A Tentative Parallel between Kohlberg's Stages and Certain Philosophical Movements.

1. Anti-intellectualism.

2. Objectivism.

3. Christianity.

4. Rationalism.

5. Post-modernism.

6. Existentialism.

dm.A.A.

On the Tendency to Self-Incriminate, and On the Crawling Out of the Sand Clock.

Imagine a giant Sand-Clock, like that in Aladdin.

One finds oneself at the bottom of it. One wishes that one could lie at the base forever, but alas, Sand is pouring down upon oneself, and one risks drowning.

One has the ability to overcome the sand and actually to rise with it towards the center of the Sand-Clock. Thankfully, the hole is large enough for one to slip through. It is merely an arduous struggle to pass through, and an even more arduous one ensues when one must rise through the sand in the upper half to reach the Surface.

Finally, one arrives at the Surface. Now, this Sand-Clock does not turn over, except once in a long time. One finds that, in the upper half of the Sand-Clock, one can see the Sun, and one glimpses a luxurious world of ineffable Beauty beyond.

One is happy here, yet one has to constantly wade in the Sand to avoid descending into the lower half. Yet this becomes an exciting routine. One maintains this routine until the Sand has run its course. One can then wait at the bottom of the bowl, until the Sand-Clock turns, and one is at the base again.

This metaphor illustrates my view of the Life of an individual. Like most existentialist metaphors, it may appear entirely depressing. Yet I use it to stress, on the contrary, one of the most rewarding experiences of human life: The overcoming of unhappiness and adversity. The Upper Half, though it requires that we establish a pattern of rigorous discipline, is immensely preferable to the Lower. Yet that discipline which one establishes in the upper half will become, eventually and inevitably, obsolete, and the cycle will begin again. Yet I take this to mean that I do not feel recrimination against myself for when I find myself suddenly at rock bottom. I know that all my self-loathing, my excessive self-criticism, my tendency to find my work or anything else to be "objectively" bad, et cetera et al, will pass once I have laboured through the guilt which is not the product of my failure but its own force of gravity. I have faith in that, once I have squeezed through the narrow hole of my own individuality, I will have the opportunity to see all of yesterday's "failures" as, again, Successes, or otherwise I shall feel absolutely no recrimination or attachment to my Failures, and, in either case, no will to Self-Destruction. I Have faith in that, whenever I break through to the Surface, the world will amaze me.

Maybe we are not constantly in the Sand-Clock. Yet, if we are, then we may be better off, for then we should never feel compeled to Regret it.

dm.A.A.

On the Importance of Little Things, reprised.

A focus upon little things will allow one, as in the instance of a game or a work of fiction, to resolve crises of personality in a relatively consequence-free environment. Therein is the magic of attributing the qualities of Life-Changing Drama to details which, in the imagined lens of "social approval", in the city that rests above the Underworld of the individual's Passions, would appear to the (actually entirely superficial) Audience to be absurdly inconsequential to a pathological degree.

dm.A.A.

On the Problems of Psychology where it does not Recognise Existentialism.

It appears that the great myth of the modern Psychological Practice is that one can "lead a horse to water, but cannot make the horse drink it."

The existentialists would negate. They assert that one cannot "lead a horse to water", because only the horse can determine, for its self, where the water is.

Jung's philosophy of "unprejudiced objectivity" was predicated upon the knowledge that he did not KNOW, at least not consciously, where a patient would or could find water. He was proficient in helping other horses like himself to find their own water (and their own path towards that water), but he seemed rarely to be certain that he stood at one end of a bridge, as it were, and had "exhausted every available resource", hoping that it had not been in vain, so that his patient would simply have the humility to cross.

For all that we know, the patient would be better off falling off the cliff and landing upon another bridge, part of the way down, that the doctor could not have possibly seen.

dm.A.A.

On the Will to Ignorance, Familiarity, and the Temptation to Submerge the Novel.

On the Will to Ignorance, Familiarity, and the Temptation to Submerge the Novel.

I was writing a poem with four stanzas. The last flourish of detail that I embellished the poem with was actually the defining point (literally) of the poem: A period at the end of it.

This, coupled with the period at the end of the first stanza, created an effect so unprecedented in its subtle Awe in my poetry that I felt immediately compelled to shrink away from it. The voice of the Familiar tried to seduce me: I should move the period to the end of the third stanza, where it would fall into the neat pattern of the conventional rhyme scheme: A.B.A.B.

The Familiar appeared, as had the devil to Christ, in the form of three temptations:

1.       That of the Sciencist. (The follower of Scientism).

2.       That of the Empiricist.

3.       That of Common Sense and Practicality.

The Sciencist spoke first. He said that I could only know, for certain, where the period belonged by testing both forms, and then choosing the one that felt best. Yet this stands in contradiction to the Scientific Method. I will use two Scientific studies to prove this thesis.

The first is Carl Jung’s study of the Two Types of Thinking. The second is Daniel Gilbert’s theory of the Two Types of Happiness. I will delineate the latter, having thoroughly all ready depicted the former.

Daniel Gilbert said that human beings, having been proven to do so by studies he had conducted in Harvard, experience two distinct types of happiness that he could identify. The one was what he called Natural Happiness. The other was called Synthesised Happiness.

The former (Natural Happiness) is experienced when one “gets what one wants”. The mentality of seeking to repeat what had been satisfactory hitherto takes places predominantly in the frontal lobe. The frontal lobe, Daniel Gilbert asserts, is capable of projecting an outcome onto the future based upon the experiences of the past that had been identified as good and which had made one ostensibly happy. When individuals seek a desired outcome, they act according to the extrapolations of the past onto the future that the frontal lobe is responsible for. However, there are problems inherent in this. When an individual seeks a desired outcome, he or she limits his or her own capacity for experiencing new phenomena.  For this reason, Daniel Gilbert says that the ability to choose between variables, whilst it is in service of Natural Happiness, is the opponent of Synthesised Happiness.

Synthesised Happiness is what occurs when one does not get what one wants, but one adapts to an unexpected situation. This is no mere alternative or saving grace in the event of failure. It is essential in the process of breaking out of old habits.

Yet there are situations wherein the freedom to choose is constructive. The artist may render a poem or other work in one fashion and then return to it and change it without any ghost of recrimination or frustration. This is because what is at work is not the will towards Natural Happiness but that which is the source of Synthesised Happiness: The Unconscious.

Jung's dichotomy of Directed Thinking and Non-directed thinking becomes important at this point. He attributes Directed Thinking to Consciousness and the ego, and he attributes Non-directed thinking to the Unconscious. One might say that Daniel Gilbert's Natural Happiness is analogous to Directed Thinking, to Consciousness, and to the ego. On the other hand, Non-directed thinking would correlate more accurately to the process of Intuition which is at work in the Synthesis of Happiness.

One is reminded of a quote oft attributed to Albert Einstein: "The intuitive mind is a rare gift. The rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a culture that honors the servant and forgets the gift." A further algebraic parallel could be drawn to the dichotomy of Neville and Malfoy. Neville Longbottom, judging by his name, is the modern personification of the Intuitive hind-brain as it had been understood by the medieval alchemists. He is representative of the Medulla Oblongata. Draco Malfoy, on the opposite hand, is representative of the Rational fore-brain. This is why his surname mmeans "Bad Faith". Neville is obviously analogous to the capacity for Synthesised Happiness. He is clumsy and does not strive for his own end. Yet Malfoy is representative of the very Bad Faith that Daniel Gilbert warns us against. It is also because of the symbolism of Malfoy's character that he is depicted in the films as having a large forehead.

Here I will extend this dichotomy of Rational and Intuitive to the realm of Artistic creation. Where the superior form of my poem (the one that ended with a period) was the product of the Unconscious, of the Intuitive mind, and Non-directed Thinking, I might say that what was in effect was the process of INSPIRATION. On the other hand, when I saw tempted to preserve a style which was more generic or orthodox, what was at work was the ego, the Rational mind, Directed thinking, and therefore what I will define as CONTRIVANCE.

A CONTRIVED emotion is always of an inferior quality to an INSPIRED one. This can be seen simply because both Non-directed thinking and Directed thinking can be experienced at the same moment. This allows, in one singular point in time, for one to make a comparison between the two functions and to discern that the former is inferior to the latter -- what wells up from the Unconscious is always Superior to what is created by the process of MANIPULATION.

In comes the Empiricist. The Sciencist taps out, and the Empiricist takes up the Sciencist's mantle. The Empiricist asserts that, even if I am totally convinced that the Inspired form is collosally, if not astronomically Superior to the Contrived, I must give each an equal audience. If I had settled upon the former and allowed it several days to take root in my psyche and to "sit on my desk", as it were, I should also forsake it for its "brother" and now seek, to the best of my ability and device, to apportion the same degree of time and impartial objectivity to the Contrived form. Only then, when I have approached it with as little bias as possible, could I make the assertion that one is superior or inferior to the other. I may, he also would say, find that the Contrived is the Superior.

Yet again there is a fallacy in this, which is more subtle. One problem is that what the empricist is tempting me towards is egoic inflation. He is, as it were, tempting me to paint the tree red to prove that it is red. Yet I will assert that his greatest fallacy is in presuming that I should find "something better" by this method. I will now coin the term "The Fallacy of the Unprecedented Joy". This fallacy we commit when we make statement "I am happier now than I had ever been before in my entire Life". Although it is a moving pathos, it is fundamentally illogical, and not only illogical but misleading, a probable outcome of our own inflation. The truth is that, no matter how moving a present passion is, one can never fairly say that it is of a superior or inferior quality to one that has all ready run its course. Since passions arise from the Unconscious, they are a product of Non-directed Thinking. This means that they cannot be controlled, cannot be repeated (although we may entertain the illusion that we are in control of them, such as in the temptation of romantic infatuation), and therefore pass the capacity for analysis. Even if another, a second, passion should well up in the process of experimentation, which is what the Empiricist insists upon, and even if the ego were possessed, by virtue of this passion and in response to its seduction, of the illusion that this passion is "greater" than the one that appeared at the conception of the poem and which came to fruition and acceptance with time, this would be a fallacy because there IS NO WAY TO PROVE IT. Since we cannot control the passions that well up from the Unconscious, we have no rightful authority in saying that one is Superior or Inferior to another.

And here enters the voice of Common Sense in its attempts to assuage me. It argues that, if what I had just asserted were true, then I should have no way of knowing that the second passion is INFERIOR to the first, and there rests no reason for me not to test it. Yet the reason that I would not perform the Empiricist's experiment would be that I would, from the moment I consented to that temptation, be guilty to affirming a value which was Old and effacing a value that was New. There may very well BE a moving passion to do this, and with it would come inflation, yet I would be sacrificing the capacity to love this Inspired form of the poem (the one that ends with a period). What I KNOW is not that this Inspiration is SUPERIOR to any form of Inspiration that might ensue, but that it is NOVEL. Though my opponent may argue that to resist the temptation to experiment is to resist the novel and that of finding something new, what I argue is that even if what I were to find WERE new, I should have no way of knowing that it is better or worse than the prior experience, and yet I have every reason to suspect that it would not be new at all but would merely APPEAR new by virtue of egoic inflation.

dm.A.A.

On the Problem of Excessive Self-Doubt.

On the Problem of Excessive Self-Doubt.

 

The popular conception of Humility seems to depend on the presumption that one “knows that one does not know.” Yet this may be a fallacy. The presence of a Second Subject means that it is impossible to “know that one does not know” because that presupposes that the Unconscious does not Know.

 

In many cases, the tendency to second-guess one’s self may be a subtle method by which one perpetuates an Inferiority/Superiority Complex. It has long been known in Jungian psychology that the two are the same: The Inferiority Complex and the Superiority complex. I will now delineate why this is so.

 

To Question Oneself depends upon the existence of two fictional characters: The Questioner and the Questioned. When one “questions one’s self”, one acts out both roles on the stage of one’s mind, and this play takes place largely in words (i.e. Directed Thinking).

 

In the presence of the two characters, a Knower is entirely effaced from consideration. Neither the Questioner nor the Questioned, definitionally, KNOWS. The Questioned cannot know. The moment that he doubts, he or she renounces Knowledge. The Questioner does not know, and for that reason he or she places the burden of proof upon the Questioned.

 

The Questioned and the Questioner depend upon one another for their supposed existence. They also depend upon the absence of Knowledge; the moment that Knowledge appears, both disappear entirely.

 

The Questioner embodies the Superiority Complex; The Questioned embodies the Inferiority Complex. This is why the two conditions (that of Superiority and Inferiority) arise mutually.

 

For this reason, it appears absurd to develop a philosophy of sheep wherein one constantly doubts oneself. It would be more practical, sensible, and appropriate to one’s well-being to forego self-doubt, in many cases, and to persist in the enacting of a working hypothesis until the method has run its course and a new one has taken its place. One should not be reprimanded for one’s self-c onfidence in this regard.

 

The origin of the Questioner-Questioned relationship arguably originated in Christian Society. The original conception was probably between God and Soul. God was the Questioner, yet he never revealed His knowledge, always putting the burden of proof on the Questioned. It was also conceivable that He gave the Questioned Free Will, allowing for God to be Ignorant of certain things of which the Questioned was aware because those things fell outside of His jurisdiction. The Soul of the individual was always the Questioned, because he did not Know God’s Plan, yet he had to answer for himself.

 

This illusion was perpetuated in pre-critical Christian Society through the relationship between members of the community. Christians, not one of them Knowing God’s Plan and largely claiming not to, had to make the chief topic of conversation in almost every discussion that of What God Wanted them to do. They developed a habit of formalizing the past, of analyzing memories, and of asking ONE ANOTHER for insight, rather than themselves. When one asks another for approval, corroboration, or insight, one enters into the negotiating position of the Questioned, and the other becomes the Questioner, passing judgement.

 

Dm.A.A.

On the Importance of Focus and Why the Contemporary Man Lacks it.

 On the Importance of Focus and Why the Contemporary Man Lacks it.

 

When Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, it is unlikely that he was contemplating politics at the same time. Even if his genius were so that he could be involved in the artistic process whilst multitasking and doing all sorts of mental gymnastics, it is probable that he would have preferred to just focus on his Art.

 

The student of poetry knows the breathtaking impact of a few uninterchangeable words. The composer never underestimates or marginalizes the importance of the right notes, even if they appear as a mere flourish on the staff. The monk loves the subtle balance of stones. A child recognizes the subtle grooves in wood.

 

Yet our modern attitude towards detail has become perverted. Details are treated as necessary evils, and they are almost entirely abstractions, most of which only refer to other abstractions in a post-modern fashion. Practicality has taken precedence over the Person. The Individual ceases to exist where minute distinctions disappear. It is these that cease to appear Real to most Others that the individual encounters. For this reason, we RELATE, but we do not CONVERSE. CONVERSATION is that act of two uniVERSEs CONvening. One rarely impresses upon another something NOVEL, because of the incredible unlikelihood that this stranger would even notice it when it makes its appearance. It has become too easy to marginalise Revelation because we are so fixated upon that kind of thought which we feel we can simply “return to later”.

 

Consider the mind of a da Vinci. The consciousness, in the act of painting, must be intensely focused on the subtle strokes of the brush that draw hairs from the aether. The great fallacy of the conventional contemporary person, however, is that he or she identifies his or herself entirely with his or her consciousness. It is rarely thought that what really MATTERS, if anything does, lies beneath the threshold of awareness entirely.

 

In a world of perpetual distractions and diversions, symbols occupy more attention than FACTS, as facts are understood to be ineffable experiences of consciousness. When we have the pretense that things like the Stock Market, the News, and the Future are more important than the subtle grooves in a tree or the proper word in a poem, we commit a hideous fallacy. We forget that these “things” are mere “thoughts”. The thought of a word is not as important as the use of this thought in the production of a poem. Yet when we allow a number of these abstractions to become inflated, we begin to behave in such a way that we attribute meaning to them, AS THOUGH THEY WERE THE OBJECTS OF IMPORTANCE. Obviously, if we were to treat human beings as though they were the abstractions that we used to describe them, we should be entirely divorced from Reality. The abstractions may be of use to us, but the maps are not the territories. In this way, the consciousness of the conventional contemporary person is almost constantly crowded with useless abstractions to which he or she reacts with obsession. The perceived necessity of REACTING to these symbols, either in the act of thinking about them or speaking about them, takes precedence over the possibility of FOCUS. This is because the ego is excessively identified with the “well-rounded” consideration of “Important Matters”, as opposed to having the humility to dispossess itself of the illusion of an “Important Thing” or thought and to acknowledge its rightful role as the focus of attention on minute details. This essential Focus may bring us to a true understanding of what is IMPORTANT and what our condition is, but not by virtue of the illusory authority of the ego but by that of the Creative Unconscious.

 

Dm.A.A.