My best sociological paper written while at Grinnell College

Sexually inviolate. I put that term in my introduction, but never returned to it specifically. I didn't deconstruct my own symbolism. What does it essentially mean to be sexually inviolate? It means that one's level of violence done unto one by another, is determined by a second or third person--*never oneself*.

It is a fundamental right to claim when one's own person has been harmed in some way. It is a fundamental right to cite when violence has been done unto one's self, whether that self be the physical, mental, spiritual/psychical, or syncretic.

What, then, is the essence of self-defense, in my paradigm. When is one justified in attacking back (especially to the point of death)? In our legal system, it is the *level of _perceived_ threat*. Who determines this level? The would-be victim. Who validates this system? The government. Who defines this system? Not us--but instead our representatives.

There is never, in a meta-level perspective of defense, no psychically acceptable level of "self-defense." Self-defense is, in this manner, simply a means of pre-emptive strike. Kill, lest ye be killed. This is *still* the essence of the Old Testament.

We are in a newer age than the days of Moses, of Isaac and Israel. Jesus, the Christ, showed us how to follow him, become Christ in spirit and live on earth as though it literally is heaven. Yet, instead of following the path he pointed out, for millenia we have--rather obscenely--sucked Jesus's finger, seeking nourishment and comfort.

The mere memory of Jesus's existence, acts, and words will not provide such ambrosia, such milk and honey. Only living within the Holy Spirit can inspire that level of living.

Now. The difference between me and most Protestants is that I've redefined what ambrosia is, what the Holy Spirit is, what Jesus's message represents, and what constitutes living on earth. Living *in* the world, yet not *of* it (or only of it). I believe in using psychoactive sacraments in order to commune with the Divine Light.

The above paragraph, nearly by definition, sounds incredibly New Age-y. This is why I term myself "New Age". I realize that what I say may sound ridiculously idealistic and rather crazy; it may sound like I'm proposing heresy and desire to form a cult. In some people's perspectives, I guess I reflect that reality. But in MY reality, everything is as it is, and if I get enough time to explain myself, maybe it won't seem so much that my vision is mistaken or blasphemous.

from Spiritual Journal, 8/21/01

10:00 p.m.

"To define is to limit, to set boundaries, to compare and to contrast, and for this reason the universe, the all, seems to defy definition."
--Alan Watts, The Book, p. 141

This may be why critics of my demarcation poem were dissatisfied with the direction it took. The protagonist fell into the naming trap, just as the one who had come before her and from whom she strove to extricate herself.

10:28 p.m.

"Grant that the statement 'Everything is energy' conveys no more information than 'Everything is everything.' [...] This relativity, or interdependence, of the two [that is, mass/non-mass] is as close to a metaphysical unity underlying difference as anyone can wish."
--Alan Watts, The Book, pp. 145-6

This goes back to my church's first tenet and also the second(?) one. It goes back to why I feel that E=mc^2 has especial religious import and relevance for me. This is a description of why I find hard science to be, at its core, innately metaphysical. This is why I consider Albert Einstein, that venerable scientist, a bona fide modern-day mystick.

10:50 p.m.

"As a devout Christian you would be saying day after day the prayer, 'Our Father who art in heaven,' and eventually it gets you: you are relating emotionally to IT as to an idealized father--male, loving but stern, and a personal being quite other than yourself."
--Alan Watts, The Book, p. 152

Yet, before that:

"You were probably brought up in a culture where the presiding image of IT has for centuries been God the Father, whose pronoun is He, because IT seems too impersonal and She would, of course, be inferior."
--also p. 152

The last phrase, taken within the context of the book, is obviously made tongue-in-cheek. Yet this goes back to my sincere belief that the gender dichotomy is one of the greatest agents of our societal dis-ease.

It also goes back to why Westerners un- or subconsciously equate the body as the Other, matter as feminine, and why women--feminized human nature--is the cause of the Biblical Fall [from grace].
Perhaps here I have found new value in the Genesis fable that I have, since becoming a feminist, come to abhor. But it only works as an archetypal myth--not as literal happenstance. To believe that the story is concrete history--an event that actually happened--is to give into the ancient illusion of fundamental dualism, this time between/among the sexes.

from Spiritual Journal, 8/28/01

5:42 p.m.

"Induction and deduction are two different ways of reasoning. Inductive reasoning proceeds from experience and experimentation and draws conclusions or principles from them. Deductive reasoning proceeds from theory and develops conclusions that are logically drawn from the premises of the theory. Thus induction is experience based and deduction is logic based."
--Induction/deduction, From Archetype to Zeitgeist, Logic & Reasoning section, p. 95.

6:30 p.m.

Religious/spiritual experience is concrete, insofar as it is "capable of being experienced." GOD, however, is abstract, as it is "conceptual, theoretical, or capable of being attributed to individuals as a quality."
Is there some way of denoting the religious experience without bringing in the concept of GOD? What makes a particular experience "religious"? Is the religious experience necessarily dependent on the notion of GOD?

If not, why not?! That's my question.

email to the Back Table and others, July 3, 2001

Subject: Finally, the start of an explanation

Hello all. For those expecting this email, thank you for taking
the time to read it. For those not expecting (I have yet *more*
folks in the bcc: field :), please just give me time, space, and
the benefit of the doubt. I feel I have important news about
the direction of my life.

First off, let me again request that you excuse my apparent
megalomania. I assure you, I feel both megalomania *and*
meekness at the same time. I'm trying to be compassionate with
what I say.

Okay. *deep, quick sigh*

1. I feel I fundamentally understand Einstein's expression of
the theory of relativity. (See A below.)

2. I feel this because I feel I have gained an innate grasp of
(a) what the expression is [E=mc^2], (b) what the component
parts of that expression [which most people take at face value,
simply reading it as "E=mc^2"], and (c) what *I* think the
expression might mean.

3. I then internalized both what E=mc^2 is on the surface, and
somehow (see B below) found a way to relate myself TO that
expression.

4. Finally, I synthesized that new understanding in relation
with my old understanding, and in doing so found a way to
"see"--or, rather, learn how to intuitively interpret--"light",
AND how to use it pro-actively in my life. (See C.)

5. In other words, I found a common 'human' denominator,
expanded upon it, and gained a *smile* relatively new way of
looking at the world.

6. This new knowledge has helped me improve upon my current
state, which in turn helps me to learn what it is to improve.

7. From there, I can see how I can affect that change on a
larger system. That is, I have in essence taught myself the
very fundamentals of teaching.

8. This is not over yet!

Thus (I'd prefer to use the mathematic symbol for 'thus' in this
context, if it were possible), I feel I have become enlightened.
(See D.)


A. I knew, when I say this, that people's first reaction would
be, "This person must be either insane or simply
megalomaniacal!" This inchoate treatise is my first attempt to
prove, not only to myself but also to others, that some other
condition besides those listed may well apply.

B. I feel this is *smile* the *very essence* of the "theory" of
relativity. IN THEORY, we as a species--as well as
individuals--have the ability to relate to the world, and make
it so that the world relates to us. (Actually, this applies to
every thing, not just humans.) In the context of society and
human relationships, this can mean that, in the realm of
possibility, some person(s) could learn/be taught/come to
understand how to innately affect our environment.
The reason I feel *I* have been enlightened is because I
feel *I*, personally, would be able to accomplish ANYTHING,
given enough resources. I feel I have such a fundamental
understanding of not only my environment, but environments in
general, to relate that comprehensive idea to all other areas of
my life.
At the same time, I don't feel that ONLY I have this
possibility, this A-bility. I feel that, because I have been
instilled with the ideology of democracy, liberalism (i.e., a
loose system of social progress), personal freedom, and also
that of independence, resiliency, personal responsibility...
because I feel I now understand them, I can inspire others to
see in a similar fashion, and help them too to become
"enlightened".

C. I call this "use of fundamental knowledge to affect positive
change in one's environment", or the idea of using one's
self-confidence to bring about one's own idea of progress.
A lot of people seem to think that self-confidence is the
enemy of self-doubt. It is in some contexts, but in the greater
concept of what "self-confidence" IS & what "self-doubt" IS, we
recognize that they could not exist without the other; they are
unified in spirit. They necessarily operate in conjunction with
each other.
And in the even grander context, because a person can see
both the fluidity of concepts as well as the friction each
causes the other, we can begin to understand how to use both the
fluidity and friction in new situations. This brings about new
understanding, which brings about more change, which seems to be
the point of human existence (what some previous wise folk refer
to as "the human condition").

*sigh* It sounds like I'm just repeating myself over and over.
At least, that's what it feels like. If I haven't repeated
myself to you yet, let me know. I'll try to explain myself more
clearly.

Also note that the above explanation begs what I think of all
sorts of concepts, on all scales. But I realize I don't have
time to cover all of them. Not right now. (The right time will
present itself, and hopefully I will be watching well enough to
recognize it!)

D. [This is mainly for the benefit of the geeky Back
Tablers--particularly Leif! *smile*] I have been enlightened.
This has helped me to understand that not only am I enlightened
now, but I have always been enlightened, and, as long as I'm not
content to rest on my previous successes, I will always be in
the process of becoming enlightened.


So, what does all this REALLY mean? :)

Simply put, I can't put it all in one email. But the one thing
I'd really like people to put some thought into is the one thing
I presumed to be "common knowledge", and therefore I never took
the time to explain. I identify my missing yet supposedly
universally understood concept to be that of Time.
Time is the missing element in E=mc^2. (That's because it
can be factored out! But calculus teaches us that, to truly
understand something, we need to try to factor things back into
original equations as well.) Well, it's not *really* missing.
It's expressed in the operator, the equals sign. We've taught
ourselves, in the interest of fully pursuing progress, to
compress time so much so as to completely remove our
appreciation of it in our lives. I feel this to be true
ESPECIALLY in relation to our *selves*.
When we can figure out how to incorporate the idea of time
back into our normal way of thinking, maybe--just maybe--we can
"transcend" our current way of existence/expressing
action/producing thought. I mean, that's what transcendence is
supposed to mean, right? :)

All right, that's all I can say right now. My brain is
exhausted at the moment. :) It's been working a little
overtime. But I'm trying to learn how to compensate for that.
Anyway, feel free to write back and start public, group, or
private dialogue with me about anything here that may intrigue
you. I'm humble enough to realize that I may be my own start of
positive change, but without an outside environment to keep me
stimulated, I will fall back into my old ways of thinking. (I
used to assume I was always right.)

Take care, all. Know that each of you are in my thoughts.

email from Roger (a good friend I met through RPGs), July 4, 2001

Re: Janann and Einstein

Dear Janann,

Many times I have been told that I suffer from social retardation. I've given up defending myself from the charge, and will grant this point to anyone who wants to make it. OK, I'm socially retarded; I can't scan and correlate the numerous and quickly-changing variables in social dynmaics, I read body language badly, and I'm a lousy white-liar.

Therefore, I ask that you take this response as feedback from
the mouth of the archetypical Fool. I also ask that you not be offended, since the trouble with being a Fool is that you can be polite (i.e. shut up) or you can communicate (speak the truth) but you can never do both. I may be about to put my boot-print on my uvula, so I'm going to give you some spoiler space, to decide if you really want to read my response. You've been warned.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

I am worried about you. Your comments about Einstein's theory
of general relativity and E=MC squared, are incoherent and illogical. You seem to have had an epiphany of some sort, and I don't question the value and importance of any personal breakthrough or life-changing insight you've just experienced. However, your spiritual growth cannot have any connection whatsoever to Albert Einstein and that famous three-variable equation.

You aren't a physics and math person. It takes years of study for gifted people to fully appreciate what geniuses such as Albert
Einstein, Paul Dirac, and Stephen Hawking have contributed to mathematical physics. Insights regarding relativity, gravity, antimatter, and the Big Bang do NOT just come to someone through serendipity. Like triathalon medals, they have to be won through incredible talent, dedicated effort, and focus.

I'm not a physics person, either. I've read "The Dancing Wu Li
Masters" by Gary Zukav, "Fear of Physics" by Lawrence Krauss, and part of "Relativity and Common Sense" by Hermann Bondi. I haven't finished "About Time" by Paul Davies, which has some mention of relativity. Books that explain advanced physics in layman's terms depress me, and I read them out of feeling of duty. They're exhausting and painful, offering a glimpse of an intellectual world forever out of reach.

However, I know enough to see that your E+MC squared comments do not follow.
Making the world a better place has nothing to do with the conversion factor of energy to mass multiplied by the velocity of light in empty space, multiplied by itself. Relations with other people, idealogies (however enlightened), and social responsibility have nothing to do with why 186,000 km/second is the universal speed limit, why gravity diminishes with time, or why space can bend.

Perhaps you have indeed become enlightened. Perhaps you are the
Buddah. Just remember that the Buddah wasn't a physicist either, nor did he claim to be.

I am not trying to discourage you, only to say that I believe you have picked up E=MC squared as a visual tag to associate with an
insight you've just had, a sort of mental shorthand. It's understandable, but shouldn't be taken literally. I may believe that the gender-culture of women has to change radically in order for them to ever achieve their potential, but if sum it up by saying "Janeane Garofalo is the savior of mankind and the oracle of the new millenium," people are going to start wondering what
medications I should be on.

Before you go any further, take the advice of Socrates and quantify what it is that you *don't* know, to throw what you've learned into greater relief.

Sincerely,
Roger

email from Dan P., one of my best and closest friends in the world, July 5, 2001

Re: Finally, the start of an explanation

in short i agree with roger (although i never met him) we talked and ran out of time. i personally think you have too many outside and unnatural stimuli [i.e., drugs] racing through you noggin best wish to a speedy recovery, and remember white coats with sleeves in the back come in many different and comfortable sizes:) lots O love janann

dan

email sent to Blade, a dear friend and love, August 3, 2001

Re: Fwd: Re: Stuff

Hey hon. :)

I wrote this response to the above email on 7/21/01. I'm sorry
it's taken me so long to actually transcribe it and send it to
you.

Please respond when you have leave....

* * *

To preface this, let me say that I am under the influence of
DXM, so that may make my response seem strange. However, I
consider DXM to be a religious sacrament, and I took a
relatively low dose--300 mgs. So YMMV.

[Note: if you'd like to know more about DXM, visit
http://www.erowid.org and look up DXM on the main table in the
Plants and Drugs section.]

Why are you so biased against chemically induced enlightenment?
Why does the introduction of chemicals change things?

I understand your concern with regards to your housemate Chris.
I'll not lie--I'm an addict. I love taking drugs for the simple
reason that they allow me to step outside the context of society
and let me commune with myself for awhile. Entheogens are
strange drugs that people have good reason to be wary of. That
does not mean that they should be rejected out of hand.

I am an addictive personality as well. I feared for myself the
first time I took marijuana. But I decided to trust myself, my
own instincts and curiosity. I knew I wouldn't get physically
addicted, and that it was one of the safest drugs around.

Since then, I've done other drugs, most illicit. But I've
always done copious amounts of research before delving into
them. I honestly feel my intellect should serve as my "first
line of defense," as it were. The more information I have, the
better I can judge whether a drug would provide a result I seek.

Funny you should bring up imprinting. Parliament's
"Funkentelechy," the song I first *really* tranced to, referred
to deprogramming and then reprogramming oneself. I feel that I
have that ability, and that substance use could be a tool to
further that endeavor.

Yes it *is* a psychomancy... the likes of which you may not yet
have seen.

Yes, I realize that drugs are not THE MESSIAH. :) I want the
drugs to be a tool, tools that can be discarded once a solid
foundation of knowledge has been laid. Until then, I hope to
utilize all manners of drugs to stimulate my thinking and help
me develop my philosophy. The more quickly I can do this, the
more quickly I can dispose of these "crutches," as you call
them.

I know the essense of enlightenment is constant change. I
agree, ex-stasis. Movement is key. One can only hope that
movement is forward progress. ...

:) Cultists employ all *sorts* of vices. I always assumed that
sex would be the manner in which I'd transcend. I even wrote
that in my earlier spiritual journals, when I was dating Corey
and had just gotten into marijuana. Imagine my surprise when I
came across DXM and tranced. It was utterly amazing. Anyway,
sex is good to transcend to as well. :) Anything that puts you
in the moment--that's time manipulation. And that's the
beginning of living outside the box, to use your words.

* * *

That's all I had written.

I'd like to know: Where are you in your spiritual journey these
days?

So, that's my response! I hope to hear from you soon. Take
care, love.

Janann

Some things perhaps that I should explain.

First off, I'm the least likely person to have a fine grasp of the theory of relativity; for that reason alone, I do not claim to understand it fully. I do, however, feel I understand it intuitively. I don't have the language to describe it succinctly. I have to approach with circumspection, just as I would if I tried to describe the manner in which I view life.

Anyway. I didn't read my first real book of science fiction until I was 18 or 19, when Blade gave me a copy of Stranger in a Strange Land to read. Up to that point, I hadn't even seen very many sci-fi movies. I'd only seen Star Wars once. I did watch Star Trek TNS and early seasons of DS9, and had even been treated to the first season of B5 (before it lulled and seemed to be going nowhere).

I read the likes of Stephen King, Lois Duncan and Christopher Pike. I liked realistic fiction, supernatural stories but not supranatural. I listened to the black music station (97.9, WJLB), but also the new alternative station (96.3, whose call letters I should remember!). I grew up an hour south of Detroit, 45 minutes east of Ann Arbor, in a little place called Belleville. Pure Michigan country. Very rural, and very poor. Predominantly black. Most of my friends in my neighborhood were black.

But I attended predominantly white schools for the entirety of my life, and white churches since I began choosing my own denominations, when I was 12.

I took mostly creative classes. I had the equivalent of five years of math in high school, but I didn't take any physics. I only went as far as Chemistry I. I loved English, and music. But for some reason I stayed away from the hard sciences. (I think I had some trouble in Chemistry, and decided it wasn't worth... well, worth the pain of failure. Better to succeed at something else.)

At my college, you only had to take one required class, and anything required for your major. My major was a social science, but I took no hard sciences at all. I failed my sole computer science course (bad semester all around); and I struggled through all of the math classes I had.

Given all this, I can see why my friends did not believe me when I said I understood the theory of relativity. I don't blame them for their skepticism. I was/am a skeptic, too. I still don't understand dark matter, and I've read several articles on it. Things I want to know, yet cannot seem to grasp, frustrate me and makes me question the limits of my understanding.

But I'm learning, and that pleases me. Rikhei gave me a copy of Beyond Good & Evil by Nietzsche, and that has really opened my eyes. Oddly enough, it's informed my Christian beliefs for the better.