While the terms “Hyperborder” and “Antifrontier” don’t have widely recognized definitions in the context of psychological periphery, I can provide some insights based on the combination of those words and their general meanings.

1. Hyperborder: The term “hyperborder” suggests an intensified or exaggerated boundary. In the context of psychological periphery, it could refer to the limits or boundaries that exist within our minds, separating our conscious and unconscious experiences, thoughts, or emotions. It may imply an increased awareness or focus on these boundaries and the potential for exploration or expansion beyond them.
2. Antifrontier: The term “antifrontier” could be interpreted as the opposite of a frontier or border, suggesting a lack of defined limits or boundaries. In the context of psychological periphery, it may imply a state where traditional boundaries or distinctions blur or dissolve. This could refer to a psychological state of openness, where concepts such as self and other, conscious and unconscious, or familiar and unfamiliar become less distinct or relevant.

Together, these terms seem to evoke a sense of exploring and transcending the boundaries of our psychological periphery, perhaps by pushing beyond the conventional limits of our conscious awareness or challenging established notions of self and identity.

It’s important to note that these interpretations are speculative, as the terms “Hyperborder” and “Antifrontier” are not commonly used or well-defined in psychological literature. If you have a specific context or source from which these terms originate, it would be helpful to provide more information to offer a more accurate explanation.

when considering the menagerie of strange creatures lurking beyond the psychological periphery, it seems to evoke imagery of unknown or unexplored aspects of our psyche. Here are a couple of possible interpretations:

1. Unconscious Mind: The psychological periphery could represent the boundaries of our conscious awareness, while the strange creatures lurking beyond may symbolize the contents of our unconscious mind. The unconscious mind encompasses thoughts, memories, desires, and emotions that are not readily accessible to our conscious awareness. These “strange creatures” could represent the hidden or unfamiliar aspects of ourselves, waiting to be discovered and integrated into our conscious understanding.
2. Unexplored Territories: Another interpretation could be that the psychological periphery represents the known or familiar aspects of our psyche, while the strange creatures represent unexplored territories or uncharted realms of our mind. They could symbolize untapped potential, creativity, or undiscovered aspects of our personality. Exploring and understanding these strange creatures could lead to personal growth, self-discovery, and a deeper understanding of ourselves.

It’s worth noting that the interpretation of these “strange creatures” may vary depending on personal perspectives, cultural backgrounds, or specific psychological theories. The concept of exploring the unknown aspects of our psyche is a common theme in psychology, particularly within the realm of psychoanalysis and depth psychology.

Ultimately, the menagerie of strange creatures beyond the psychological periphery suggests that there is much more to discover and explore within ourselves, beyond what we currently know or perceive consciously.

Both sides employ the frontier metaphor to appease social unrest by promising endless growth. On one hand (Ooh), the Captains of Industry and the Masters of High Finance claim to be the true heirs to the western ideal, seizing new avenues of action. On the other hand (Otoh), instead of physical frontiers, there exist frontiers in public policy and unexplored social domains. Why does capital consolidation favor extraction at any cost? Is it our lizard brain on steroids?

The frontier is perceived as an object or territory with which one interacts to acquire knowledge or experience. It is an “It” in Martin Buber’s terms. The focus lies in conceptualizing, manipulating, and accumulating things. The relationship is one-sided, with control exerted within space and time.

Within the concept of the frontier, humans can feel, imagine, or desire something from it. We sit on a chair for rest, or we harvest to satisfy hunger. The frontier serves our needs, and thus we utilize it.

As long as the perception of the wild frontier prevails, there will be externalities. The antifrontier describes a world of relations, where the “I” does not objectify any “It” but acknowledges externalities.

If the frontier is personified, one can instantly engage in a mental or spiritual relationship with it.

The idea of a fortress on the frontier implies that the society defended by the fortress is constantly at risk of being undone. Treating the frontier necessitates addressing our underlying personal metaphorical walls and exploring abandonment and isolation first.

Practically, the idea of the frontier offered an escape clause, limiting the potential for interpersonal exploitation. Once that is exhausted, justice becomes violent retaliation. Without the border, it turns into retribution, rather than the hero’s journey.

As a child, I repeatedly watched “The Outlaw Josey Wales.” Eastwood’s character witnesses his family’s massacre, joins Confederate guerrillas, and after the Civil War, he is pursued by Union soldiers while seeking revenge against his family’s killer and a seemingly traitorous friend.

However, the film gradually changes direction, transitioning into a story of a man who discovers his role as a family man. He befriends Indians and various misfits, leading them to a peaceful place where they can forge new identities.

This connects notably to “Unforgiven,” which further subverts violence. It is worth noting that the emergence of revisionist westerns coincided with America’s second feminist movement.

The failure to imagine and the magnitude of our creative crisis prevent us from investing in new ideas that challenge the rigid boundaries of political affiliations. It’s myopic at best, criminal at worst, rendering us incapable of addressing our challenges and engaging in civil debates. We find ourselves mired in ethnic strife instead of promoting art, succumbing to The Art of the Grandstand.

Solving social problems presents an inherent paradox. Somewhere I read that most of us consider ourselves morally superior to the average person, and we desire others to perceive us in the same light. Hence, a sustainable model involves using activism to impress others and gain status.

Art and morality have often stood on opposing sides, with exceptions like Tagore and Tolstoy. The artist does not need to grandstand or preach morality; they do not aim to tell people what to do but rather flow with the entirety of the collective.

Thus, in navigating the frontier, the artist implicitly fulfills a social obligation to both versions of the frontier mentioned above and becomes an unacknowledged legislator.