I’d put it about on the level of psychoanalysis. There is a certain amount of probability to this. Let us name that “science”. Mostly, however it’s not science, but art, at least if it is to be realistic and effective.
With this in mind, I can consider the meanings of facial imagery more deeply. Let’s look at the first one. This is my apehead as it stands — the face with which I interact with everybody publicly. I see some intensity, which may be related to my full contact sparring drills a few days earlier. The bridge of my nose is narrower than the one below, which means greater perfectionism and (perhaps) vulnerability to criticism (including self-criticism) than my private self would take into consideration. The frown lines, permanently etched from my early twenties, mean I am too hard on myself. The slight crows feet mean I am emotionally open to others, not closed. The thinner upper lip means circumspection. The wide forehead implies an intellectual drive and emphasis. I’m not that idealistic or concerned about aesthetics or my eyebrows would be higher. My jaw is fairly square, which means I stick to my views.
2. The second picture seems to be a ninja version of myself. According to the dodgy not-quite-science of facial reading, this is my private self — the real, inner self. Let’s not get all Nietzschean here and assert the subtleties of the matter: the original picture may have been taken slightly on an angle. It’s possible that one eye isn’t actually Asian. One eye Asian and the other Caucasian – I’m not quite sure.
In any case, perhaps quite generally, this portrays my inner self — being the self that doesn’t feel the impulse go engage overtly in societal dramas.
You can see the bridge of the nose is wider — implying a more hard-nosed approach of indifference to societal mores. Also, I’m not quite as sincere (naive) as anybody might have hoped, but rather interested and mischievous.
Comparing my portraits, top and bottom, I see in the first a cerebral emphasis, with more of a sensual/physical emphasis in the second.
This stands to reason. Often in life, I have been defeated or thwarted in the public domain, but although this is upsetting, my underlying personality, being immensely strong and resilient, gives me great reassurance.
If the first picture portrays the tertiary layer of my self, the second shows the foundational layer. It’s a less cerebral level, but more instinctive, also more hard nosed, more defiant (the stronger jawline) and indifferent to opinion-makers.
It does not trouble me to fall back onto this layer because I know I won’t fall far. In fact, it may be the means to get the insights I need to move ahead.
Apparently, in the overall scheme of things, I am slightly thick-skinned.
This graph doesn’t really tell you very much about me though, because it would make one’s boundaries out to be an issue of character, rather than of culture or experience.
My African personality, for instance, would be measured by the chart above as “thin-skinned”, even though the tendency to diffuse one’s sense of self into others is also a recipe for psychological resilience and a militaristic group definition, within the African social context. If you don’t understand what I mean, listen to African harmonizing and understand how this expression of psychological oneness has the capacity to mutate into an effective war chant:
(Sorry about the flag)
My self that resulted from Western cultural conditioning is definitely “thick-skinned” in that I really don’t feel what other Western individuals are feeling — and most often have no desire for that.
In theory — the right side reveals the left side of our brain, which is logical, analytical, sequential and verbal. The left side reveals our sense of taking in things as a whole, which is nonverbal, private, observant.
Honestly, which of these two would you prefer to meet in the middle of the night?
It has been said of me that as a typical woman (an assertion yet unproved), I must necessarily have a sensitive, delicate soul beneath the cool exterior. I’ve often wondered, myself, whether I had an inside-out soul (psyche) compared to most Westerners, because this sensitive, retiring side n’existe pas.
Certainly, my more delicate side seems to be my public side (the top photo). I’m happy to get along with people on the basis of logic, reason and understanding. Shatter my public self and I rarely cry. Certainly, my more delicate side seems to be my public side (the top photo). I’m happy to get along with people on the basis of logic, reason and understanding. Shatter my public self and I rarely cry. My laughter erupts, instead, intense and prolonged.
Why would someone want to mess with something that is working out well for them? To attack my public self in any way is playing into my hands. Like losing one arm in the middle of a fire, and realizing one has grown a far superior arm instead, I fall back onto my strengths, which involve taking the whole picture into account instead of trying to treat it piecemeal.
It’s natural and automatic for me to embrace the left hand path. I operate with an unwavering sense of certainty on it.
The left hand path involves being able to take in reality as a whole. One has to know when to speak and when not to speak and which provides the maximal advantage. One can also notice that one does not need to set a trap, as others will walk into those traps they’ve already set for others. Make good use of timing and they will ensnare themselves.
Anti-feminists (misogynists) tend to do this a lot to themselves, because they set a trap based on false premises — namely that women are weaker than they appear.
To embrace the left hand path, by the way, does not involve being passive but deeply understanding the whole picture and working on your timing.
Those who rely on right hand methods — exerting control, instruction, narrow thinking and verbal communication — will often become so obsessive that they overlook how having a larger view and getting your timing exactly right is enough to defeat a relatively narrow-minded method of attack. This is especially so when you consider that the left hand path permits energy conservation.
When Bataille was lying low in rural France, with tuberculosis and waiting for the Nazis to invade, he stated, “We will defeat them with our immanence.” [See On Nietzsche]. In other words, it’s all about timing and never deviating from one’s integral path.
We will defeat them in their end.
I’ve been looking over a previous post where someone demanded in effect that I explain why Nietzschean philosophy would not lead to genocide. I declined to answer at the time because it seemed like a loaded question, which no answer would be sufficient to solve. For instance, one could ponder long and hard on whether the stock market might not lead to genocide. One could ponder the same about nature reserves — but then it becomes more obvious the question is loaded.
en one is misunderstood as a whole, it is impossible to remove completely a single misunderstanding. One has to realize this lest one waste superfluous energy on one’s defense.” – said Nietzsche.
PhD. Marechera, Bataille and Nietzsche. Much that is misnamed “shamanism” is but a self-esteem gesture to gain you mystical identity, enhance your sensitivity or (most unfitting of all) to enhance your aura of moral self-improvement . You can’t improve yourself through shamanic encounters with the metaphysical void. It’s a means to restore your capacity to be natural, by incorporating everything morally questionable back into one’s character.