transference, accuracy and the delicate art of perception

as part of my ongoing quest for "growth" i consistently, and sometimes constantly, engage in a dialogue with my yin (et al.) concerning the nature and geography of our beings, a character trait eloquently and accurately described by Bukowski as:

"I worry too much about my god damned soul."

but this is beside the point.

the point is that two things revealed themselves while my yin and i were on iChat with a half-Canadian madman. the first had to do with the phenomena of projection and transference, both predictable side effects of interpersonal communication. i have become somewhat familiar with these terms over the summer (largely through my reading of Lacan) but yesterday i understood them in a new way.

the problem with projection and transference is not that they happen (they are in fact unavoidable), nor that they happen without the subject's conscious awareness (which distinguishes it from libel and slander). furthermore, the traditional psychoanalytic model (at least as in my limited reading) seems to cordon off whatever tendency or emotion into the subject. the process of transference thereby allows the subject to project his internal state onto the other, giving him enough distance to recognize what was there all along.

the shortcoming in this formulation is that it neglects to recognize that all states of mind – anger, pride, envy or joy – always reside in both self and other. the division between one individual and another is as illusory as it is necessary, and the notion that we can achieve integration by tossing around our emotions like a game of hot potato is only partially accurate. the dilemma is that, in the process of projecting our own insecurities and doubts onto others, we tend to forget that all things are interconnected.

for example, take the emotion of feeling judged. in a given situation this emotion is often attributed either wholly to self (in the form of shame) or to the other (in the form of condemnation). perhaps both emotions are felt simultaneously, but even in this case most people feel a certain schizophrenia, vacillating between self-effacement and blame. the key is to recognize that there is no separation, that while the judgment one feels from an other is merely a reflection, it is nonetheless valid. my experience with this method has shown me that the sting disappears as soon as i realize that the gap between myself and another person is merely structural rather than essential, an aspect of the mind rather than part of who i am. of course the geography of my being (at least thus far) seems to preclude ever being rid of this gap, but that (at least for the time being) is digressing from the point.

returning to the point, the second thing i learned yesterday had to do with the nature of accuracy and perception. the mind (and especially my particular mind) believes that an accurate tabulation of the objective world provides a bulwark against the unavoidable onslaught of time, impermanence and uncertainty. even if this were true (it isn't), it would obviously depend upon one's flawless perception of the world around her; and, as every first year philosophy student knows, this type of accuracy is not within the capabilities of sensual perception.

this being the case, the attempt to "be certain" or "make the right decision" is actually a red herring, an attempt by the mind to do an end run around its own perceptual limitations. the instability of each waking (and dreaming (and sleeping (and dying))) moment is too much for the mind to bear, and so it clutches to the things that bring temporary comfort, while avoiding those things thought to be a source of pain.

if this is the nature of the mind, then, as V.L. Lenin asked,

"What is to be done?"

what i realized yesterday that the attempt to improve mental accuracy solely through the application is ultimately a waste of energy. this is not to say that ignorance is bliss, nor that one should go through life "willfully ignorant" as did out 43rd president:

guilty of "misunderestimation"

the most reasonable strategy is to focus instead on improving one's focus and clarity, so that we might recognize when we are out of balance. here, tough, one encounters a catch-22 not unlike the structural gap between self and other, because the attempt to gauge how far out of balance (or even in what direction) is unavoidably colored by the imbalance itself.

for example, take a crazy person and three easy steps:

(for the purposes of demonstration, the

crazy person will be written in first

person. do not attempt this at home.)

1) i'm crazy.
2) i realize i'm crazy.
3) is it therefore crazy to believe i'm crazy?

for more on diagnosing mental illness, see Michel Foucault

(the crazy person writing in first
person cedes control of the
keyboard. attempt this at home)

and so, returning to where i began, i am reminded once more of Bukowski, and how he described days like yesterday:

"Sunday, the worst god-damned day of them all."