VioletAndPenny01
I’m on my way to a discussion of imagination at UCSD. Before I head out, I’d like to convey what I learned from two academics, one a physicist, the second a cultural historian. Independently, they arrived at a different approach to human thought. The physicist I call Violet and the cultural historian I call Penelope, Penny, and Pen for reasons I’ll go into in another post. In brief, they each chose degrees of anonymity because their ideas functioned (not at the root, but) at the DNA of human thought; such thinking didn’t meet with hugs from their colleagues, to put it mildly.
The historian called her central (and overall) approach “making thought consistent with realities of being human”. Penelope (and Violet) were all about practicality, that is: care, help, and what Violet termed ‘love’—somewhat akin to so-called, “Platonic” Love. Penelope and Violet were focussed on helping we-humans and helping our planet.
The cultural theorist, Penny, was also a futurist. She loved to playfully state this: “Well, in the 23rd Century…”. She arrived at her theory and practice (or call it praxis if you prefer, since she actually did her theory). (She talked her walk would be more accurate)…. Penny arrived at her theory in large part through an understanding of her own mind derived from this:
“Overcoming the aftermath of rape” as she called it.
Penny had been raped multiple times—and not all by the same man or men. She called the aftermath of her rapes (a duration of years) as “Walking through death.” “To return to life, I had no other choice but make my thoughts practical. Otherwise, I would be dead. I would have died.”
The Central Approach Violet and Penelope used for thought:
1) Make each word’s meaning logically consistent with earth-is-a-process (earth-is-a-unity-of processes).
2) Repeat.
Their central idea, in brief:
Human words exist in two forms, especially:
A) Words with vastly improved (non-perfect) meanings. For example, per scientific discovery. Empiricism (conducting physical experiments, especially) has improved meanings of words such as the ancient word electrum and the word light. In improving such meanings, often using mathematics as well, electro-magnetism resulted, followed by the quantum revolution, as incipiated by Max Planck and Einstein. From this work and the efforts of millions—including so many unheralded factory workers, for instance—we have solar panels, laptops, life saving medical devices, digital cameras, and telecommunications.
B) Common words, including words as ordinary as ‘the’, ‘this’, and ‘that’ with as-is, largely unimproved meanings. Many words remain logically inconsistent with the idea that earth-is-a-unity-of-processes. Such words include, especially, words of evaluation, since evaluations inform judgements and decisions. Such evaluative words include the words representing the following concepts:
True
Wrong-bad
Important
Necessary
Permanent
Impossible
Total
Superior
These provide a useful acronym: TWIN PITS.
In Violet’s and Pen’s assessment, such words fight against unity-of-earth. For instance, the word, impossible, as in “It can’t happen”, relies on the notion that all possibilities are already known and fully understood, that ‘nothing’ escapes us (or the selected in-group). In other words, words such as impossible often lie to us, distorting thought, blocking options. Retreating to make-believe of “anything’s possible” can fail even worse. Such lies can encourage violence, conflict, pain, etc. We don’t ‘need’ impractical meanings of words. Such words can be changed. I can attest fwiw to you—or not—that their thought methodology works. It decreased cognitive bias. It increased capacity for arriving at solutions for my life and solutions to problems at work, etc. Thought-by-earth largely mended so-called ‘me’. Depression ended, for instance.
Violet recommended not throwing the baby out with the bathwater (an old expression). In different words, we can retain the upside and jettison the downside…even if it’s ‘impossible’. As Violet remarked, “It’s impossible” amounts to what?: two words. Expanding the contraction gives you three: ‘it’, ‘is’, and ‘impossible’. They didn’t take no for an answer.” Penny stated something similar and with her characteristic play. Penny became adamant, on the topic of knowing, stating in playful-defiance: “Do I ‘know’? I don’t. That’s patriarchal language. ‘Knowing’ controls people when you’re the knower. Instead, I can learn what-works-and-helps ‘me’, persons, and planet. Help is where it’s at. That’s care. Care for self, care for persons, including women, and that care expands to embrace our planet. If it violates care, don’t do it.”
Both ditched (or nixed) conventional meanings of the concepts of ‘know’, ‘true’, and ‘truth’. Instead, they worked to celebrate science and work to use rationality in playful and practical ways. “Play is practical, Hillary…as you’ll discover in the 23rd Century. Why not begin the 23rd Century today, now? When you drop the k of know, you gain the n-o-w of now. When you drop the k of knew, you gain the n-e-w of new. Why not gain the 23rd Century?”
((That’s not verbatim, but it’s fairly close. If I recall more precisely, I’ll update. Penelope’s words functioned unlike the words of anyone I’ve ever met. She tried to teach me an art of communication. Mostly, I’m a dip-shit at it.))
Penny took the “don’t throw the baby out” methodology further (and with more precision than I have time for in this post). She termed it disentanglement. Often, our words, through common phrases, state {such and such} goes with { this and so}, {this} goes with {that}, as if the two are automatically linked. I’ll use her example of {rape} goes with {forever harmed}.
Pen expressed her recovery from years of “walking through death” as this: “What kept me locked within a prison of death amounted to one pervasive idea. It locked my head. It said, “You can’t ever feel joy, you can’t have fun, you can’t live a glorious life, because if you do, it’s like saying, “It’s okay to feel good [ever] after being raped. People need to know how harmful rape is. And I lived a hell for years as a result. Did it stop future rapes? Did it help women?” “Finally, I realized, I want to help women who have been raped and I’m a woman too. So I helped myself intensely to set an example and prove by counter-example, that gloriousness can be accomplished: a woman isn’t ever a “raped-woman”…that terminology gives men-who-rape power, the power to turn a woman into a “raped-woman”.” She explained that “Any definition that interferes with fun, joy, and care isn’t helpful, isn’t practical, is im-practical. I dropped the im- from im-practical. I made my definitions practical and that includes converting patriarchal language into whatever-actually-helps-us.”
In addition to her academic responsibilities, Pen devoted much time to two rape-crises centers. I asked her, “How can you have such energy?” She said, “I ended patriarchy within. When you do that, life’s different.”
I’ll continue in the next post.
Love,…because why not?,
Hillary
October 20, 2023