Related post Practices: Sed Dickerson
March 23, 2011
This is the first time I’ve seen ghosts and feminist theory discussed together. Ghosts and disappearing are meaningful ways to describe the personality type that observes but doesn’t participate. Those who are in the presence of such a person might feel uncomfortable, feel an energy they can’t explain or escape.
Sed speaks of “lack of place.” The significance of ghosts, to me, is that they are compelled to haunt particular areas, against their will. I wonder how this fits in with Sed’s theory: The ghost who is mired to a place – for whatever reason, haunting a place compulsively. For the ghost personality, is observing but not participating a compulsion?
Very interesting theory, Sed.
May 9, 2011
I think Ruth has made a valid point with the traditional perception of ghosts haunting a particular place against their will which conflicts with the idea of ghosts being placeless.
Although much discussion could arise from just this point, the best I can offer in this short space is this. Language is complicated. Define ghost. Define place. Now what if the context changes? Redefine terms. At this point my work is shifting from the non-being (traditional) sense of ghosts to the being (living) ghosts, and with this comes a great work of reworking terms and concepts. One thing I love about theory is it is not truth. There is room to shift and change. I am very glad that I am in a place (in several definitions of the word) where I can explore and make these changes.
I thank Ruth for adding to the conversation. Dialogue and idea sharing are very important to the process.
We may publish any content, comments or ideas sent to us.
Name may be withheld by request.
© 2011, The Magazine of Yoga, LLC.