psychic self-defence


Well-known member
Staff member
there are many people tampering with my conciousness. they keep trying to plant sexual thoughts in my head. to link their product or service with a state of sexual arousal. i find this invasive. they do this with voice and image and suggestion. they do it with rhythm and sound. my animal machinery is being manipulated. windy bodieless rock is one method of defence. the divorce from the animal. the identification with conciousness. the observer. is this a mutilation of self? if yes, then what are alternative methods of self-defence?


more issues than Time mag
if yes, then what are alternative methods of self-defence?
heroin. you'll forget what sexual arousal feels like within a couple of weeks. you will not want anything (except the drug). you will be completely impervious to advertising or other forms of affect-ive invasion. nothing will bother you (except not having the drug).

there's no place in the world like being completely out of the erotic order of things. it would be a very free feeling if there wasn't the matter of expense and ritual that comes along with it.

in the future we're all going to get weekly injections of a time-release drug that will completely denature the libido and cause total ego dissolution. when i rule the world.


Wild Horses

Yr thread thitle is also a book by Dion Fortune. Outdated 40s magick/qabalist stuff and tall tales. Might be worth a read.


there are no accidents
good thread. (i thought it was about being pushed into a corner by cokeheads with verbal diarrhea at parties)

my animal machinery is being manipulated.

windy bodieless rock.

the divorce from the animal.

is this a mutilation of self?
well my problem with "divorce from the animal" is not so much as it is a "mutilation", but that it is futile. and any prolonged serious denial i believe leads to problems.

you will not want anything (except the drug).
replacing submission to advertising and consumerism with submission to any other substance, be it smack or religion, i believe also causes long term problems (some with more obvious consequences than others).

this is the only way. to psychically "clean house", build strength of your own mind, and become more deeply connected with the foundations of your being so as to proceed with clarity of purpose, and resist unwanted invasions of your own will.

to channel sexual energies, not deny them, and to be in control of them. to become master of yourself, and reclaim territory which other entities have perhaps already conquered.


we murder to dissect
"America takes drugs in psychic defence" was a) Iggy Pop, and b) quoted somewhere in Irvine Welsh's heroin novel Trainspotting, funnily enough.

Coleridge had a similar problem (except that the psychic entity threatening him was a rogue portion of himself), and attempted a similar solution:

For not to think of what I needs must feel,
But to be still and patient, all I can ;
And haply by abstruse research to steal
From my own nature all the natural man--
This was my sole resource, my only plan :
Till that which suits a part infects the whole,
And now is almost grown the habit of my soul.

He also ended up as a smack addict, but that was more to do with taking laudanum for the excruciating pain caused by his gouty testicles.

I find that mathematics takes my mind off things. Mathematics and actually having sex. D. H. Lawrence identified the psychic disease of modernity as "sex in the head" - the life of fantasy, a spectral burlesque. Psychic life should be consequent upon action, he thought, not a separate zone in which regimented figments make up a simulacrum, a compensation for being unable to act. We are captivated by images of fulfilment because we are pacified, and the manufacture of such images serves to reinforce our pacification.

This is, like "hysteria", essentially a theory of displaced psychic function: what belongs in one region of the body (the loins) has moved to another (the head) and taken up residence there, distorting the entire organic order and economy of the body. The question for Lawrence was how to restore bodily experiences to their proper places, how to prevent the disorganisation of the body by would-be occupying forces that sought to subvert its economy for their own ends.

Problems: Lawrence's organicism pulls him towards fascism, especially when he tries to establish a mapping between the problems of the human (sexual) animal and those of the wider social order. He is right of course that the two orders, the intimate and the public, overlap and are reflected in each other. But the metaphor of bodily health and equilibrium is, politically speaking, a dangerous one to apply to human societies. To speak of a body being deprived of the integrity necessary for action is one thing, but societies do not act as integral units - unless they are waging total war against each other. The reverse mapping gives you a militaristic model of bodily integrity - virile asceticism, Spartan effectiveness - which Lawrence seems to have found homoerotically mesmerising. His female characters, considered as projections of aspects of himself, are most interesting when they are not under the spell of virility, when they embody a model of agency and experience that is not concentrated on the holy phallus.

In any case, another thing that one might do in psychic self-defence is re-read The Rainbow. Even if one ended up getting infuriated by it and throwing it across the room, hooting in outraged derision, as I have several times...

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
there are many people tampering with my conciousness. they keep trying to plant sexual thoughts in my head.
I get this all the time. They're called 'women'.

They generally succeed.
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Oh man, I've seen a couple of 'tinfoil hat' smileys before, but that's by far the best one.


Tight but Polite
I was kind of expecting this thread to relate to the Energy Flash chapter about Wu Tang, Tricky, psychic pollution etc...


more issues than Time mag
replacing submission to advertising and consumerism with submission to any other substance, be it smack or religion, i believe also causes long term problems (some with more obvious consequences than others).
I wasn't serious, but I do think that people take drugs for several reasons, and "peer pressure" or TV or whatever it is your health teacher warns you about are the least of them. It's not a solution it's just one method.

poetix said:
societies do not act as integral units
Neither do bodies, 99% of the time.

Unfortunately, having sex (like war) is a temporary solution to a permanent problem.

Only a man could possibly believe that sexuality begins and ends in his loins.


more issues than Time mag
Thanks for clearing that up. I was utterly clueless as to the metaphorical status of that statement.

The problem with it is that sexuality works more or less holistically--there's no way to "relegate" the libido tidily to one area of your psychic life, or to map different psychic investments 'appropriately' to specific functions of a body. Not even by living in the woods and communing with nature and having lots and lots of sex. (Would that it were so easy... goddamn social and political and economic factors always getting in the way of my fantasy idyll.)

I was thinking this business about animal selfhood (qua Lawrence's vision) had a Freudian inflection to it, but now I'm not so sure. Really, Freud was a vitalist. Every last cell is existing away thanks to libido's mysterious life-force ("the procreant urge of the world"), not just the ones in especially ennervated areas. The libido isn't primarily oriented toward intercourse, except in the psyches of those who have completed the Oedipal transformation into adulthood-- and even that rather restrictive genital-orientation is metaphorical, not literal. We fight with ourselves to siphon all of that energy into there, even though it won't fit.

Anyway, the point contra Lawrence is not to become more genital but hopefully to somehow become less so. I've expended quite a lot of energy on anti-genital tantras and sensation-bending, but I still have not become the black belt in polymorphous perversity that I've hoped to. In the end, barring chemical suspension of reality, I like intercourse too much. It's no easy task.

Now they're going to revoke my queer card...


we murder to dissect
Is it possible to localise sexuality, to assign it to a part that can be named? For Lawrence, “head” and “loins” are distinguishable organs: each names, metaphorically as may be, the place of a particular organic function. “Sex in the head” is the name for sexuality out of its place, for the domination of one function (sexuality, the index of the “natural” being) by another (intellectuality, the distinguishing mark of the “civilised” individual), and the reciprocal subversion of the dominating force by the dominated. Lawrence’s mystical vitalism certainly extends as far as a “cosmic” or global sexuality, a sexuality of nature in which man qua natural being participates. But man does not participate in this global sexuality wholly, or without mediation: part of him (“the head”) is separated, kept in reserve. “The loins” exist as a determinate region, a neighbourhood of sexuality, precisely to the extent that “the head” exists and does not itself wholly and immediately participate in the sexual dance of the All. Man is the animal that imagines he has sexual parts, that names and covers them and declares their names to be unspeakable.

“The loins” is then a name-above-all-names for Lawrence, since it names firstly that which man alone names, by virtue of his intellectual separation from nature, and secondly that which, in man, testifies to the existence of the nature from which he has become estranged. It is within the loins that the upsurge of nature within man commences, spreading out (in orgasm) until it fills the body and obliterates the separate “I”, knocking his majesty the ego temporarily off his throne. Lawrence’s fictional treatment of sex (and especially of orgasm) poetically describes sexual pleasure as diffusing from a point of singular intensity, spreading out in waves and overflowing the entire body. What begins in an “erogenous zone”, a localisation of eros, rises in intensity until it becomes nameless, placeless, unassignable: flooding the senses, annihilating all boundaries and shattering the separate self.

(In this way, Lawrence rather straddles the opposition between "genital" and "diffuse" sexuality, since sexual pleasure for him is always the diffusion of sensation from a point, or several points, of concentration. The distinction between single or multiple "erogenous zones" is perhaps of less interest here than the question of whether eroticism in general requires a topology, a sense - be it "mono-" or "poly-" morphic - of place)

It's important to note here is that Lawrence doesn’t regard the annihilation of the self and the overcoming of human separation from nature as a final goal. Sex humbles the self, reveals its fragility and plasticity, and enables us to see that our intellectual separation occurs within nature, as a kind of fold or cyst within the dance of the All; but while sex causes the boundaries of this intellectual enclosure to tremble, only madness or death will finally unloop it. Lawrence has a certain respect for intellect in its right place. But “sex in the head” is the attempt of the intellect to master sex, to contain it within an ideational simulacrum and make it subservient to the rational imperatives of knowledge and control. It’s an attempt to tame experience, to withdraw from the life of the passions, to turn sensation into a form of intellectual property. Where one ought to act and suffer, “sex in the head” provides a palliating substitute, a pharmakon. Where one ought to reflect on experience and rationally synthesize it, “sex in the head” produces disorientation and self-obsession. In his own way, Lawrence continues the crusade of the Victorians against “self-pollution”, overturning their obsession with “impurity” but retaining (and even radicalising) their horror of the devitalising effects of fantasy and solitary sexual amusement.

empty mirror

remember the jackalope
In his own way, Lawrence continues the crusade of the Victorians against “self-pollution”, overturning their obsession with “impurity” but retaining (and even radicalising) their horror of the devitalising effects of fantasy and solitary sexual amusement.
i just realized "solitaire" is about "solitary sexual amusement":

and keeping to himself

He plays the game

Without her love

It always ends the same

While life goes on around him everywhere

Hes playing solitaire


There was a man

A lonely man

Who would command

The hand hes playing
i understand it is good for the prostate