How the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child

Meta-analysis of the formulation of personal resolutions.

Three metamorphoses of the spirit do I designate to my self: how the spirit becometh a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.
Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong load-bearing spirit in which reverence dwelleth: for the heavy and the heaviest longeth its strength.

What is heavy? so asketh the load-bearing spirit; then kneeleth it down like the camel, and wanteth to be well laden.

What is the heaviest thing, ye heroes? asketh the load-bearing spirit, that I may take it upon me and rejoice in my strength.

Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify one's pride? To exhibit one's folly in order to mock at one's wisdom?

Or is it this: To desert our cause when it celebrateth its triumph? To ascend high mountains to tempt the tempter?

Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge, and for the sake of truth to suffer hunger of soul?

Or is it this: To be sick and dismiss comforters, and make friends of the deaf, who never hear thy requests?

Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water of truth, and not disclaim cold frogs and hot toads?

Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and give one's hand to the phantom when it is going to frighten us?

All these heaviest things the load-bearing spirit taketh upon itself: and like the camel, which, when laden, hasteneth into the wilderness, so hasteneth the spirit into its wilderness.

But in the loneliest wilderness happeneth the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becometh a lion; freedom will it capture, and lordship in its own wilderness.

Its last Lord it here seeketh: hostile will it be to him, and to its last God; for victory will it struggle with the great dragon.

What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to call Lord and God? "Thou-shalt," is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion saith, "I will."

"Thou-shalt," lieth in its path, sparkling with gold—a scale-covered beast; and on every scale glittereth golden, "Thou shalt!"

The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaketh the mightiest of all dragons: "All the values of things—glitter on me.

All values have already been created, and all created values—do I represent. Verily, there shall be no 'I will' any more. Thus speaketh the dragon.

My frēond, wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit? Why sufficeth not the beast of burden, which renounceth and is reverent?

To create new values—that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but to create itself freedom for new creating—that can the might of the lion do.

To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for that, my frēond, there is need of the lion.

To assume the right to new values—that is the most formidable assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. Verily, unto such a spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.

As its holiest, it once loved "Thou-shalt": now is it forced to find illusion and arbitrariness even in the holiest things, that it may capture freedom from its love: the lion is needed for this capture.

But tell me, my frēond, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why hath the preying lion still to become a child?

Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea.

Aye, for the game of creating, my frēond, there is needed a holy Yea unto life: ITS OWN will, willeth now the spirit; HIS OWN world winneth the world's outcast.

Three metamorphoses of the spirit have I designated to my self: how the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.—

Thus spake Yeseen. And at that time he abode in the town which is called G'ville (Geveel).


Nietsche - the three metamorphoses (adapted)

: ]

Is my cultural submersion drowning my identity?

Thursday, June 18th 2009:

Lately, and after warnings from some friends that I started to think like Americans, I seriously started to worry about my identity.

My cousin first noticed that in the Bob Marley Foundation's bathroom in Nine Miles. He commented on the fact that I wash my hands after peeing, which is "American" according to him. I didn't focus on whether I used to do it or not. But I'm sure that I used to wash my hands less. Also, he took the opportunity at the same time to comment on the way I speak and behave, which he also described as "American".

Independently from the first data point a friend of mine in Tunisia fiercely criticized the way I described Jamaicans; I was relating my trip to Jamaica and told him that I found most of the Jamaicans nice. It didn't take him a long time to let me know that I am starting to think like Americans. And convinced me how they aren't by comparing them to Tunisians from tourists perspective. And this freaked me out !!

The other data points that I collected can be dependant of these two previous notices; I started to detect some "American" ways of thinking in my ideas and speech. Also, another cousin confirmed that after I shared my worries with her. This latter confirmation didn't differentiate much from her usual mocking humour and therefore can not be considered of effective reliability to contribute to my case.

Despite the relatively small number of data points, my fear grew partially because of my knowledge of the floating personality that I've always had. And my questionings began. (It is crucial to note here that this questioning was far more constructive than my previous ones from which I leaned toward significant moral downturns before getting any better understanding - the three metamorphosis of the spirit by Nietzsche, a significant metaphor very similar to the way I acquire new ideas. I shall discuss this in another post)

Und hier begann mein Untergang.

But like I said before, I had more constructive questions than the personally traditional sinking ones. I did question my future, my existence, my values, how things work, cross-cultural sex, the significance of being, the significance of knowing, ... all these sorts of unknowns that I think I need to know, even though I question the significance of knowing anything about them, if you see what I mean ... However, I did also think of genuinely useful questions, and to guide you through the constructive pathway of my mind's abyss, I shall clarify these following ideas and terms that I based this quest on.

What culture am I diving in? and what culture might be sinking with my dive?

To unveil this contrast, I need to recall a relatively new idea that I came across through a Brazilian friend. Although this paragraph might sound racial, it is absolutely not, or at least, not in the conventional definition of the term (I am not mentioning skin color). What may sound racial can be thought of as behavioral anthropology or cultural analysis.

The complete understanding of my dive requires the definition of "White" versus "non-White" behaviour or culture. I would use more the term "white behaviour" rather than "white person or culture" since these latter define a person or a culture predominated by "white behaviour". It is also essential to note that this opposition is taken into the "White" versus "Black" behaviour in the case of a dominate black population; I will expend on this after I actually finish with the original question of the paragraph.

First, I will try to formulate a complete definition of what it is to behave like "white" from the apparent criteria that my friend,as an example, seems to be using. Second, I will apply this definition to unveil the inter and intra cultural distribution of this behaviour. Third, I will assess the pros and cons for each behavioral category.

"White" according to the friend's criteria

(The etymology of this denomination relates to the major source of data even though these criteria are unconsciously world-wide international standards)

It is not straightforward to formulate the guidelines categorizing these behaviours, so I will try to evoke examples, and in the process of writing, I will try to highlight any correlation and then synthesize a picture.

The first noticeable aspect of the "white" behaviour is what I came to call hastening to betterment, or the feeling of the need to be productive. This is seen at work as well as in daily life. The "white man", meaning the human being with predominately exclusively white behaviour, follows the rules and established protocols even in his or her relations with colleagues or friends. My use of the word "even" demonstrates a certain bias since this coldness in relations is weird for "non-whites", meaning humans with no or little "white" behaviour. These "white" relations are often considered fake by "non-whites". I am not sure about how they are seen by the "white man", and this is an open question to whoever reads this and sees his personality fitting more the "white" side of the balance. Examples of this hastening in relations can be grasped in the very cautious way friends deal with friends; usually "white" friends are careful not to penetrate each other's personal space by physical contact or just in their speech. This makes the discussion very politically correct and the ice is usually drowned rather than broken, which gives an idea on the need of alcohol and Facebook; Alcohol eases social relations and Facebook provides a way to share personal information while keeping the valued distance. Also, personal property and money are particularly dealt with; "white" friends do not share and it is normal that to keep up with spendings on friends, probably that's why to buy someone a beer is considered an ultimate act of friendship. This is of course an exaggeration to some extent. I thought it would be better to see the extremes in order to have an idea on the spectrum of behaviours. I also think that I was criticizing the "white" behaviour. In the next paragraph, I will try to equally address the "non-white" behaviour.

This sense of amelioration, or Constant optimization, is quasi-vanishing in the "non-white" culture, meaning the culture with no or little "white" aspects of behaviour. The work of the "non-white" man is done with quick, sloppy approximations and the relation with others are careless. This might be the laziness compared to the sense of completion of the "white". I think it is my "white" side that wrote this previous sentence criticizing the "non-white" carelessness. Ahh this is getting too schizophrenic, and I need sleep to fix it.

____________________________

Monday, June 22nd 2009:

After the weekend and more data points from my source of data. I am ready to finish the analysis.

This contrast in betterment can be also seen from the warmheartedness angle. In fact, the feel of the need to constantly improve human relations leads to coldness in relations and a lack of speed of bonding with each others. In the "non-white" culture, relations are fast pitched and bonding occurs much faster and stronger. This fast pitch is highly appreciated. And this point was verified this weekend when my friend commented on the "white" way to party, a party with no action, no dancing, he described. So "non-whites" are more into contact and action which leads to more warmth in relations, more feelings in general.

To sum up the contrast of "white" versus "non-white", we can simplify it to hastening to betterment versus laziness, exactness versus sloppiness, constant control versus laid back, suspicion versus confidence, robotic versus human, or cold versus warmth.

Now that I laid the basics of the contrast, let's investigate its different appearances in cultures.

As I mentioned before, in a black-dominated culture, this contrast appears to oppose "black" to "white". For instance, in Ocho Rios, Jamaica, after talking with a bus driver and showing him my "non-white" behavioral aspects, he ended saying 'No, you're black!'

On the other hand, in a sociopolitical context, this contrast can appear as opposing the West versus the East. An article by Jerick Aguilar named "The fallacy that 'West is Best'" describes the contrast differently while balancing the pro and cons of each culture with a bias toward his natal eastern culture since he was born and raised in the Philippines. I personally share his views. This contrast is more political and cultural than behavioral, and I will discuss the distribution of the behaviors across cultures later.

Who behaves as "white"?

From the previous example, there is a bias in the distribution of the "white" behavior in the west. And this is very probably why it is often related to the white race. It is definitely clear that between the western and eastern cultures, there is a clear bias in the distribution of "white" versus "non-white" behaviors. However, there is also a distribution of these behaviors among individuals of the same culture. This latter point might be explained by the dynamics of the world population and the cross-fertilization of civilizations. Indeed, colonization, neoliberalism, and migration contribute to mixing up "white" and "non-white" behaviors across cultural boundaries. And in both western and eastern cultures you find both behaviors contributing to a certain gap in the same nation:

In western cultures, "non-white" behavior can be detected from the uncivilized and often considered uneducated frowned upon comportment of certain people usually from migrants origins or other origins such as the African-American culture. This is in part a consequence to the imperialism era; former European colonies kept a close diplomatic and social contact with their former colonizers which is materialized in trade in good and cultural influence. The difference between the European and the American culture might be explained by that fact. Also, the appeal to warmth in relations trigger a "non-white"-like behavior seen in the Hippie culture and minimalist thoughts which is still a non-identical copy of the behavior.

In eastern cultures, "white" behavior can be originated from post-colonial mentalities, the appeal to western values that might be considered synonym of development (modernization theory of development), or a form of social class distinction which is usually tied to the colonial past of the nation. The extreme of this contrast would be the Apartheid witnessed by South Africa. But usually this contrast hurts the developing countries with a silent fashion by opposing the educated population, usually Europe influenced elite and urban, to the rural population. In Tunisia, it might be summed up in the term "jboura" that designates under-civilized individuals usually from the interior rural area of the country. I often make the analogy of the Rednecks to describe them even though these latter are somehow more proud of that denomination. It also creates a certain disconnection between people since it alienates both the indigenous culture that finds itself surrounded by a strange population as well as the individuals of indigenous origins that embraced the colonial culture; these latter find themselves strangers for their co-citizens and different from the people of the embraced culture. And this might contribute to my fear.

Now, let's dissect the original subject; my cultural adaptation might be gaining terrain over my identity. Is there legitimacy to my worries? In this section, I will investigate personal issues as well as general positive and negative aspects of the "white" and the "non-white" behavior.

Am I really changing?

Like I just said before, the shift of behavior is possible. And I know how adaptive I can be; it is easier for me to accept any situation or constrain rather than change it. Also, I have been educated by parents who fit more in the "white" behavioral side. They are not very social, do not really like action, and do not really need social contact. So, my apparent change might be just the reappearance of this.

What's good and what's bad about the "white" behavior?

The first positive fact to notice about the "white" behavior is the fact that it is the behavior of the developed world. It might be what makes the developed world work. However this cultural view of development can not be relied on since there had been Eastern developed empires at different ages. But still, hastening to betterment is important to development. One might question if development rather precedes the behavior.

Another point is the neutrality of any behavior. Each group of people in the world has a specific culture, and one can not judge them as being absolutely good or bad since one's culture and life experience are the reference to such judgement. Any judgement therefore can not be unbiased.

That said, one can still comment on aspects of certain behavior. The "white" behavior is not practical in human relation. It is too complicated for efficient and fun relations.

What's good and what's bad about the "non-white" behavior?

First, this behavior is very warm-hearted. It leads in fact to social life and smooth interaction of individuals. More intense bonds are created and problems are solved relatively quickly because of the carelessness. It is also the street smartness that this behavior excels in, and I like this.

However, it can be seen as the underdeveloped behavior because of the carelessness about rules, how things should be, and what is good for the nation. The lack of respect of the rules is standard in this culture.

Also, I see this as an alternative to the dominant "white" culture mediated by the media. In fact, a reversion of the world development balance might start with this culture. Or said differently, this culture might be crucial to build up on the development of the currently developed culture by contributing with its originality to the advance of general knowledge or comfort.

To conclude, I think I just used my fear to write this. And it worked great. Now, there is no more legitimacy to these worries.