The Liminalist # 133: Living Inside an Invisible Control System (from 4th Liminalista Live Meet-Up)

Highlights from fourth live video meet-up, with Martin J, Nick Kalani, Jeff Gentry, and Chris S., on self-censoring, being trapped on the Internet, fear of exposure, echoes in eternity, what are the consequences of being seen and heard, talking around trauma, subject to a malicious force, aspects of conflict, a perceived enemy, being vulnerable as a form of revolt,  smooth-faced columns of culture, holding up the social structures, culture as a prison for perception, the reality of fears, living inside an invisible control system, the baseline of anxiety for poison containers, the tip of a demonic iceberg, the anchoring of the fear in infant violations, the core of organized abuse for social control, masculine coherence, the middle way, the energy of “I can’t,” the cultural implant of fight-or-flight, turning the other cheek & the Holy Spirit, the only cure for culture, Joseph Chilton Pearce and opening the heart, inhibiting the fight-flight mechanism, letting trauma burn itself out, an adversarial relationship to the world, a culture of domination, returning to an oracular sensibility, the urge vs. the ability to fight the power, fraternal conflict, healing a disintegrating bond, standing one’s ground, taking a stand in the midst of trauma, acknowledging internal violence, confronting the dominators, the risks of speaking out against power, working in the public sphere, a question of action, what is our responsibility to confront crucial fictions?

Preconquest Consciousness” (Sorenson article)

Songs: “Song for Old Orion” and  “Song for My Peeps,” by Art of Flying; Raca (The Duck)” by Cinkusi.”A Thousand Stars,” by “Pictures of the Floating World

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

One Comment

  1. JorisKarl
    Posted November 9, 2017 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    Typically, Sorenson ends his clear discussion of preConquest sensibility that he copiously pits-advantageously-against postConquest rapaciousness by raising the question of the beneficent/maleficent future of postConquest sensibility! Doesn’t the whole thrust of his article answer that bogus question? I’m all-too-familiar with these sort of docile, lame endings to otherwise truth-telling analyses of just what it is that we oh-so-civilized have lost.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*