keep me as her servant- in bondage as it were. Using the powers of my intellect was my own primary means of cutting ties with her, finding my way in the world and healing.

    You are right that autists are immersed in a psyche larger than that of their mother. Not in a political sense, but we are anarchists, and that is one of our great strengths. We know that we are not quite like others. We see things more clearly.

    I really like your image of trying to find a way to stand on your own two feet, without the ties to the mother psyche. For a woman, who had no female role model, other than one that was crippling, it has taken me many years, and many trials and errors of coming to understand what it means to just be female. To stand on my own feet, as female, and as autistic, and not feel ashamed, has been quite a feat:-)

    Patrick’s remarks made me look at Grof’s books today and I found the essay he refers to. It is titled “Roots of Human Violence and Greed: Psychospiritual Perspective” by Stanislav Grof. (Pages 159 to 192 in “Healing our Deepest Wounds”). I found it available as a complete essay on the web in pdf form. I can’t figure out how to make a link for a pdf, but if anyone is interested, copy and paste the title in google and you will find it. In it he discusses how deMause contacted him to discuss Grof’s work on prenatal trauma and how it related to deMause’s studies on societal impulses to violence. I reread it quickly today, and it doesn’t really offer any conclusions beyond what you have discussed, Jasun. And, I think, your analysis actually goes much deeper than his essay.

  2. My focus on metzitzah b’peh only came up because de Mause’s work — “psychohistory” — explores almost every possible facet of childhood sexual trauma that you can imagine and much of his work practically reads like child porn (and can certainly be used that way for folks who are looking for that kind of fix) … BUT, as far as I have researched, he doesn’t once mention the ancient ritual (still openly and legally being done today) of a man sucking the bloody penis of an infant! If he has mentioned it anywhere , please let me know and I will retract this comment but I don’t believe he has brought this up at all. All of his work on psycho-history is for naught, in my opinion, if he hasn’t openly acknowledged metzitzah b’peh. In fact, I suggest that he quite possibly is using his psycho-history work as a cover for something if he hasn’t discussed the Judaic circumcision rite. With all his research and work on sexual torture committed on children by adults, it seems he would have spoken on one of the oldest forms of ritual abuse (torture and rape is what it should be called , not “abuse”) of children, but I’m just not finding any references to it … I’m still looking.

    I’ll respond to some of your other comments/responses, Jasun, soon. I did go off on a bit of tangent on my previous comment but I really just meant to make the point that, according to me, psychohistory as a legitimate area of study is impotent (and dishonest) if it doesn’t speak to the openly-practiced (over 3000 year old) sanctioned ritual of metzitzah b’peh … and it makes me take a second look at what de Mause’s (and other psychohistorians’) motives might be.

    de Mause:
    “Yet even though we understand that both the Motherland and the enemy in wars are ultimately the early mother, the question remains: what could possibly be the infantile origin of fantasies of the enemy as a poisonous blood-sucking monster?”

    me:
    It’s a deceitful question from a man who has done as much research as he has on the subject of sexual harm against children with lots of commentary on “blood-sucking”. Anyway, it hasn’t been a fantasy, but a reality, and it does have it’s origin in the “sanctioned by Yahweh” metztizah b’peh, in my opinion.

    • accusing LdM as deceitful is the position of the fanatic – you might want to step back a bit.

      This is a massively controversial subject, as you obviously know; as the pioneer of psycho-history, deMause would be wise to tread extremely carefully so as not to inadvertently sabotage the work he’s already done. The first rule of unorthodox historical research, to paraphrase Basil Faulty: “Don’t mention the Jews!”

      Here’s a few links for anyone interested on the controversy raging.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2005/08/cut_it_off.html

      http://abovethelaw.com/tag/metzitzah-bpeh/

      http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/brigman/

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100168081/the-rebranding-of-circumcision-as-child-abuse-echoes-the-ugly-anti-semitism-of-medieval-europe/

      From my perspective, I don’t see any need to focus on metzitzah b’peh when circumcision itself is a clear-cut (sorry) case of religiously-sanctioned child abuse and anyone who says differently is either pushing a political agenda or not playing with a full deck. What constitutes child abuse isn’t a religious question but a medical and psychological one.

      Doing an online search I noticed that people who are talking about this are often citing deMause, so even if he doesn’t take the bull by the horns himself – because he is looking at endemic child abuse so doesn’t feel the need to single out one group (especially if it risks being accused of anti-you-know-what)- he’s providing those who wish to with some very powerful arguments.

      He does talk about it tho:

      “Clitoridectomy, like all sexual mutilations, is, I believe, an act of incest. If it is incest when a father rapes a daughter, it is also incest when parents assault their children by cutting off, sewing up, burning, flaying or gashing their genitals. In all these cases, the child is being used for the sadistic sexual pleasure of the parent. In fact, circumcision ceremonies are often followed by drinking parties that end in intercourse, so sexually arousing is the circumcision- – in some areas, the traveling circumcizer is actually accompanied by some prostitutes, who know how sexually excited villages become after the ceremony. Therefore, the practice of sexually mutilating children’s genitals- – one of the most widespread rituals in the world – by itself makes incest a near-universal trait.”
      http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/articles/the-history-of-child-abuse-lloyd-demause-the-journal-of-psychohistory/

      and:

      “By the time of circumcision — a traumatic ritual(178) that is usually performed at ages 3 to 6, whose unconscious purpose is to purify the boy and cleanse him(179) of the molestation to which he has been subjected — the boy is supposed to stop wearing the dresslike shin that allows ready access to his genitals and begin wearing pants. However, since he often continues to sleep in the parental bed, to have sex with siblings and cousins, to experience sexual attacks at school and to attend nude public baths (hammam) with his mother and sisters,(180) his sexual over stimulation often continues into the 7-to-14-year-old phase. Much of the incest may occur in the baths. Bouhdiba reports: “The hammam … is a highly eroticized place — so much so indeed that the name has come to signify for the masses the sexual act itself … ‘going to the hammam’ quite simply means ‘making love’ … Every Muslim can relive his childhood in terms of his experience of the hammam … notoriously a place of homosexuality, male and female … there the child has all the time in the world to contemplate, examine and compare sexual organs [so that] every Muslim is fixated on his mother … “(181)”
      http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Sex/+Doc-Sex-Pedophilia&Incest/UniversalityOfIncest.htm

      There’s a book on the subject that apparently cites LdM: Circumcision the Hidden Trauma: How an American Cultural Practice Affects Infants and Ultimately Us All by Ronald Goldman

    • Hi pueokeokeo. There’s quite a bit about why parents — he mostly focuses on mothers here, but fathers are mentioned as well — suck their children’s genitals in chapter 7 of “Emotional Life of Nations.”

  3. My theory is that “child abuse” (it’s a horribly inadequate phrase when applied to some of the torturous acts inflicted on children) began on the global scale that we experience today with the institutionalization of a “sanctioned by God” rite called metzizah b’peh. “Child abuse” has been going on for a long time, obviously. I believe that it didn’t happen on the scale that it is now (where it is not seen for what it is) until over three thousand years ago when metzitzah b’peh became one of the holy rites of Judaism. In fact, I believe that Judaism didn’t become Judaism until metzitzah b’peh was instituted as a holy rite / “right” (and it is now view as a right by most countries — except for Germany recently … props to the Germans).

    Back to deMause’s question “what could possibly be the infantile origin of fantasies of the enemy as a poisonous blood-sucking monster?”

    With that question deMause seems to be implying that the origin of stories of the bad-guy-as-poisonous-blood-sucking-monster were fantasies of ancestors (yours and mine) who must have lived in some sort of childish (infantile) state , or worldview. What I am suggesting (theorizing) is that those were not “in the cloud” fantasies of childish groups of people who believed in evil winged sea monsters and soaring blood-sucking sky dragons, but rather, those were descriptions of something that was beginning to happen on the ground with the institutionalization of metzitzah b’peh (which I believe was viewed as a monstrous act, and I also believe that the institutionalization of it must have sparked outrage amongst those who heard that it was happening and starting to spread).

    I feel like saying, as well, it’s not that I don’t believe that there were not “visions in the sky/sea/mountains/trees/etc” that our ancestors were seeing and viewing as “dragons and monsters” but I do not believe that they started experiencing those visionary realities as EVIL until the the trauma-inducing institutionalized rite of metzitzah b’peh entered into the lands (and culture) where they lived, wherever they lived and made home on the planet, and took hold there. Over time, the stories of “blood-sucking monsters” were overlayed onto the visionary experiential realities of the eternal sky-dragons and other storyfying beasts.

    I don’t think that descriptions of “blood-sucking monsters” in ancient times were referring to all peoples who identified themselves as “jewish”. I believe those were just descriptions of MEN — the mohels — who performed the blood-sucking act on the infant boys. I believe that the ancient peoples knew better than most today that there are natural-born psychopathic individuals — an error, albeit a natural one, paradoxically — that are born “at random” in communities across the planet and they must have known that a psychopathic individual (or small group of them) were the ones who started the act of circumcising and blood-sucking and institutionalized the act of metzitzah b’peh as a holy rite. And they must have know that when a institution that supports such a rite as a “holy rite” comes into place (probably a simultaneous occurence) , then other psychopathic individuals could use such an institution as a place to hide and thrive and do what they do (intentionally create as much suffering and, from that, create as much subservience as possible). Plus there’s a whole lot of occult aspects to this as well (with the mixing of bodily fluids and whatnot), or at least it has become occulted darkly over time (through traumatizing infants and , by proxy of harming the infant, traumatizing their mothers, aunts, grandmothers, etc).

    Today, much work is being done by said “psychopathic individuals” to have the masses confuse autistic individuals with psychopathic individuals (a la Adam Lanza and the other young people that you have mentioned on this site, Jasun). I am doing my best to vigilant not to confuse the two, while recognizing that some children are natrual-born autistic individuals and some are natural-born “psychopathic individuals”. It crucial to make a distinction between the two and it can only be done with the recognition/realization that the two exist at all. The furies (the Mother’s fury) are released en masse when the two are confused and the wrong people are therefore killed and/or punished and/or not allowed to fulfill her/his own destiny.

  4. I am curious why people would think autistics are involved in something — and something seemingly spiritually — larger. DeMause talks about autism developing as a defence response to maternal abandonment, and it involving the likes of crawling into boxes and clinging to surfaces, and a fascination with cars and encasing mechanical objects — that is, with quarantining oneself, not expansion.

  5. I’d say you’ve narrowed the focus down without necessarily seeing anything more clearly.

    To attribute the origins of child abuse to a particular sect and practice is diabolos ex machina: blood-sucking rituals aren’t the source of collective nightmares about vampires, IMO, but an externalized symptom and expression of them. Such images were already embedded in the psyche before they were ever acted out.

    If you want to unravel this and speak about it with authority, you might want to do some more thorough and far-reaching research – not just LdM, who is showing the universality of infanticide and child abuse, but also Rene Girard (linked in the side bar of this blog) who looks at the psycho-sociological mechanism of violence.

  6. **** One of the things that stood out most dramatically for me as I looked more closely at Strieber’s pathological “model” of human evolution is how blatantly he mistakes effects for causes and so ends up like a rabid dog, chasing its tail with murder in its eyes. Suggesting that a barbaric blood-letting ritual is the cause of 3000 years of war is like saying that alcohol is the cause of alcoholism. It leaves unaddressed the question of why there is such a substance, or ritual, to begin with. ****

    A simple barbaric blood-letting ritual, eh? Metzitzah b’peh is more than just a blood-letting ritual to me.

    **** It will never ever work, IMO, to try and trace a problem to a particular set of people, belief, or activity; all problems must be found to originate in the natural process itself, since a problem by definition comes about when a natural process is prevented from occurring in the proper way, or keeping to the natural time-frame. ****

    I think that people knew that the problem was the natural born psychopathic individual, but most have forgotten it (due to the spread of trauma-inducing techniques) , to our detriment. Metzizah b’peh is probably the natural born psychopathic individual’s most highly regarded ritual, in my opinion.

    ****A person may wind up, like Whitley seems to have wound up, working himself into exhaustion to turn the tangent into an end-point. Hacking away at the brush telling himself that there IS a path here – or worse, that he is forging a new path for others to use – when what he’s actually doing is digging the hole he fell into deeper and deeper. This probably comes from an unconscious desire to escape whatever truth he was about to uncover. ****

    Don’t know enough abut Whitley (nor his work) to comment. I haven’t read any of his books. I’ve only heard a few interviews with him and, to me, he sounds hyper-resentful, at least tonally, so you might be right.

    ****For the mother-bonded male, the truth that our whole lives are unconsciously devoted to avoiding is this – a full, conscious separation from the mother’s psyche, abandoning all hope to regain the lost object, and the resulting powerlessness and despair of standing, solely and wholly, on our own two feet.

    And doing it without the father to help us! ****

    The idea of standing on our own two feet is the problem. We have to remember that we can only stand on the earth (our own two earths … one being the group soul and the other sole soul. )

    *** “Boys and teenage boys need to learn how to do violence well”

    I guess you mean hunt and kill? That’s probably true for some, what with the collapse of civilization and all. But I don’t think it is necessary to individuation per se, because there are many ways for a male child to have a sense of his own body and individuality that don’t require violence. This view sounds suspiciously American to me – the whole “regeneration through violence” thing, which is all sourced in male compensation for the psychological emasculation of mother-bondage. (There’s a big difference between killing an animal to eat it and killing it as a ritual sacrifice. Only a mother-bonded—non-individuated— male would try and curry favor of a god, or goddess, by offering blood.)****

    There’s a difference between being violence (which mother-bonded men are, seeing has how they follow the psycho path) and doing violence with conscious will. Until a teenage boy ( a non-autistic boy ) is taught to do violence intentionally and intelligently, by men, with care and concern for the well being of the whole of life/nature, he will be an embodiment of violence (meaning he will be directionless and dangerous in a bad way), you could say. I do not believe that autistic teenage boys should be taught to do violence.

    **** “I do think that it is important for a community to know who the autists are because they are not persons who should be made to do physical violence as the other boys should be made to do by the (real) men of the community. ”

    So autistics are not real men? ****

    An autistic man is a real man, of course, but he cannot be an “actualized” man, I believe . An actualized man has all of his neurotypical circuits running on optimal levels — cleanly and clearly — plus, non-typically he has his plasma circuits open and running with a depth of consciousness that is beyond typical. I don’t know if the word “actualized” is the right way to describe someone you is autistic. I tend not to think so. What do you think? Anyway, it is the actualized men that should be teaching teenage boys to do violence with intelligence/care and intentionality. But alas, how many actualized men are out there ?!!

    **** “Perhaps the autist is always going to be a part of the mother’s psyche by his nature ?”

    I think you have it backwards; autistics do not take to culture and are immersed in an even larger psyche than that of their mothers (with whom they tend not to bond at all). They are resisting the “matrix” the only way they know how.

    The predominant (“NT”) culture that glorifies war is the one that idealizes the mother. If autistics are not violent, that would indicate that they are less mother-bonded (or at least more aware of the suffocating pressure of the mother-psyche, hence have withdrawn from it), not more so. ****

    I should have maybe said “mother’s psyche” as ” Mother’s psyche”. The autistic individual is always going to be a part of the Mother’s psyche and therefore will not experience the “actualization” or “enightenment” in the same way that the “NT” man will, if he does at all. The autist is immersed in the Mother (the cosmic Mother which this planet is expressing this Mother-ness in perfection). A teenage boy who is not autistic (and many adult men as well) has no idea about the energies of the Mother passing through him , especially in this pseudo-culture called modern society. The autistic person knows those energies and probably doesn’t bother trying to define them … as the individuating teenage boy (non-autistic) must if he is to reach the stage of actualization / enlightenment.

    **** “As a man who knows how to do violence well matures, the inner work becomes a replacement for his usual ways of doing violence. The inner work, after all, is a form of doing violence, so indeed the violence never ends for man.”

    There is an element of destruction in spiritual inner work, but it’s not violence, just the opposite. It is the honesty of letting oneself see the distortions within us that destroys them. Doing violence to them is a way of keeping those complexes alive, in my opinion. Dissociation, for example, is inner violence. It is an aggressive act by which the psyche splits itself off and creates a surrogate reality in which it can be safe (or “free” from the devouring mother). Unfortunately this is generally what passes for inner or “spiritual” work in our present culture—probably because it’s necessary to create a counterfeit kind of individuation that won’t entail facing the terrifying unknown of a full separation from the matrix of mater.

    Integration is the inverse of violence—i.e., sex, or what Keats called soul-making. It’s when we allow ourselves to re-experience the original trauma of separation and draw back those split-off fragments, banishing the phantoms of mind that have kept them at bay (by projecting our trauma onto the world, and Gods and Goddesses, at large) ****

    It’s not violence to the autistic individual, but it is to the individuating (non-autistic) teenage boy (or man who is still in teenage mindset) who is on his way, with intention, to becoming an actualized man. And doing intentional and intelligent violence must be part of that individuation process of that teenage boy (or boy-man), and it must be taught, through embodied example, by other enlightened men who embody the ever-individuating process.

    Also, the inner work is not “spiritual inner work” to me. It’s just work ! (and I do experience it as doing violence … as much as I experience it as a repairing of the parts of myself that are injured and in grief over having the feeling of violence done upon him).

    I might have more to say in the future on the usefulness of having a therapist/coach who is on the autistic spectrum … as much as it is useful to have an “actualized” man to teach one (who is non-autistic) to do violence well , with wellness in mind.

  7. Interesting type I made :

    “I don’t know if the word “actualized” is the right way to describe someone you is autistic. I tend not to think so. What do you think?”
    It should read ” …. someone who is autistic” (NOT ” … someone you is autistic”) !

    Anyway, what I was trying to get to is that I don’t think that enlightenment would be experienced (and lived out) in the same way in an autistic adult person as in a non-autistic adult person. The term “actualized” is not a bad way to describe the “NT” individual who has fully “humanized” himself (aka enlightenment) but it is not a good term to describe an autistic because the “autist” doesn’t humanize himself. He doesn’t need to as the non-autistic “NT” person needs to. I don’t know. He is welcomed into the human family or not … Accepted for what he is or not (and accepted for what he is “expressing”/mirroring or not) . The psychopathic individual would have it so that the autistic person is not accepted , and so he (the psychopathic) does his best to see that as many people as possible are stripped of their humanity from the start. The results (2012 ending in a bang with the revelation of the Adam Lanza story) reveal that the psychopathic individual is doing his job of finding the optimal scapegoat (as he always does), and indeed the autistic individual is being used as (becoming) the optimal scapegoat figure of our time. Thanks for helping me get to explore/see this , Jasun.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s