On Carl Jung and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Our existence in society can be visualized as the middle ground between the opposing poles of existence as animal and existence through language.

Existence as animal ---------------> Existence in society <------------------ Existence through language

Historical materialism sees only one side of this formulation. It sees existence in society as necessarily developing out of how we produce enough subsistence to meet our animal needs.

Existence as animal ---------------> Existence through language ---------------> Existence in society

Why do I believe that our existence through language is fundamentally different from our needs for food, water, and shelter? Is not the development of language similar to, say, the evolutionary development of a tiger's sharp claws or a peacock's tail, in that they developed to enable the species to more effectively procure food or attract mates?

Yes, it is true we could view life through these lenses, seeing only the material causes for every event. But this view closes the door on so much! Unlike sharp claws or fancy tail feathers, language brought about the development of consciousness, and,in doing so, opened up a whole new way of looking at the world. Consciousness gives us the ability to “bind time,” as Korzybski put it, meaning that we can exist apart from the material world by reminiscing about past memories or planning future triumphs.

Rather than seeing history only as class struggle, history can also be seen as an attempt to unify the two opposing poles of our existence as animal and our existence as “time binders” through language.

Existence as animal, described by natural science ---------------> Existence in society <------------------ Existence as time binders through language, expressed by religious experience

If we are ever able to bring these two poles together, maybe we will be at what De Chardin calls the "sense of Earth."

De Charin wrote about: "The sense of Earth is the irresistible pressure which will come at the right moment to unite them (humankind) in a common passion." "Humanity. . . is building its composite brain beneath our eyes." - http://www.gaiamind.com/Teilhard.html

What interests me is the thought that Jung's archetypes are our clues for how to accomplish what De Chardin was talking about.

For Jung, archetypes are genetic echoes of how consciousness arose within early humans. These memories exist a priori in the structure of the human brain, waiting to be re-activated by specific social experiences.

What had to happen for consciousness to develop in early humans? I believe the development was gradual, with the archetypes signifying big events—the love of a mother, sharing in the knowledge of an elder, the fear of the unknown, the first conscious awareness of sexual attraction—I feel like these concepts existed as unconscious archetypes long before the creation of language.

Just as archetypes existed before we had words for them, perhaps archetypes can also be found on a social level.

Chardin wrote, "It is not our heads or our bodies which we must bring together, but our hearts." In looking to manufacture consciousness through artificial intelligence, we are getting too far ahead of ourselves. First we need to see how far human consciousness can reach, by creating a unity between our language-based and needs-based existences.

movie review of Pink Floyd - The Wall

In spite of Pink Floyd's reputation, don't come into this movie looking for escape. While some of the film's animation can not be beat, newer movies with lots of random “I know that actor/actress” associations are better for distracting the mind.

The Wall is a journey into the darker sides of society. It shows us Pink, a rock-star who is disillusioned with everything our society has to offer and represses all desire for human connection. The cycle of disillusionment, alienation, and oppression unfolds.

The movie begins by contrasting an audience coming to see Pink in concert with images of soldiers in WWI. This could be the first anti-movie movie. Mass media brainwashes into conformity as much as the army indoctrinates soldiers.

The movie then takes us through the chronology of Pink's life. The death of his father in battle leaves a big gap in his family life and also a distrust of government, which he represses in order to fit in with other boys his age.

In one scene, a young Pink finds his daddy's military uniform one day, tries it on, and salutes his image in the mirror, as the soundtrack plays When the Tigers Broke Free:

It was just before dawn
One miserable morning in black 'forty four.
When the forward commander
Was told to sit tight
When he asked that his men be withdrawn.
...
And the Anzio bridgehead
Was held for the price
Of a few hundred ordinary lives.

...
They were all left behind,
Most of them dead,
The rest of them dying.
And that's how the High Command
Took my daddy from me.

Next comes education. A particularly harsh schoolmaster repeatedly belittles Pink in front of the class, which participates in his ridicule out of their fear of the master's paddle. Of course, this experience too becomes just another brick in Pink's wall.

The final step is marriage. While Pink becomes a successful musician, he is often inattentive to his wife, more interested in sitting at the piano keyboard than attending social functions, and looking over her at the TV as she tries to be romantic in bed. When she is inevitably driven away, and no longer answers his phone calls, Pink's wall is complete.

We begin to see the dark side of celebrity. Pink willingly participates in the music concerts, even though he feels the music industry is just another authoritarian social institution, offering no authentic human connection. In “One of My Turns,” his disillusionment boils over when a groupie follows him to his hotel room.

Day after day
Love turns gray
Like the skin on a dying man
Night after night
We pretend it's all right
But I have grown older
And you have grown colder
And nothing is very much fun, anymore
...
Run to the bedroom
In the suitcase on the left
You'll find my favorite axe
Don't look so frightened
This is just a passing phase
One of my bad days
Would you like to watch TV?
Or get between the sheets?

Or contemplate the silent freeway; would you like something to eat?
Would you like to learn to fly?
Would you like to see me try?

Would you like to call the cops?
Do you think it's time I stopped?

Why are you running away?

Ironically, the only place Pink finds hope for the possibility of authentic connection is TV, but he knows that's not real.

The song “Nobody Home” sums up his feeling,

I got elastic bands keepin my shoes on.
Got those swollen hand blues.
I got thirteen channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from.
I've got electric light.
And I got second sight.
Got amazing powers of observation.
And that is how I know
When I try to get through
On the telephone to you
There'll be nobody home.

…

I've got wild staring eyes.
And I've got a strong urge to fly.
But I've got nowhere to fly to.
Ooooh, Babe.

When I pick up the phone...
There's still nobody home.

Pink's repression has cut him off from all authentic human connection. In what could be argued is the climax of the movie, Pink takes on the identity of the leader of a Neo-political movement and moves his adoring fans to adopt dehumanizing attitudes. Director Alan Parker portrays has the crowd transition into a synchronized march, and brilliantly superimposes faceless masks over every member of the audience, illustrating the egoless conformity that crowd behavior brings out in us.

At some point in the future, Pink at last yells “STOP!” and takes time to reflect on what he has become.

He then heroically looks into himself, as depicted in “The Trial”. The site http://www.thewallanalysis.com says it well,

In many ways, “the Trial" epitomizes all that is the Wall, combining the album's high theatrics, unflinching cynicism, dark humor, tongue-in-cheek irony, deep emotion, and (paradoxically) both unwavering nihilism and steadfast optimism. The song is a seeming contradiction, offering a dichotomous look at the light and dark, good and ill, of Pink's life from a number of different perspectives, all of which take place within the mind of one person.

Roger Waters explains, “the judge is part of him just as much as all the other characters and things he remembers. They're all in his mind, they're all memories.” Although bizarre at first glance, the“The Trial” is a fitting ending to the multiple themes the film touches on.

The Wall, both the album and the movie, is humongous in scope. It's about what concentrations of power and authoritarian social structures do to our souls. For anyone looking to face these deep issues head-on, The Wall brings offers ample opportunity for reflection.

'Non-cognitive' Skills and the American Bias Towards Rules

Recently the term "noncognitive skills" has caught on in business and education circles. Just google 'noncognitive' to see that many academically published research articles use "noncognitive" as an umbrella term for anything which cannot be measured by a written test, usually things like communication, kindness, social intelligence, perseverance, and other 'intangible' traits.

But 'non-cognitive' is really quite a bizarre term to use! All of these skills have to be learned somehow, and so why is the term 'noncognitive' being used? 'Cognitive' comes from the Latin 'cognoscere' 'with knowledge.' 'Non-rational', or 'not based on rules' is a much better description of these skills.

The reason 'noncognitive' has stuck is that academics in America have a huge bias towards rules. We take it as a given that a technical solution must exist to every problem. The idea that these skills could be 'non-rational' or 'not based on rules' is highly unappealing to us, so we prefer the ambiguous 'non-cognitive' label.

This is a mistake. It is interesting to note that, despite its abundant use in university-level research, there is no wikipedia page on "noncognitive skills." A google search for "non-cognitive skills" returns 162,000 results, while a search for "non-rational skills", the correct phrase, returns just 277 results!

Carl Jung wrote in the just recently published Red Book, "Scholarliness alone is not enough, there is a knowledge of the heart that gives deeper insight." Knowledge/cognition goes deeper than scholarliness or rationality. We must look beyond institutional, formalized knowledge, and into the knowledge of compassion in our hearts if we wish to move society forward.

On capitalism and sociocultural transition

When I was growing up I was told that capitalism is great because it “allows you to be anything you want to be!” By “anything you want to be”, they really meant sit at a desk all day doing what a person in the office above you tells you to. “But you can be at whatever desk you want, if you just go for your dreams!” Uhhh, yeah. Thanks, I guess.

So what to make of capitalism? Are we to join Michael Moore in mock outrage at it? Or what about those rational voices claiming that better alternatives are possible? What if they are right, and the rest of us are missing out on a whole different quality of life?

Are we not like the tribe of Israel, demanding to be ruled by a king? The prophets cry to us there is a better way, but we don't even understand what they are saying. We know only the primal thrill of the vicarious experience of power. Donald Trump is our generation's King Saul.

So why not join the radical left and anarchists? The problem is that progress is slow.

Capitalism itself is a form of progress over the monarchy of King Saul. This can be a disheartening thought for an idealist. There is no shortcut. Utopia can only come about one mind at a time. Yet we are dealing with archetypal forces here. The unconscious desire for even a vicarious experience of power is embedded more deeply than we would like to admit.

Irrationality is the prima materia of culture. Irrational drives are the basis for music, dancing, games, art, story-telling, governments, economies, or any socio-cultural institution.

Capitalism taken to the free-market extreme is "reason turned against itself"--a system that assumes the innate rationality of our behavior, but yet exists only because of our irrational desire to experience power over our neighbor, if only vicariously. We want to see our neighbors struggle and fail, so we can say “Ha! You're no Donald Trump! I told you you'd never make it.” Ridicule is an easier, more instinctive pleasure than friendship. That's why the Israelites served a King, and our age serves capitalism.

Repression of our Inner Personalities

Back to what is apparently my favorite Erich Fromm quote:

“In making the individual feel worthless and insignificant as far as his own merits are concerned, in making him feel like a powerless tool in the hands of God, [Luther] deprived man of the self-confidence and of the feeling of human dignity which is the premise for any firm stand against [oppressive] secular authorities... Once the individual had lost his sense of pride and dignity, he was psychologically prepared to lose the feeling which had been characteristic of the medieval thinking, namely, that man, his spiritual salvation, and his spiritual aims were the purpose of life; he was prepared to accept a role in which his life became a means to purposes outside of himself, those of economic productivity and accumulation of capital. Luther’s views on economic problems were typically medieval, still more so than Calvin’s. He would have abhorred the idea that man’s life should become a means for economic ends. But while his thinking on economic matters was the traditional one, his emphasis on the nothingness of the individual was in contrast and paved the way for a development in which man not only was to obey secular authorities but had to subordinate his life to the ends of economic achievements.” [Escape from Freedom. p. 83-84]

Jung has a great term that explains exactly what Fromm is talking about here. The term is "inner personality". By "inner personality," Jung does not mean staying outwardly quiet when we may be angry. That is simply the choice of our ego. "Inner personality," for Jung, refers to a part of us far beneath the ego, which is most visible in dreams, but which also colors our conscious perceptions and feelings.

Jung describes inner personality as:

"those vague, dim stirrings, feelings, thoughts and sensations which flow in on us not from conscious experience, but well up like a disturbing, inhibiting, or at times helpful, influence from the dark inner depths, from the background and underground vaults of consciousness, and constitute in their totality our perception of unconscious life" [Psychological Types, pg. 466]

Historically, dialogue with the inner personality has been called "visions" or "revelation from God." In many Native American groups, members would go on vision quests to spur an inner dialogue. Western religion has a long history of respect for inner dialogue also, through those who experience a revelation from God.

What Fromm is trying to say here is that Western Protestantism carries a repressive attitude towards our inner personalities. We no longer look to our dreams to guide our social life. We reject the idea that important insights can be expressed through the symbolism of dreams. We fail to notice our inner responses to the individuals we meet, and focus only on reciting the appropriate social scripts.

So Puritanism was not so concerned about the repression of sexuality as people today might think. It was more than just that. Victorian Puritanism was about the repression of our inner personalities. It was about complete identification with the socially-assigned career--"My identity is lawyer", "My identity is house-wife", "My business is my identity"--and putting that socially-assigned role ahead of one's freely chosen role within a community. Markets and managers dictate the one. But in community one is able to seek out those friendships that one's inner personality responds the strongest to.

What we never realized and why the 60's failed, is that in trying to correct for Victorian repression, a sexual revolution falls short. Sexuality is only part of the full picture. What is needed is a full-identity revolution--a questioning of whether we should "subordinate our lives to the ends of economic achievements" and a turning inward to establish an inner dialogue and reaffirm our spiritual aims.

But politicians continue to preach about the need for 'creating more jobs' and we, the public, continue to eat it up.