Archive for the ‘ The Self ’ Category

People as Discrete Individuals

I just got the book The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt – and I could see right away that is is an important one.

Here is a quote from page 14.

The Western conception of a person as a bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational and cognitive universe, a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgement, and action organized to a distinctive whole and set contrastively both against other such wholes and against its social and natural background, is, however incorrigible is may seem to us, a rather peculiar idea within the context of the world’s cultures.

I have wondered about this myself, somewhat vaguely – and it was a relief to see it described so well.

He goes on to say:

Shweder (a psychological anthropologist) offered a simple idea to explain why the self  differs so much across cultures: all societies mus resolve a small set of questions about how to order society, the most important being how to balance the needs of individuals and groups.

There seem to be just two primary ways of answering this question. Most societies have chosen the sociocentric answer, placing the needs of groups and institutions first, and subordinating the needs of individuals.

In contrast, the individualistic answer places individuals at the center and makes society a servant of the individual.

The sociocentric answer dominated most of the ancient world, but the individualistic answer became a powerful rival during the Enlightenment.

People Without a Self

These are very common now – normal, in fact. The process of growing up, which normally produces people with individual selves (the process of individuation) now produces people much like everyone else. And this is considered a huge improvement, because all can be considered as one.

Anyone not normal is a threat, however, and must be dealt with severely. This is the logic behind the War on Terror – all these people are different from us, and can be safely assumed to be an enemy.

At the same time, all of this must be carefully overlooked and relegated to the unconscious where it can operate without conscious interference.

I have spent a lot of time in the last few months learning about WWII. Everyone was baffled by Nazi behavior. And the same behavior was evident in many other countries – Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Japan. To me, it was simple – more examples of people without individual selves, but with an all-powerful group-identity. The Germans and the Japanese stood out because they were better organized.

This can also be looked at another way. A person with a self has control of his life, simply because he has one. A person without a self has no control his life because he has none – and lets his world control him. But everyone greatly approves of this behavior – and to their way of thinking, that is all that matters.

I am reminded of a woman I met recently. She came across as the friendliest person imaginable, and immediately confided some of her life’s secrets. She had acquired control of a granddaughter, and raised her herself. (She didn’t say much about her son, the father of the granddaughter, but I gathered that he was pretty much of a mess.)

After this granddaughter graduated from high school, she made sure she joined the military. The poor kid didn’t have a choice, that was where she went – and the whole family rejoiced. The granddaughter, who was a bright child, was bored to death – she felt she was wasting her life – which indeed she was.

This made no difference to the grandmother. She was in the right place, and she was going to stay there. The waste of a life meant nothing to her – she had probably never heard of such a thing. But she had heard of a group identity – and made sure that everyone she had any control over stayed in the Straight and Narrow.

Perhaps this does not sound like much of a problem to you – since the result is a powerful country – and, more than that, a powerful global culture. “What,” you might ask, “Is wrong with this?”

The answer is simple – mass people cannot think – they have been carefully trained not to. This means they are not aware of what is going on – and cannot tell where they are going. They can only do more of what they are already doing.

And what they are already doing is destroying their world.

The Renaissance and Humanism

I have been immensely impressed by Bruno Latour. I am a natural hero-worshiper - but I am now assessing him more carefully.

For him, modernity began with the Scientific Revolution. Which, as any historian of Science will admit – never happened. Latour describes what did happen better than anyone else I know. But he ignores what happened just before that.

What happened were three earth-shaking events – the Renaissance and Humanism that began in Italy. And the Reformation that began in Germany and Switzerland.

The Reformation produced religious wars, the worst that had ever been seen in Europe. And these produced (in a very strange way) Modernity, and Science – and eventually the Industrial Revolution, which was real.

Southern Europe (and Latin America) were not touched by the Reformation. And remained undeveloped – and poor. France remained a special case, but never became Protestant.

Latour (a Frenchman) never goes into these series of events – the Renaissance and Humanism, which were very human. And the religious wars and their impact (including technologies) – that made people less human. He fails to make this very important contrast.

He has a lot of company. We have forgotten our human past. And we have no intention of remembering it.

People Change Things, Then Things Change People

This is so obvious, it hardly needs saying – but people refuse to believe it. Why? Because they believe they are superior beings and things are inferior things that have no mind of their own, and therefore cannot control them, the wonderful beings who are in control of the world, including their things.

This naivete was not dangerous for the first two thousand years of our existence, or so. But developments in the last two hundred years have made it very dangerous.

During this period, the Industrial Revolution (actually several Industrial Revolutions) changed everything. While people will agree that their outside world has changed, and changed dramatically – they will also insist that their inside world has not changed at all.

When this world has also changed dramatically – in fact, it has been destroyed.

This is not hard to understand. People have become things themselves, and things have no inner life – because they have no life at all.

This is not to say, however, that things do not make their own demands. They make huge demands on people – and demand they change to accommodate them. The sailing ship demanded sailors, for example, and it got them – people that only existed to serve it. Also a banking system, and mass markets where all kinds of goods (including slaves) could be exchanged. All from making better ships!

Fast-forward to the present. My working life was spent developing the computer/ software/ internet/ wireless – at a frantic pace, and with disastrous consequences. This technological complex made a HUGE demand on us.

It demanded the ultimate sacrifice – that we empty ourselves into them, so they are now everything and we are nothing.

We Have Destroyed Our Selves, and We are Now Busy Destroying Everything Else

People exist in two ways – as individuals and as groups of individuals. The power struggle between the two is a necessary part of our existence.

We exist as individuals first because we exist in individual bodies – bodies with highly-developed nervous systems – that are perhaps over-developed. We exist as groups because we are social animals, keenly attuned to everybody else in our group – and in the tiniest changes in their moods.

Being alive, we should be keenly aware of our bodies and our surroundings – like any other animal. But we are not; we only a have  limited awareness of either one – and we are determined to not be more aware. Why is this?

This is a hard question to answer, because the processes that caused our present world started over two hundred years ago, and because one of our fundamental weaknesses is our inability to notice social changes. Instead we pretend no changes are happening.

The reason for this, I believe, is simple. Biological change is slow, taking hundreds of thousands of years. This gives the organisms involved plenty of time to adapt at their own pace. Living beings are very complicated, and any overall change requires many smaller ones, and these all have to be coordinated with each other. Often new parts or processes have to be developed in order for all this to happen. This is a lot of work, and it is only done reluctantly. Living organisms (including our own species) are conservative because they have to be.

But man has a new way of changing. These have been called memes – social mechanisms that make change possible, and function as genes do – but much faster. Other animals can do this too. It didn’t take herds of wild elephants long to learn that people raised tasty crops.

But with us, this social learning, which probably began with our language skills, has gotten out of control. This could be the history of our race – lots of changes we could not resist that turned out badly. Even the Old Testament has a record of this. The Hebrews saw all their neighbors having kings, and they wanted one too. God didn’t think it was such a good idea, and said so. The Hebrews insisted – and we know what happened.

We managed to survive the first of these great changes – Civilization. But we ended up being entirely different – even though our genes had not changed a bit. We came out of that proud of ourselves, convinced we were something special – although the wisest of us had grave doubts about whether we had improved or not.

These doubts were resolved when the Roman Empire collapsed. Clearly, something had gone very wrong. And it took well over a thousand years for us to recover.

The next big change was the transition to what we call the Modern World. I have made a serious study of this – and have found to my amazement, that Post-Modern man has little interest in what happened then. The reasons for this will become clear.

The history of how the Modern World developed is a complicated one – even professional historians, who specialize in only one area and one time period, have trouble keeping it straight. The rest of us will have to settle for lesser understandings – but at least we should try.

For the purposes of this essay, I will concentrate one event – the Industrial Revolution, because this is when things got really crazy. The effects of this on our minds has been overlooked, because we have learned to concentrate on all the things we developed instead. The result of this transfer of attention has been fatal. Here is the summary of my own findings:

We forgot ourselves – and not only that, because we felt inferior to our things, we destroyed our selves – including our ability to be aware of what we were doing.

What we ended up with, once again, was a new kind of people – but this time a degenerate people we can just barely understand. A people who have no interest in understanding themselves. Humpty-Dumpty had fallen and could not be put back together again.

This is amazing enough, but to me something else is even more amazing – no one knows this has happened! When I say no one, I mean no one, not the smartest people alive. True, lots of people were aware of it in various ways, even including some of our intelligentsia, but no one I am aware of has put all the pieces of this puzzle together, and arrived at this simple conclusion. And no one is likely to thank me for telling them about this.

The next step is also amazing – after we had destroyed our selves, we started to destroy everything else – the whole world! And we are taking this task very seriously. As we can see easily from our environment, our politics – and even our economy.

The end of the world is not in the future, it has already happened.

Losing Interest in Ourselves

Science has been very useful in helping us understand the world outside of ourselves. But it has not been very useful in understanding  more important worlds – our social worlds and our mental and emotional worlds.

What have I said here? Nothing that hasn’t been said thousands of times before. Nevertheless it deserves saying again – and more. I am not putting down sociology and psychology – their contributions have been priceless.

Instead what I want to do is something entirely different – to take a good look at why we are no longer interested in ourselves. Our interest has been captured by something else, something outside of ourselves.

The result is something I am tempted to call the collapse of the human race. Two things seem to have happened – our external world, enhanced by technology, has exploded while our internal world, the human world, has imploded. As a result, we have almost ceased to exist – and therefore we have lost interest in ourselves.

And without this interest we are doomed.

More Similarities Between Humans and Computers

This is a continuation of my posting Computers Have Been Designed to Act Like Humans. I didn’t realize I was getting into such fertile territory. I am still reading the book Technology and Culture, and the chapter The Forth Discontinuity by Bruce Mazlish.

I am familiar with what seemed to be his basic argument – that computers are close to replacing humans in all ways, except possibly sexually. I do not feel threatened by this, even though many people believe in it fervidly. For one thing, my sex life, at my age, is not something I fret about. But the rest of his argument has sobered me – even as I sit here drunk with the local cheap wine.

He begins with Freud, proceeds to Marx, then to Darwin, then to Descartes – who really blew me away. Descartes describes what would later be the test of whether a computer was capable of acting like a human (the Turing Test) – namely that it could answer any question as a human would. Or, of course, play a game of chess as good as human could. Or to put it bluntly – to think just like we can – the object of Artificial Intelligence.

For those who have not kept up with this field, it had to admit defeat for quite a while, but lately has returned with good-enough kinds of intelligence, such as the program in the latest iPhone, that can understand spoken commands – most of the time. Whether or not this is real intelligence is immaterial, since the marketplace (dominated by people less than intelligent) thinks it is.

The article continues with Frankenstein – as originally written, a sexual threat – not Boris Karloff, clumping around the stage.

He finishes with a plea that we understand ourselves as computers. In a way, I have to agree – we have to recognize what we have become. But I also feel immensely disappointed that we have come to this.

Computers Have Been Designed to Act Like Humans

This is a continuation of my last posting People Merge With Their Things. One reason people have become so confused about what they are was the deliberate decision to make computers seem human.

It was unlikey that people would confuse themselves with a sailing ship, for example – unless they were a ship designer, a ship captain, or a ship owner. The people who built them, maintained them, or manned them (the vast majority of people) had no trouble telling themselves from huge number of ships in existence. The difference was obvious.

When the railroads came along, the situation became more complicated. People could say “I am a railroader,” or “He is a railroader” – meaning that he was a company man. This was obstructed, however, by the power of the unions – which insisted on the value of the worker.

This was the case in my father’s family. His father was a railroad worker – but also an ardent union man. When the Great Railroad Strike of 1922 happened, he was ruined, along with many others. As it turned out, he was far ahead of his time. Ninety years later (2012), many workers in America would be without a job. But I am getting ahead of my story.

When I graduated from the University of Illinois in 1959, I was an Electronic Engineer – and an expert on vacuum tubes. Twenty years later, this expertise was useless, having been superceded by the transistor – which, in the form of large-scale integrated devices (LSI), made the modern computer possible. At the time, no one could confuse themselves with a computer, which was obviously some other kind of thing, requiring the user to flip a large number of switches to enter information. In contemporary terms, it was not user-friendly.

No problem! The next step of this evolution stepped into place – software – whose purpose in life was to make the computer seem more human. This was no small task, and has never been solved completely, as any computer user knows. But after light-years of developmental work – the biggest effort of all time, really – most of the world’s people have been fooled into thinking computers are human. Any clerk can shove anything in front of a scanner in any store, and get the price automatically added to the running total on their checkout computer.

But this is nothing. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can buy an iPad, and poke their finger at any icon on it, and get instant results. Some magical genie in it can fulfill any desire they can possibly have. Who can resist it? Practically no one.

The boundary between the human user and his computer has been erased forever. Henceforth they will be the same – and no one will notice.

Shame

We are ashamed of ourselves, for what we have turned out to be. Are we aware of this? No, we are not aware of anything, and instead we are proud of our deadness – which should our ultimate shame.

I continue to read Sartre, who is talking about The Origin of Nothingness. I can only marvel at how he overlooked the nothingness in the people all around him. After all, France had suffered one of the most humiliating defeats in history in WWII. Existentialism did address some of the emotions resulting from this – while overlooking the most sweeping change of all – the dominance of mass man - the rule of complete idiots – exemplified perfectly by the Nazis.

Fighting the Nazis was easy, because they made themselves so conspicuous. They practically invited the rest of the world to destroy them. But they have been succeeded by a force much more subtle and dangerous – one that we can barely comprehend.

Instead of making an effort to understand it – we just gave up, and decided it did not exist – when, in reality, it was turning us into idiots. “Oh well,” We said to each other, “It can’t be helped.”

And we were not ashamed at all.

We No Longer Know Who We Are

We have been changing so fast we are like nothing we ever have been. We can no longer relate to ourselves because we have no words to describe what we have become. We cannot understand ourselves and don’t know what we should be doing. We have no past and no future. In a very real sense we don’t even have a present – at least not one where we know who we are.

This is not a comfortable situation, but it is worse than that: whatever we are, it is not working – and nothing could be scarier that that. Our response to this has been amazing – we haven’t responded at all. To all outward appearances, we have simply died. We have become passive creatures, incapable of acting ourselves – because we no longer have any selves.

As I write this, I have to struggle for words, and the words I come up with are unsatisfactory. They seem to add up to no more than a word salad – a common effect of schizophrenia, where victims can no longer make sense of their world.

Perhaps Iain McGilchrist is right: we have become so developed, so left brain, we can no longer cope with our world, because only the right brain can tie everything together. This makes some sense. But we can also tackle this problem historically, by seeing how we have changed since Industrialization (how we have been overwhelmed by technology) – and even the simplest approach (or what should be the simplest approach) by paying close attention to our most important activity: the world of business.

This is what the occupy movement was trying to do, in its clumsy way – to try to make business responsible to the people. The response was sobering: the police showed up in overwhelming force, and showed that the land of the free is no longer free. And the rest of the people did nothing, one way or the other. They did nothing – because they were incapable of doing anything.

The conclusion is not hard to draw: a people without power is not a people at all. What they are, we have no words for.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 361 other followers