Nobody is a whole chain. Each one is a link. 
But take away one link and the chain is broken.
Nobody is a whole team. Each one is a player. 
But take away one player and the game is forfeited.
Nobody is a whole orchestra. Each one is a musician. 
But take away one musician and the symphony is incomplete.
Nobody is a whole play. Each one is an actor. 
But take away one actor and the performance suffers.
Nobody is a whole hospital. 
Each one is a part of the staff. 
But take away one person and it isn’t long before the patient can tell.
We need each other. 
You need someone and someone needs you. 
Isolated islands we’re not. To make this thing called life work, we’ve gotta lean and support. 
And relate and respond. And give and take. 
And confess and forgive. 
And reach out and embrace. 
And release and rely.

 Charles Swindoll

Finding Salience in the Shadow

Unfortunately there can be no doubt that man is, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. If an inferiority is conscious, one always has a chance to correct it. Furthermore, it is constantly in contact with other interests, so that it is continually subjected to modifications. But if it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it never gets corrected.

C.G. Jung

Jung’s metaphor of the shadow is remarkably deep.  For the INTP caught in the grips of existential malaise…for whom nothing is worth doing…the shadow allows him to escape the prison of his own thinking.  The shadow has the key to the back door when it seems like there is no exit.

What is this shadow?

It is the area of inferiority that is repressed and isolated from consciousness.  For the INTP it is the part of the mind that does things simply because, that does things without sufficient reason…because they need to be done, because their completion benefits others, or simply because intentionally accomplishing something (anything) might moderate his malaise.  Though such justifications are easily undermined when subjected to the INTP’s reasoning, it is that same faculty of critical reasoning which keeps him locked in a fugue of his own thoughts.

The shadow provides a way out.  It shifts the INTP’s awareness out of his mind and into his body.  It is the complimentary opposite perspective that must be cultivated in order for anything to be worth doing.  It creates salience…balancing detachment with commitmentdispassion with will.

Translation of an interview of Jim in a French TV magazine Télé-Loisirs (March 2015)

JIM CAVIEZEL “I try to be a better man”.

He doesn’t look like any other actor. Jim Caviezel, 46, the star of Person of Interest , is glad to be on television.

It’s in New York, on the set of the Person of Interest TV show, that the actor who plays John Reese for 4 years welcomes us.  Discovered in 2004 for the Passion of The Christ by Mel Gibson, Jim Caviezel has a reputation of a non-conformist actor. This a meeting with a very calm man, in contrast with his character, who can have a sense of humor in answering questions, even the disturbing ones…

Télé-Loisirs : Why did you want to join the TV world when your carrier seemed on tracks since the Passion of The Christ

Jim Caviezel :  TV is the place to be, right now. The movie world does not evolve for the last decade. After seeing Kiefer Sutherland in 24, I decided that I wanted to be in a TV show also.

John Reese is traumatized by his past. He doesn’t kill anymore, he saves innocent victims from probable murders. In a certain way, he looks like me because he is in redemption! (he smiles and he twinkles one eye.)

You have become these last years a devout Catholic. How does religion help you in your day life?

Believing in God is a personal approach. Religion has become for me as important as my family. It gives me a stability in may personal and my professional life. I try each day to become a better man.

The Passion of The Christ shooting seems to have undoubtly changed you forever.

I was a believer long before this movie but I can’t deny that I will keep all my life after-effects from it. This movie is an experience that occurs only once in a life.

Did you have a specific training for Person of Interest?

When a was a child, I was fond of martial arts. It was very useful for this part. For GI Jane shooting, I had an intensive training with US marines. And I reconnected with them… It is a real military preparation!

There are whispers that your relationship with Michael Emerson, your partner in the show, is sometimes strained…

You are telling me that! (he smiles).On the contrary, our pair works very well. We were really destined to play together. It is true that we are very different, though. But this is our complimentarity  which is probably the reason of the success of Person of Interest.

anonymous asked:

I love a lot of what you write but over the time I've been following you I've become sort of disconcerted by how your critical gaze never turns to the centrality of HRT in trans experiences even if you can arrive to it by proxy i.e. looking critically at 'passing' and dysphoria, etc. So I was wondering what you think of that?

everything in trans experiences is linked to ideological complexes that control and regulate our attempts to place ourselves in sex and gender, not just HRT. i struggle against, for instance, discussing clothing without being especially interested in “passing” or even for that matter “blending”.

there’s a degree of emulation there; a lot of my look is inspired directly by lesbians in my life, primarily but not exclusively cis, and emulating them expresses a desire to be seen as of a kind with them. i want to be seen that way by society, by them, by myself. you can locate that in a trans context if you want, but it offers a pretty neat explanation of the whole asinine obsession with queer people “looking alike” by outsiders to queer culture - we see people like us as worthy of emulation over people unlike us, which is considered a crisis by heteropatriarchial institutions that value what delphy calls “complimentarity”, emphasizing it especially in women (who, unlike men, are seen as inherently lacking value as models for self-concept).

that’s intellectualizing, though! i look at myself and the way i dress and think i look good in the sort of thing i wear, and i look good in ways i’m used to seeing others as looking good. the “passing” eye compresses everything about looking good in a trans woman to “looking cis”. the “blending” eye compresses everything about looking good in a trans woman to “looking normal”. i don’t like applying those to myself; sometimes i have to, to participate in society. i like to say i have to less on tumblr because i surround myself with other trans women, and to a degree that’s true, but it’s a conscious struggle to post pictures that make my hairiness obvious even if i look really good in them.

the passing eye intrudes into our lives because cis society demands we treat ourselves as defective. the dysphoric eye does as well - a demand, which operates far more unavoidably on some of us than others, that we look on our variance from how we wish to be seen as ugly, as monstrous, as conspicuous, as evil. i should be absolutely clear, my goal is destroying passing pressure and destroying dysphoria, but i don’t think the individuals who experience them are the agents of them. i police the shit out of cis people “empathizing with” dysphoria, “encouraging” passbility; out of cis pity in general. it’s a kind and friendly way of murdering us.

the practical answer, the best solution i have found, is to destroy in yourself the way you judge other trans women, to find importance in the way we look and act, to interrogate brutally your uncomfort about those of us who “make us look bad” or whatever the fuck; to treat transness in others as desirable, in the understanding that treating it as merely tolerable in others is a way of treating it as provisionally intolerable in yourself. doing this has on a personal level reduced the impact of dysphoria and passing pressure on my life markedly. ok? demanding “love yourself so you can love others” is cruel and ridiculous; we must love others before loving ourselves is possible, and hating ourselves is only possible with practice hating others.

ok! that all said. that all out of the way! what about hrt as a central institution? well, again: it’s linked to passing pressure, to dysphoria.. (as in: we are pushed towards having dysphoria, towards judging ourselves on whether we’re “passable”, and then pushed to think of hrt as an answer to those problems - and only as an answer to those problems. admitting you didn’t experience what other people consider ‘dysphoria’ has been, for as long as i remember, a way to delegitimate wanting access to cross-sex hormones in either the amab or afab communities.)

but is that link inherent? no. i looked at my body and i value what about it is the result of endogenous estrogens, and accelerating those things, and adding things to them, was for me an achievable form of self-emulation. i like having soft skin and fairly moderate hair growth, and either enjoy or look with baffled amusement at other random shit hrt has done, so i’m pretty happy with maintaining that, continuing to pursue it, etc.

in my own context, not being on hrt was kind of shitty and it being a possibility for me was a big fucking deal. it was also substantially a survival measure - i’ve been mildly frustrated lately at how much goddamn slower i am to look more “visibly feminine”  than i am to be treated differently in society than i’m used to. i can never pass, and can only blend with a lot of trouble, and that’s fucking troublesome.

i emphasize that transness is affective - is a way of reacting to being-seen-as. it’s as core as the emotional state in me when a stranger in public transit mutters “faggot” at me, and as visible. the rest is window dressing, shit that makes living with that easier. hormones make being repositioned with respect to misogyny more casual, less violent. (there is no “privilege”, as certain people seem to believe, in having a body that can be taken for a cis man’s but isn’t - it’s a violent and dangerous situation.) i don’t like discussing them in those terms! i don’t like reducing things i sought out because the idea of them made me happy to survival, to pallation, to harm reduction.

i see surgery, clothes, cosmetic procedures, experience with cosmetics and accessories, voice training, etc, all in the same light - good things, happy things, but also things which are made into necessities against a backdrop of astounding violence and cruelty.

the trans experience without anything other than affective difference is, in a transmisogynist society, a really fucking brutal one for trans women (and nonbinary amab people who don’t seek to be positioned as men). if i talk about hrt a lot it’s because, to be honest, it makes me happy, it makes others happy, and that happiness is for me and can be for others more than just “finally, release from this torment”.

i don’t like the ways i talk with other women like me about the lives we live being primarily about what a source of torment it is, because that’s there, but it’s what it’s safest to talk about in a space dominated by cis ideas of transness.

and that brings me to why i do a lot of hrt talk: because it makes cis people uncomfortable. reveling in self-modification and self-repositioning beyond the degree that it permits a quiet shift from one pole to another in determinist gender is Against The Rules. the rules are horseshit and i’d rather face the violence that accompanies living outside them than live within them; and despite that decision i remain alive and for the most part happy.

some of this “making cis people uncomfortable” is to get them to treat me with respect, rather than with pity. and some of it is because it took a lot of being uncomfortable for me to decide i was fucking done being cis. and if that meant hrt, why the fuck not talk about that? decentering something doesn’t mean ignoring it and i don’t wanna ignore the things that make me happy. i was never taught to put my light under a bushel