Abuse Authority Social control
. . . OK, so I wanted to build a graphic, a visual, a tree or something, with a beginning and a flow and an end, but there’s no beginning, I’m sorry, ignore that silly chart, don’t listen to that, listen to this instead: it’s impossible to untangle, our troubles, it is a mode of existence, encompassing both the causes and the effects, let’s call it Warrior Mode, it’s a group conflict mode of life for human beings, and we have warrior life problems, mostly a lot of fighting. You take the rough with the smooth.
Antisocialization Theory tries to describe how life in this mode hangs about, how it is maintained and reinforced.
Origins, how it begins . . . does it matter? AST suggests that evolution has moved on, that we are not who we were when it began anymore and also that evolution is different than creation, things are not evolved into existence and then stuck with themselves forever that way as they are in creationism. In an evolved reality, if it exists today, it is because you are making it so today. I have fantasized about origins before, it seems a sure way to discredit oneself, wild guesses, tailored to fit the guesses of others before me regarding our origins generally: a sure way to be a fool and look like it. For now, let us be sure that begin it did, because here it is, up and flying.
It’s very difficult to talk about because a way of life asks certain questions and answers them a certain way, and a different way of life has different priorities, asks different questions. As I said, both the causes and the effects are different, what is to compare? The opposite, or alternative to it is rather an unknown thing, beyond the current epistemes, which can be thought of as the public imagination. “Mode of existence,” methodology of life, this is not small, it is sort of the whole world, all of the epistemes, all of the environment, almost. Language is not made for multiple worlds, or multiple neurotypes, or even more than a single human group, it’s as though the Us and Them aspect of human life was what language was created for, and maybe it was, I don’t suppose I’m the first to suggest that.
I still think this tack is worth a try, I always think a puzzle of how to say a thing is doable, somehow, given unlimited commas, dashes, and colons: that it means both the causes and the effects, that a change of mode wouldn’t answer the same problems or questions. I even have an example.
Take the case of the terminology of the public conversation around childrearing, where the connection based people, they are quick to say that the question in childrearing for them is not, “what ‘works,’ to win the conflicts for the adults, to have the kids compliant, but what ‘works,’ to maintain trust and love in the relationship. It’s the same, and this example is exactly the point. The “connection-based” parent wants something different than the “regular” one does, or at least they are trying to, perhaps battling these two modes within themselves.
But it’s that big, really, a way of life, different goals altogether, despite that the public conversation always frames it as either no choice or rather a simple one. It’s a choice, but it’s a big, complicated one, and if we understood that going in, maybe a few more of us would succeed at actually making the change.
This example is framed from one side, you know I’m with the coddlers, the regular folks don’t say it’s to win fights against children, they have their own language, it’s ‘teaching wrong from right,’ or some such, we’re all more than familiar with it, they don’t frame their mode of life the way I do, and if I expressed it from their side their goal would be to maintain order and I would represent anarchy, threatening to take us back to the jungle.
I think they would agree that the difference is not small, an entire lifestyle.
In the warrior mode of life, really almost what they mean when they say, ‘the life,’ like the criminal life, life in the human jungle, there is always an Other, an enemy, a rival, always another group over the hill or across the ocean that poses a threat, as we do to them, and all in this mode of life are obliged to be ready at short notice – strong and angry, ready to fight.
All three of my second layer functions above serve this purpose, making us gain and hold some level of fear and anger. It is Antisocialization Theory that the rightmost one includes the leftmost, and that the centre one ensures the implementation and success of the others. Perhaps Social control belongs in the third layer, under Authority, but I’ll be scrapping it all soon enough, so for now it can stand. That much wouldn’t be so different.
Warrior mode involves planting a seed in childhood, a seed comprised of fear and pain and resentment that the group can harvest later, this is what I call the Antisocialization Theory of war, this bit of emotional agriculture, the creation, nurturing and storage of bad feelings that can be unleashed later as aggression.
The ‘beginning’ of the cycle, the cause that precedes the effects referred to above in a mode of human life is our first spanking, perhaps our first threat-bite a million years ago (and that’s as far as I want to go, not a cause, just the same scene), and the ‘end’ of it, the effect and the harvest comes when we kill in war, or perhaps when we have spanked our children, deferring the worst of the harvest to the next generation, when perhaps they are reaped for the next war.
I suspect it is fair to say that at that ‘beginning,’ in the timeline of a human life, that the introduction of a new child to the life of fighting/social control is an event thoroughly ensconced in both categories, abuse and social control, that what is transmitted is both emotional, anger and “strength,” read ‘antisocialization,’ and also the perhaps less emotionally loaded informational ‘socialization’ of cerebrally learning the rules, the environment.
Completionism asks that we mention the third possibility, prosocialization, but we are talking about violence in this case. More generally, do we do things to grow love in our children, or was it already there, these are important questions, and I touch upon them, I do think we are born “good,” and loving, my evidence being AST, the world of tech we have and use to turn it around and to dampen empathy tells me we must have been good to start, why spend all your time and money breaking a thing that is already broken?
This logic is solid for me, proof positive. I see the manufacture of our evil; I have no reason to suspect it pre-existed except the word of the manufacturers themselves.
Do we grow love nonetheless, of course we do, by giving it, with food and care – but our antisocializing tech I feel overwhelms it, we grow more hate than love, surely you see the news. So I’m a repairman, the love that is isn’t a problem, we will follow two streams, the pain and the knowledge. These are where the problems are.
So I guess my graphic needs two flows after that?
Oh, and the other thing. Kill your darlings. Ignore the previous graphic, and the upper left quarter of this one for now, I’m not there yet, it’s sure to change or disappear.
Healing Social control
I guess that will be two streams.
I have stated, perhaps overly leaning towards poetry and away from science, that the first bite, the first hit perhaps convinces our infant selves to make the ‘Human Nature,’ decision, to decide that people, even Mom, go in the Predator category, as Bad News. Again, it would seem unlikely that we could separate the emotional response from the decision, the informational change, and my word, ‘antisocialization,’ does mean both – again, this is modal, both sides of the incident: the infant’s problem, Mom apparently attacking, and the infant’s solution, don’t trust people, the cause and the effect.
But of course, the first bit of friendly fire isn’t the last; AST has it that your whole life of frustrations and pain are in your antisocial savings account, ready to be misappropriated and spent by the CEO at any time. And once you have it in your head, don’t trust people, people are on the Bad side of the ledger, it’s not hard to find a world of evidence to back it up. Every time we hear it, our infant selves’ binary judgement is confirmed, and that surely feels like truth, I mean survival is a good enough surrogate for truth, so that’s the dopamine mix it gives, that’s how it feels to us. Oh – there’s a group dynamic, I suppose: even the innocent mistakes of the out-group feel like confirmation, people are horrible, our group prejudices confirm our bad judgment that we learned at home? Everything does, I’m afraid – it’s a mode of life, pervasive.
And there’s no getting around it, it doesn’t much matter what that creature says, does it? . . . uh oh, starting to feel easy, I’m on my usual again, I fear. What was I supposed to be doing? Something about two causal streams?
I mean, it’s the boss’ to spend provided you’re not living as a complete raging beast, letting it out all the time to begin with! I don’t mean to be leaving anyone out. Even the boss, angry imp emoji.
Ah, there it is, the boss is letting off the same steam? So –
Abuse Social Control
Social Control Abuse
OK, I wonder what is the more circular, the reality, or just my logic?
Easy to see an endless cycle here, of social control and abuse leading to social control and abuse forever, except when we can change course, lose the control and go to war. That is not a very hopeful graphic, let’s all just take solace in that it is surely still wrong? Of course, I fear it is not wrong, but it’s a cycle, and our task is to find where it can be broken, if anywhere. It is all one thing, rather integrated, that isn’t simple – despite that the entire cycle and every block in the graphic is a human behaviour, it’s a system, again, the mode of living – so you can’t replace one leg of it, you have to do them all.
Again, what that looks like, the diagram for another mode of existence? How would I know? This surely is another guaranteed way to be a fool, I only know this life too, despite I’ve spent my life running from it rather than working in it, but I’ll give you my first childish guess, with the understanding that that is all it is:
I think we look like a zoo in another paradigm, where we assess each other’s needs and provide for them, while keeping us safe from one another somehow, managing our breeding, working for diversity and celebrating variety. That would be the opposite; this warrior life keeps throwing up obstacle courses and trials and bends towards a lethal conformism for everything it touches.
There’s my pithy ending, the moral of the human story, but this one has another.
I said, “impossible to untangle,” and I sort of meant it – but that’s not the end, if I was a determinist I wouldn’t write, why would you. It sort of is, it was my point that you can’t just pull the spanking thread out of it so easily as we imagine we might – but the point is that the knot is real and specific and has limits and weaknesses and is not some limitless ideological situation that we would have to fight God to escape. We can’t untangle it one thread at a time, maybe, but it will be doable.
Antisocialization Theory, it is a trap, a self-perpetuating system – -but is not existence itself as the creation meme has it, as the half-measures, half understood version of evolution and nature we often speak of that is only creation with a new name has it. It’s big, but it’s not mythology big – and it has a logic. It’s an intelligence test – can we chimpanzees work together, communicate well enough to pull all the strings, solve the puzzle, and get the bananas? Applications are being accepted.
March 5th., 2023