I saw a comment by Jordan Peterson recently, stating that tools are inherently “magical”, because our brains re-wire themselves in order to encompass the tool as part of personal identity. This rings as very true, from things such as swords and spears, to cars, computers and smartphones. When a good driver drives a car, his identity is so merged with the car, he for all intents and purposes is the car. When a swordsman wields a sword, his self is the sword. If you treat the sword as an outside entity between you and the threat, you won’t live long.
This is something that has long been the object of my interest, as I’ve watched videos of people talking about their tools – from axes and kitchen knives to guns, smartphones, computers and, yes, dogs.
What I found interesting is that people’s relationship with tools seems to be gender-specific. While men will merge self with their tools and project through them in the world in order to accomplish tasks – the tools being things such as axes, swords, guns, cars and computers – women will see those things as mere things that accomplish tasks; there is no extension of self through them and outwards. To a woman, a car is merely a thing that goes from A to B, a computer is merely a tool she uses to communicate or whatever; there is seldom any interest in how it works, or desire to invest effort in proper maintenance. There are exceptions, of course, but those make the rule. What women identify with, extend through and project into the world are clothes and accessories to their body: makeup, handbags, shoes and so on. Women will extend through those things with as much focus and force as a lumberjack through his chainsaw or a racing driver through his car. I would say the difference essentially comes down to the fact that the men’s primary focus is on accomplishing goals in the world, and their tools are the instruments of projecting self into the world and controlling it. If you want to fell a tree, you might not care what your clothes look like, but you will care for what your chainsaw does, because your life depends on it. A woman, however, seems to be primarily inward-oriented, where self is completely immersed in the body, and the tools serve the purpose of amplifying the body and signalling-towards, essentially advertising body-self as attractive and desirable, which then accomplishes the primary life goal of attracting a desirable mate and starting a family. Basically, a man projects self outwards and modifies the world to make it liveable, and a woman attracts a man towards body-self and tries to wrap the world around self in order to create a protective and controlled nest. Interestingly, there is very little self-awareness in all of this; people just do it and seldom think about what they are doing.
Not me, though. I usually give quite a bit of thought to things people just assume, or not even that. For instance, I observed how I identify with and extend through my tools, and how I feel computers differently, depending on whether it’s a laptop or a desktop. It’s much easier to envelop a laptop into self, because it’s one thing. A desktop computer is different, and I form contact with the peripherals – keyboard, mouse, monitor – while the computer itself is somewhere behind all that, a box with wires that is out of sight and out of mind, however I extend into the filesystem, the drives, the directory structure, the network connections, the software tools I use, and through that into the Internet, and there’s always the question of where exactly is my self when I’m on the Internet? It’s certainly not in the physical room, in the body that sits behind the desk. It’s in some forum, forming connections and interacting through the existing ones. I wonder what the actual topology of this would look like in the global astral – Internet “places” would probably look like those maps of illumination taken from Earth’s orbit, where more light means more human activity and presence, and ideal concept such as “brands” would be points of convergence, things people brush against to acquire their “scent” and project such “scented” self outwards, into the places where others come, so that they are perceived as “enhanced” and “accomplished”. The entire thing is probably quite comparable to dogs wallowing in shit in order to change their scent.
It’s not just brands, however – it’s a more general thing. It’s about being perceived as having the right attitudes about things, not just being properly accessorised. That’s why people virtue-signal on the Internet; they basically wallow in “right” kinds of shit in order to smell “right” and be acceptable and, hopefully, popular, in their desired social circle. Unfortunately, there is very little conscious thought involved in all of this; just social animals scent-signalling and marking territory, or declaring self as marked territory, in submission – I belong to nation, I belong to religion, I belong to “climate change social justice believe everything the authorities say” cult. Inject yourself with bioweapon in order to signal submission to the authorities and belonging to the main stream of the herd in order to claim its protection, and the sense of superiority to the “others”. Believe every kind of nonsense you are told and still declare yourself to be a free, liberal person, because that’s a thing you have to believe if you’re “normal”.
However, if you actually use your critical faculties to process the world around you, the silliness of it all is greatly outweighed by tragedy.
Many interesting points. I suppose one envelops or “possesses”, a physical tool (a rifle, fountain pen, sword) by extending their lower subtle body into it (and a software would have to involve the mental body extensions as well). The feeling is important here, to feel that an object is an extension of yourself (of your body, mind, even emotions?)
I would sometimes intentionally “possess” a seat when on public transportantion if I didn’t want other people to squeeze in next to me. I noticed that in the past I would automatically withdraw my energy body from an available seat if someone wanted to sit next to me (out of politeness?). One day I decided, as an exercise – no more withdrawing, I will keep the hold of the space (while still being polite, indicating that the seat is available) and see what happens. People would generally rather sit elsewhere, and if they did squeeze in next to me, they’d look for another available space, as soon as it became available.
What does a salesperson do? Or any person who sees people as mere tools – he reaches into the buyer, saying “Yes! I want this!” for him until he agrees and decides to buy. There is some resistance when reaching into another person, until one develops a technique, a sweeter approach. A seller reaches into the astral mess of a body of the buyer, affecting his desires and needs.
Let’s go even further: What is a manager’s tool – other people? Does a manager reach inside his subordinates with his energy unconsciously or consciously; do they merge in a way (and could that be the reason why managers prefer employees to work from the office rather than from home)? He reaches into his subordinate and creates a preassure for him to say “Yes sir!” (and also gets some gratification when he gets a little bit of employees energy in the process; it keeps him hooked to the process making sure he’ll repeat it). Sounds very sexual and repulsive…
What is the tool of a brand manager – the brand? How does one control the brand (an astral tool/entity)? By reaching into the brand mentally & emotionally? If the brand is an entity of a sort, who is more in control, the manager or the brand? Who is possessing whom?
I’ve gone too far now, but I like how this subject and your post made me think in many directions at once.
I was thinking about the concept of extending into other people and manifesting your will through them. It sounds weird because of the issue of consent – it should not work properly if a will on the other side opposes it, but what happens in cases where there is consent, or at least acceptance? By this I mean things like army or any hierarchical business organisation, where the subordinates accept being ordered around by the higher-ups. Also, things such as mass movements in politics, where someone like Hitler taps into people’s issues and thus gains consent to rule them and wield his ideas through them. How much, if any, of all this is good?
I’m sure it’s not a good thing at all, but this is how the world around is structured, and forces us to accept the game or be excluded. Schools and families install compliance into kids, they don’t train them to develop their will or to resist external influences. Even more, parents (with more or less success) try to enforce their will through their children. Erich Fromm considered the family to be just an agency of the society, for that specific purpose. I wonder if some people even have the innate capacity to develop a strong will and resistance.
When you mentioned the army and Hitler I remembered one Indian podcast where a tantra practitioner explained some parts of Mahabharata, where the enemy side that fought against Krishna and Arjuna had assistance from Asuras or Rakshasas, who said to the army generals:
“Don’t worry, we will possess your soldiers’ bodies and lead them into victory”,
but this is beyond human influence? I wonder if Asuras here intended to actually win the war, or just cause as much causalities and bloodshed as possible, to later feast on whoever falls.
Which is a condemnation in itself, and needs to be carefully remembered.
I’m thinking how this might actually explain my problem with narcissists; they are exactly the kind of people that instinctively extend through other people and try to manifest their will through them and force them into serving them. I am probably too open and emphatic and quite sensitive to this kind of violence, most likely because my narcissistic mother trained me from childhood to instantly submit to her whims or violence would automatically ensue, and, regardless of later training, apparently some of this stuck. I think the problem is that I’m initially agreeable, and too late to react to this kind of violence, however since I’m very powerful, I’m actually the last person anyone would want to fuck with; basically, the narcissist can create an initial breach and create some kind of an exploitative astral link, but I then say “wait a fucking minute”, recognise what’s going on, and proceed to destroy them, and since they act instinctively, they don’t know how to close the connection, which remains to irritate me, and I repeatedly hit them through it until they either detach or die. My problem of preventing this from happening in the first place still remains, and I’ll have to think about it more. It’s like having a dog chase your car and attach itself to the tyre with its teeth. The dog gets destroyed, of course, but you do have a mess to clean up and its guts and bones can scratch the paint. 🙂
I’m also trying to develop or discover ways of dealing with parasitic, or in other ways difficult people. However, I don’t want to prevent their influnces from ever happening, as I might need to exercise to “stay fit” in a way. They are a part of the real world and a challenge to overcome, an opportunity to test myself, a reminder to keep working.
You have just redesigned the major arcana The Fool.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1124e1cdfd83061c54bedf0fb8475c616523b531731a30795dfda4118bec48e1.jpg
It’s interesting to observe these more extreme examples (managers of different departments) when they are interacting with each other (eg in meetings), draining themselves and one another, promoting themselves (as if anyone cares) by telling stories about how great they are or how hard they work, and secretly harbouring hatred for one another, plotting against one another, swimming in lies, gossiping, socializing with colleagues they hate and despise… Management is a circle of hell in some companies.
They don’t have other tools to achieve what they want (except “social skills” or bad acting, sexuality, emotional appeals, coersion, apparent manipulation, submission/ kissing up etc)…
They burn out, get sick often, get addicted to achohol, and they have to deal with all subordinates, including those with the filthiest energy. For me, this is the most dispicable part of extending into others, the filth. Good managers love good filth. Bad managers refuse to astrally penetrate their messed up colleagues.
There was an interesting thought I heared recently: “Spiritually, one should be like a duck, swim in the lake, dive into the mud, catch the fish, get to the surface, shake it off, and in a second – you are clean again”. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9b4f90bf6aff4c13910097d7f2f49265f3872df4a1d0c8ee824976f84d8c16e2.png
Shit people use things for posturing, regardless of gender. Men do it with phones, cars and favorite football teams, women with handbags and shoes. The reason you don’t see women embody tools is because there’s always far more shit women than good, just as with men.
I have the same approach as you with computers. They’re an extension of my mind, perception and activity in the world. I also have it with the space I live/work in. Tools and gear are incredibly important to me, especially after decades of working with imperfect tools (or as I like to call it, saddling a porcupine). Some women will have this with their kitchen, try to enter it while they’re working and you’ll be in trouble.
Here’s a female trumpet player whose trumpet seems like a part of her body. She’s really good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz0l1dn8L4U
„and there’s always the question of where exactly is my self when I’m on the Internet? It’s certainly not in the physical room, in the body that sits behind the desk.“
This is a very important observation.
The same is true regarding dreams and the self of the person who dreams, as their real location is certainly not in the physical room and in the bed. The undeniable truth is that dreams take place within the person who dreams. This is proven by the memory of the dream and the impressions it leaves on the person who dreamt it.
The relationship between the impressions that a dream (astral matter) leaves on a person is an interesting theatrical stage. From it one can perceive directly something which would not be so intuitive in the waking state. Namely, the relation, the impressions, which thoughts leave on a man in the waking state, is the same as in a dream.
It all revolves around the astral plane and the physical dimension is connected in a kind of astral dosage, some kind of astral flavoring.
Physicality itself is inert.
What I find particularly interesting is how my astral “grounding” is messed up when I have a computer breakdown – I get seriously “out of whack” until I repair the computer to full functionality and adjust the next day. That’s why I hate changing the computers or doing really serious modifications to them and prefer having things that last. Those things are serious business. It’s similar with cars – I hate changing them because I have to ground through the new one and that’s always a hassle.
Unfortunately, I see this as an ugly characteristic of a mixture of dead matter (this world) and alive soul. To live and act in this material world requires constant projections of the psyche into the material artifacts, the soul even has to make projections regarding astral artifacts too (which can be most easily seen in the case of dreams). I see it as a series of cascades between soul and matter.
I will simplify it and say you can’t get any work done here if you’re not invested in it in some way. Trying to achieve detachment by avoiding any personal investment in anything will produce nothing but failure, in all dimensions. However, investment while trying to do things is different from attachment due to attempts to obtain fulfilment from the world.
You are right. Although your statement seems simple, I will remember it as important.
Sometimes thoughts only go in a certain direction and miss the essential whole of a reflection.
I was reminded of the way in which Buddhism describes what you have stated. They assert that omniscience does not exist by itself and without cause, because it would be widely noticeable if it did. It is necessary to fulfill the conditions in order to achieve something.