We live a life of privilege here in the United States. Even those who have it worst have it better than those that have it best in some other countries. I will suspend all existential debates in the vein of Frankl about how suffering is relative to address this from a practical angle.
Joseph Campbell, the mythologist, asked throughour his career, "Is the machine going to rule us or are we going to use the machine to human purposes?" My friend Ali, a forty-five-year-old professor at the University of California in San Diego and a refugee and survivor of a fight for democratic freedom in Iraq whose success spared his life, said to me, with a tragic demeanour in his eyes, that the Americans established technology not "as a tool but as a goal". It used to be a tool, but it
became a goal.
What are the symptoms of someone who has gone over to the Dark Side? Is it paranoia? Is it a strong Will to Power? Is it the stringent dogmatism of serving the ruling elite? All of these were characteristics of George Licas's Darth Vader in
Star Wars. They are also qualities that brilliant thinkers in recent history such as Alan Watts, Aldous Huxley, and Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Jo Rowling and Marie-Louise von Franz had dilineated and even rendered artfully in writing.
The question therefore is screaming in our faces: If technology is excelling at an exponential pace, then why is Science Fiction lagging behind? If technology provides us with unprecedented power, why are we so disempowered? Suspending the subjective for a moment, let's observe the statistics. 1% of the United States population has an outrageous degree of the nation's wealth, surpassing byfar even the cynical expectations of most U.S. citizens who took a poll that asked them to estimate what wealth distribution in the United States was.
The prejudices that I have personally contracted from trying to conduct an intellectual discussion with others are numerous and seemingly equal in their villainy. I only hope that my frame of reference is so peculiar and limited that this is not endemic of an American Zeitgeist.
With every culture comes its own responsibilities for the individual. Where simpler societies relied heavily on language and communication, the advent of the computer in very recent history has created a culture that is the pinnacle of rugged individualism. Gone are the days when I learn my knowledge from a human source, except where I am so fortunate to stumble upon a minority of people who share this ideal with me. Neitzsche's view of the mechanical Universe, one that has for long been criticised and debunked by philosophers who followed him (with all due respect to his genius, on the part of this writer, at least) seems veritable now. In an increasingly simulated world where people live consciously in the program of the Computer, the world appears to the conscious mind to follow that program as well. Where people mistake the gregariousness of facebook for a sense of solidarity with mankind, for instance, there is a fundamental confusion. Facebook offers little more than participation mystique -- the projection of the contents of one's own mind onto the environment. Post-modernism makes this seem pardonable and inevitable, yet many people are well beyond post-modernism now; its prevalence is the result of its popularity, and, in turn, its popularity is the result of its prevalence. There is a formal logical fallacy which is called "appealing to mass opinion". Which perpetuates such a cycle. By "many people" I do not refer to a majority of people; I refer to the still substantial minority that has been educated, either by schooling or by self-teaching, if not another unknown method, to the point that they are equipped to challenge the dogmatism of the majority. Yet anti-intellectual still runs rampant, and in this Brave New World where the novelty of each new intellectual invention takes precedence over any consideration for History, we run a greater risk than
ever before of falling into the hubris that had usurped the throne of judgement for the leading roles in the great tragedies since antiquity. The more that we feel ourselves to be reaching a kind of theoretical Point of Infallibility, in other words, the greater our danger of this limit actually being our own destruction. In truth, if we compare the mentality of a stringent rationalist, dogmatist, believer in Scientism (as distinct from the actual process and challenge of Science), and generally technological dependent* individual to that of a suicidal, self-destructive person, we should probably find, without need of any experimentation other than our own experience, how strikingly akin, if not identical, the two mindsets are on an
individual level. Yet it is this individuality which is always obscured in the face of statistics and the "authority" of Science. Science, once a tool, hasalso become a goal and a way of life which is not wholly different at times from the barbarism of much older and now dead societies. It is no mistake that the Nazis are now looked down upon in many forms of formal debate as a redundant example of the evils that modern man is capable of perptrating with immense ingenuity but a fundamentally confused psyche. Yet they have become almost like an archetype now for the Mad Scientist. Mengele was probably a greater inspiration for N. Cortex and other more sinister modern mad scientist stereotypes than Victor Frankenstein was.
All signs point back to the individual psyche. It is too easy to say "Well, what do you expect ME to do about it?" Yet whoever feels "disempowered" in the face of the statistics and Science is dually confused.
The very definition of "me" in that question is what needs in turn to be questioned. This would appear absurd to someone with so little background in philosophy that he or she ignores the very prejudices that the philosophies of the Modern Age had engendered in everyone. Yet the consideration is fundamental and indispensable.
The Marxist way of thinking (which is not to be confused with the Communistic way that the ideals were implemented) is that there is no sense of individual identity except in relation to Others. This idea predates Marx and is apparent in schools of Buddhism. The individual cannot exist except in relation to others.
Upon examination of this idea, one is like a burglar who enters a museum and risks tripping a tangled web of alarms. If postulated in dogmatic groups of pseudo-intellectuals, one is confronted with the confused prejudices of individuals who want only to use the tools of Reason to perpetuate their own ignorance, which is a habit of abuse that seems justifiable in an age where technology is seen as a goal rather than a tool, going unnoticed by people who had forgotten the original necessity of discursive thought and what purpose the mind
serves for the total human organism.
Some will say that the allegation engenders conformism. Yet the opposite is in fact true. The prejudice that many have in mind is none other than John Locke's original Tabula Rasa idea, which is arguably the fundamental principle of modern compulsory education (at least in the United States, from my experience) and therefore a deeply conditioned way of thinking which, when presented as a concept, seems to "make sense" because it so adequately describes the established paradigm with which the developing child is largely molded, at least in consciousness. This is another instance of the same cycle that I had mentioned hitherto. Thankfully, a reserve of psychic** potentialities remains and is probably at work with greater autonomy and authority than the conscious ego; it is our saving grace, arguably, at least according to the findings of Jung, which he admitted to be very minimal (though they probably surpass the conscious knowledge of the Unconscious that the average layman has by a collosal margin).
Tabula rasa, which may be likened to the Taoist idea of the Uncarved Block, represents the uneducated and unconditioned*** mind of the child as an "empty slate". It hasd been used probably also to justify a patriarchal attitude towards "primitive" societies, and it justified the concept of Manifest Destiny.
The basic evaluative attitude that people take to Tabula Rasa is that this "empty slate" is intrinsically worthless. Alan Watts says that the basic, fundamental fallacy in Western thought goes back to Aristotle, who said "Ex nihilo nihil fit". This is translated "out of nothing comes nothing". The prejudice is countered by Watts when he points out that in Eastern philosophy this is not so. He equates "nothing" and "nothingness" with
yin in Chinese philosophy and "something" and "somethingness" with
yang.
Where the Rationalists saw the "Tabula Rasa" as a problem to be remedied, the Taoists long before them had agreed that the Uncarved Block, the uncivilised mind, was ideal. Their way of thinking was in a sense a subversive way by which to get rid of conditioning from the very stringent Confucianist society which, from time to time, could not follow its own traditions.
Modern man can probably exist with both a Tabula Rasa that has been written upon and an Uncarved Block, meeting both ideals. In fact, he or she does. The conscious mind most often understands the World in terms of its cultural conditioning. The Unconscious, however, remains free. It is not uncorrupted, for what affects one aspect of the human psyche definitionally affects the whole psyche; it is
present in a system of tremendous interdependence. Yet the psyche's knowledge is never effaced, even if it is obscured to consciousness. The Unconscious always Knows, and its autonomy is seen in dreams, Art, and neurotic behaviour.
The presence and possibility of evil do not suggest that the Unconscious is intrinsically confused. This presumption oftentimes compels people to try to remedy it by consciousness. Jung's theory was that consciousness can operate in accord with the Unconscious and bring about a harmonious resolution. When this is not done, interference from the conscious program tends to occur. It is then that discord arises. This is experienced as a generally uncomfortable situation for self and others that can escalate into a tragic problem. Jung was not unprecedented in his thinking. Buddhists, Taoists, and other Eastern religions had pointed this danger out repeatedly. Although their cultures differ from ours substantially, and for that reason we must not try to resolve our problems by following their methods, the work of Watts in comparative philosophy helps us now to see more clearly the problems that plague the Western mind from the closest thing to an outsider's perspective that we as Westerners can fathom.
The issue of the computer becomes apparent again. The computer segregates people from one another. If Marx is correct in presuming that man is a social animal, this means that the mind of the individual naturally tends to function in relation to others. Our unconscious complexes, it has been shown, are oftentimes the result of conditioning from other people. We may try to escape those who have wronged us, yet they continue to reappear in dream and to affect our decisions. When this happens, we shrink away into a confined world where we do not make the "mistakes of the past" which may have been inevitable. If this is not the case, then we repeat mistakes in defiance of our own better judgement and the sometimes merited pleas of others. Yet going to either the extreme of agreeing to all forms of treatment or the extreme of rugged, narcissistic individualism is equally fatal. The computer enables us to do both at once. Social networking, because it takes place in virtual reality, is barely more real than Multiplayer Role-Playing Gaming. The only difference is that its consequences probably run more deeply and are more destructive. When we confuse the contents of our own minds for the World, we mistreat others. We may maintain this ruse for some time, yet that is only by a system of conformity. We perpetuate, thus, dogmatism in an attempt for the individual to feel secure. Yet the individual is not in actual relation with others. One is in relation to information which is always just barely obsolete. A message sent is already a description of the
past. The attitude that we take towards the past must be grounded in the Present.
Statistics
seem to unify us, but in fact they do nothing of the kind. By settling upon a uniform way of interpreting statistics, we feel that we understand each other. Yet this is one of the greatest threats to the individual in reality -- to both his or her conscious and Unconscious personality. An individual who becomes isolated from society can be very fortunate in this predicament, because it gives his or her self the ability to observe how the mind operates outside of the social framework. This empowers him or her to understand the unconditioned Unconscious and how it feels about the conditioning of the mind.
Statistics are chiefly understood as abstractions by the frontal lobe, in the left hemisphere. They are understood most often as numbers or geometric symbols. They are a branch of mathematics. The problem with statistics is that they are confused, absurdly, with a kind of "governing law". The ancient Newtonian theory of the Universe suggested that everything could be predicted according to mathematical principles. This probably contributed to Neitzsche's influential theory of the Mechanical Universe, which had been challenged and debunked by Alan Watts.
If an individual is made to feel that his or her behaviour is
determined by the "estimated likelihood" of his or her success, then he or she in turn begins to behave in a fashion that corroborates this thinking. There is no need to feel that the past determines the Present in the fashion suggested by Newtonian physics. Yet to the degree that a large group of people hold this prejudice, to that degree the individual struggles immensely to live out of his or her Natural Impulse. The state enforces conformity by a Kafkaesque method wherein "unusual" behaviour merits investigation in an attempt to "protect the society". If the individual is disempowered in relation to his or her Soul, he or she can justify mistreatment of outliers by claiming ignorance. Yet to say that "the only thing that I know is that I do not know" is often a lie. Knowledge may be Unconscious, and to say that one "knows that one does not know" is in a fact a much more villainous lie than to assert that one Knows, even if one has no empirical evidence or rational way of formalising this Intuition.
The happiness of the individual in such a society becomes increasingly myopic and egotistical. It seems increasingly to depend upon the hope of eventual reward whilst ironically deriving its stimulation from immediate gratification.
Scientism is the other great threat to the individual. Scientism is distinct from Science. Science is the process by which an individual, usually with a great deal of wonder, open-mindedness, sensitivity, and clarity, investigates the World by a particular method. It is not the
only method for such investigation.
Scientism begins with the presupposition that the Scientific Method is the
only method of arriving at truth. Yet even individuals who do not have this prejudice run the risk of falling into the traps of Scientism, which can also be called Scientific Dogmatism.
The distinction between a scientist and a follower of Scientism is as profound as, if not directly analogous with shocking lucidity to, that which rests between the theologian and the clergyman. Where the theologian interprets the texts of religion according to his or her own experience, the clergyman perpetuates an orthodoxy. Gone in the eyes of the Sciencist is the wonder of the Scientist****. In its place is a stringent closed-mindedness that says that "this is how the world is" with ironically medieval disregard for the philosophical prejudices that make such a statement possible. Yet the Sciencist will presuppose that philosophy and religion are universal methods of enslavement or are otherwise inferior methods of liberation. This attitude is precisely what makes Science a method of enslavement in an alarming number of circumstances. It is so precisely when and because it regards itself as the solitary liberator. To say that "the world definitely is this way" stands in stark contrast to the goals shared by Science, Philosophy, Religion, and other methods of liberation. It is nothing short of the medieval attitude the Scientific Community condemns, the dogmatism that philosophers abhor, and the evil that Religion
done well seeks to combat. Yet true freedom is particularly rare, apparently, in our modern civilisation.
It is precisely the sense of division that an individual perceives between these various schools of thinking that perpetuates that individual's disempowerment. And it is precisely the sense of division that exists between people in a society that in turn engenders this thinking in the socialised ego of the individual. The division perpetuates itself by the same vision cycle I have mentioned twice already through our abuse of technology.
"Well, what do you expect ME to do about it?"
This can now be rephrased: "Well, what can
I do about it?"
This is not a question that I can answer for anyone other than myself. All that I know is that the human ego is born out of conditioning by Others. The individual's "innermost" thoughts, if understood verbaly, will tend to be the product of conversation. Conversation in itself is not bad, yet it can be abused, overdone, and excessively depended upon.
Jung made reference to the findings of some gentleman whose name escapes me in dilineating a distinction between Directed Thinking and Non-directed thinking. The former is a predominantly extraverted method of understanding the world predominantly through practical language. Its goal is adaptation to the society, and as such it is concerned with the ego and not the Unconscious. This is not to say that it is dispensable. It
is to point out that it is in itself very limited. Non-directed thinking, conversely, is the product of the Unconscious, if it can even be called a "product".
Because the ego understands the world in terms of language, all troubling thoughts that can be verbalised must be acknowledged as being entirely dependent upon Others. To understand what lies underneath this web of influences and even to grasp these influences more deeply, one method is to adopt the view that the Unconscious must check up on the Conscious. This it seems to do inevitably, so the task of self-examination becomes the understanding of the Unconscious even in waking life. The Unconscious probably does not require a conscious scheme in order to act; the opposite is true: Consciousness requires the Unconscious. Non-directed thinking can be understood in waking life through the active play of imagination, attention paid to dreams, et cetera. This method makes possible the oftentimes arduous "Hero's Journey" that Joseph Campbell refers to. Only through understanding oneself can we understand the external world. Philosophy cannot be practiced by computers. No computer has yet been invented which can be a substitute for the human being. We like to think that such a thing could be possible. Yet our technology is a product of our consciousness. There may have been, from the outset, an unconscious impulse to conceive it, yet it will always be limited to what we can accomplish in our waking hours, it seems. The computer follows a rational pattern we can understand in turn by Computer Science. Calling this a "science" seems again, however, to suggest a vicious cycle. The computer is our invention; it is not something we can study as we study Outer Space unless we can acknowledge that Computer Science is a form of psychology. Because the observer is the observed, any statements made about the World are in a sense statements about the Self.
*
Excessively dependent.
** This is not to be confused with
mystical potentialities, which is the conventional way of using the term
psychic. My use of the word here is more inclusive. It may include mystical elements, but, in this instance, I am making a general reference to the psyche of man: His or her conscious and unconscious functions.
*** I am referring to
intentional conditioning as opposed to
unintentional or
informal conditioning.
**** I refer to the sort of Scientist who meets the description I had delineated. This is not a reference to the formal title of the profession, and my definition may even extend to individuals who do not practice science professionally.
dm.A.A.
