The devil’s in the abstract, or something like that?

First, I mean it in the sense of “surrender your badge and gun”, “surrender your crown”, that idea of returning your emblems of status into the arms from which they came. I see this as a fairly innocuous use of the term, and probably not the one that troubles you.

In a very deep way though, I *do* mean “surrender” in its other sense; in the movie Jacob’s Ladder, a dear friend of the main character says “when people don’t want to die, they see demons dogging their steps, but when they feel ready to die, they see angels come to take a friend home”.

I believe we wage war with the wrong “enemy”. And the wrong “we”! We have pitted our imperial self, against our imperial self. We have pitted the ‘us’ who wants “freedom” against the ‘us’ who wants “control”. Both concepts belong to the master-slave relationship; all masters have enslaved themselves, all slaves, in the end, have enslaved their masters.

By surrendering, and turning in our tools of war, we finally achieve full aliveness; we neither win nor lose; because we fought against ties that we ourselves bound ourselves with.

As far as ghosts, they seek to compel us to continue the never-ending cycle of ghost generation. My understanding of ghost metaphysics come from my work with Martín Prechtel; in this view, one can neither fix them, nor abstain from a relationship with ghosts. One must do the long hard work of understanding, transforming, and redigesting the trauma and history of these ghosts.

In these sense, peace doesn’t denote a lack of war; it signifies then ongoing difficult work for harmony and the generation of life.

I hope this answers your question; thanks so much for asking me to open my story up a bit more. I’ve really enjoyed hearing yours fleshed out - I do think we see things a bit differently, in terms of our options in dealing with “ghosts”.

Who ya gonna call?

I understand surrender to be a mechanism of war. To me, the word implies that there are two opposing forces, and that one has made a tactical choice to stop fighting. Surrender also equates to accepting losses.

I interpret that you’re using surrender differently than I would. I’m going to paraphrase your story, to make sure that I’m understanding it correctly (and please! share with me if I’m not!): Reversing internal colonization is a difficult process, missing some very important scaffolding. And at every turn, the Imperial Ghosts are telling you that you need the system, with manifold petty threats. Fighting them will only make them stronger. To move on, you must surrender to them.

But I’m having a hard time hearing that story in the spirit it’s intended, because of how I’ve learned to hear the word “surrender”. To me, surrender in that context means “you accept the losses that the ghosts threaten you with,” but I’m not sure that’s what you were seeking to communicate.

So, my question: What does surrender mean to you, in this context? How do we quiet these imperial ghosts, in order to go about the business of leaving them?

Now, I also want to share a story.
I’ve carried on a similar conversation in my head for some time, about how we might remove ourselves from the clutches of these imperial ghosts (I lacked the great, visual terminology like “imperial ghosts” though, so it was a rather less interesting conversation). What crossed my mind wasn’t “you accept the losses that the ghosts threaten you with”, but “you fail to see the losses that they threaten you with”. To use this great image of the imperial ghosts, I can treat them like any other ghost - resolve the true reason for their hauntings, or cease letting them rule you via fear. In other words, I will be most successful if I stop thinking in terms of risk and loss, and start thinking in terms of values and intent.

I wanted to share that story because I feel like it was born from a similar place, it resonates with yours, but perhaps it offers a different conclusion that can compliment and contrast yours. Or perhaps the conclusions are the same, but the words are different? I don’t know. My question on your use of the word surrender might reveal that!

Thanks for your story; I did notice that it stepped a bit on mine, but since I know you, I know you meant it respectfully. Again, thanks.

Since I don’t see any questions in your comment, I don’t quite know where to go from there. I sense you wanted a response to your story, but don’t feel sure. Did you have a question for me, or just a story you wanted to share?

I want to stress that I’m approaching your post with nods and appreciation, but this one particular term (surrender) makes me uneasy, and that little diatribe is the closest I have to a story about those feelings.

It’s worded strongly, but understand that I’m looking to explore deeper, not draw sides.

The idea of surrender as a necessary step in any process (especially one of detox) is upsetting to me. I don’t think this should be the case. And indeed, I don’t think it *is* the case, here. Surrendering to the Imperial Ghosts seems more akin to the problem (ie, what we already do, every day) than the solution.

Here’s how you get rid of a ghost: you resolve the reason that it won’t leave you alone. Here’s how you get rid of a boogeyman: you stop giving it power over you.

I think that’s how you get rid of the Imperial Ghosts, too. You resolve the core problems that lead to their existence (a concern over food storage, fear of difference, a false belief in utility, the idealization of invention, etc) and they are undone, or you stop giving them power over you (refusing to make decisions based on financial concerns, refusing to buy pre-packaged food, walking barefoot despite “health warnings”).

In other words, you don’t surrender. You stop participating in the war. Those are two incredibly different things.

Author Martín Prechtel calls this process “metabolizing”; taking what deadens life and transforming into food for generating life.

In a certain sense, our goal may involve creating more life than that black hole can consume; if we make that our project, however impossible it sounds, perhaps the inward flow eventually reverses and turns that black hole into a cornucopia.

vs.

Generosity? But those with the power already have so much? Imagine it like stopping up a black hole, once it’s full, it draws in nothing else.