“I bring the children, stainless and dear and helpless, and therewith I, they say, bring joy. Now of the joy I bring to the mother let none speak for miracles are not neatly to be caged in sentences, nor is truth always expedient. To the father I bring the sight of his own life, by him so insecurely held, renewed and strengthened in a tenement not yet impaired by time and folly: he is no more disposed to belittle himself here than elsewhere; and it is himself that he cuddles in the small, soft, incomprehensible and unsoiled incarnation. For, as I bring the children, they have no evil in them and no cowardice and no guile.” Figures of Earth — James Branch Cabell
Not long ago, I wrote a post about the commercialization of culture and its deeper psychological effects based on Erich Neumann’s insights. After seeing an advertisement by Target in which the words “What’d ya get?” were repeated ad nauseam for the reinforcement to our children of what Christmas is really about, I was reminded (post vomitus) of the stork’s soliloquy in Cabell’s, Figures of Earth:
“I bring the children, stainless and dear and helpless, when I later return, to those that yesterday were children. And in all ways time has marred, and living has defaced, and prudence has maimed, until I grieve to entrust that which I bring to what remains of that which yesterday I brought. In the old days children were sacrificed to a brazen burning god, but time affects more subtile hecatombs: for Moloch slew outright. Yes, Moloch, being divine, killed as the dog killed, furiously, but time is that transfigured cat, an ironist. So living mars and defaces and maims, and living appears wantonly to soil and to degrade its prey before destroying it.“
Were it that time and living the only things that soil and degrade. For Cabell, such ideas were much too vague and convenient to let the real truth of the matter escape unspoken:
“I bring the children, stainless and dear and helpless, and I leave them to endure that which is fated. Daily I bring into this world the beauty and innocence and high-heartedness and faith of children: but life has no employment, or else… no sustenance, for these fine things which I bring daily, for always I, returning, find the human usages of living have extinguished these excellences in those who yesterday were children, and that these virtues exist in no aged person. And I would that Jahveh had created me an eagle or a vulture or some other hated bird of prey that furthers a less grievous slaying and more intelligible wasting than I further.“
So, “human usages” (conscious intent) were the ultimate source of the stork’s disillusionment. An old allegory of Christ as well as the instinct for reflection, the stork (like any animal) symbolizes the laws of unconscious nature which “have no evil in them and no cowardice and no guile.” The openness of children is a source of wonder but, like animals, being still under their direct influence, they’re also easily manipulated by those “intelligent” enough to deem them useful for their own ends.
It’s difficult for young minds to conceive life outside the all-pervasive web of commercial deception defining today’s culture; just as it was for my generation to think outside the cult-like religious beliefs of my youth. The narrow views of yesterday, however contrived and self-centered, held one big difference: most were guided by higher values than unabashed material gain.
Though the “particle in the mass” has ever been manipulated for the wealth and power of an elite, there was, historically at least, some purpose behind “human usages” that still reflected the urge for development. However unconsciously, nature herself managed the conflicts between individual and group that pushed humanity forward: Neumann’s centroversion.
“… we prefer to call the sub-man who dwells in us moderns the “mass man” rather than the “group man,” because his psychology differs in essential respects from that of the latter. Although the genuine group man is for the most part unconscious, he nevertheless lives under the rule of centroversion… a psychic whole in which powerful tendencies are at work, making for consciousness, individualization and spiritual growth… in spite of his unconsciousness, in spite of projections, emotionality… the group man possesses… creative powers which manifest themselves in his culture, his society, his religion, his art, customs, and even in what we call his superstitions.
“The mass man lurking in the unconscious of the modern, on the other hand, is psychically a fragment, a part-personality which, when integrated, brings with it a considerable expansion of the personality, but is bound to have disastrous consequences if it acts autonomously.
“This unconscious mass component is opposed to consciousness and the world of culture. It resists conscious development, is irrational and emotional, anti-individual and destructive.“
This collective beast is cultivated outright today, and the “elite” political and corporate interests reaping the immediate benefits not only encourage these qualities but live them. It began with the careful management of consumption in the minds of children, the first to absorb the effects of the powerful new tools of that part-personality called intellect: science, technology, and mass media which took control of our culture in the fifties: the “candied pap of television”, as Philip Wylie phrased it.
Today, we sacrifice our children to a new brazen god who is more opposed to consciousness than any idol history has yet borne in the human mind. You may not live to see the extent of the destruction — but your child will.
Where are the living examples psychology fancied it would provide for the growth of human consciousness? Though it’s a roundabout way which is often opposed to the under-philosophy of today’s technical facade, it is possible to re-connect with the values that reflect our children’s future instead of unthinkingly devouring it in the frenzied consumption which once was Moloch’s, today transfigured by the irony of time.
Wow, so many ideas in here worth thinking about! Thanks for the reply and for the thoughts you share.
First, “disorienting effect … faster than we can process” – are you saying that we are, by default, driven to act and think and feel by the unconscious, and then secondarily able to apply (for lack of a better way of saying it) free will? That is, if we are disoriented by the outside world, our free will basically gives up and takes a nap while the unconscious fills the vacuum? And that our best bet in dealing with this problem is to examine the unconscious to become more aware of where it goes when this is the case?
Second, “primitive psychic foundation … natural law … natural values” – by this do you mean “biologically driven” or maybe “bio-social”? What is natural law or natural values? If biology has a role to play, I wonder what effect science and technology will have on this front. You always hear about the mind-body connection from the perspective of the mind. But with everything from prozac to viagra to ayahuasca, it seems like there is a scientific dimension to this that starts with the body. Change the body and you change the mind. Like Huxley’s Soma (to go back to him for a second).
Anyhow, terrific post, and thanks for the comment reply.
Ted,
Thanks again for your comments. As I understand Jung, your questions are related. One of the reasons I like his concept of the unconscious is that it doesn’t assume where and how the mind and body are connected. His The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious explains it. As he wrote, biological impulses must also have a psychic aspect, otherwise they could never appear as images. That’s so for animals, even insects. Our instinctual foundations are grounded in emotions which can’t be processed as quickly as thinking chases after conscious intent, and the greater the split between them, the greater the disorientation. Science is primarily a function of intellect which, like consciousness, is easily diverted from the purpose and intent of the natural psyche, the deeper layers of the unconscious which motivate life. It’s one of the reasons Jung placed so much emphasis on symbolic understanding. Religious images are natural expressions of unconscious aims, and as the split between conscious and unconscious becomes more pronounced through the focus of intellect (science and technology), Jung felt the need for a re-interpretation of them on a level of consciousness which can further incorporate them. Their loss means a loss of human values, just as the natural psyche is an objective reality which can’t long be artificially manipulated without disastrous consequences. More on this here: http://outlawpsych.com/outlawpsych/a-reason-for-religion-subjective-views-in-an-objective-world-of-illusion/. Thank you, Ted — you’ve got me thinking, too. I hope some of this made sense.
What if humanity is better off in a global, free-market oriented world despite its focus on “getting” stuff? What if humanity is much better off this way? We give up things for sure, but what do we gain? What if we don’t compare the way things are to the way things were, but rather judge the way things are today based on their own merits?
I absolutely understand what you are seeing. And oh man are you right that there is much more coming. The internet until just about right now has been run by amateurs (I say this with great fondness, by the way). Amateurs meaning enthusiasts who created the web and more for the joy of engineering.
Now though, the money is being redirected from IT departments to Marketing. And wow in a few years the advertising will be so subtle and pervasive and targeted you won’t even notice it. Already, when your iPhone gets near Walmart or Target or Lowes, it knows, and presents you with highly targeted offers to spend your money right then (“since you’re here, how about 10% off some light bulbs”).
I watched an Aldus Huxley interview on YouTube where he was musing on a future where we’re, in his mind, so manipulated we’re essentially “slaves” but the kicker being that we don’t mind! In a way, I think seeing this change as basically bad like Huxley does, or like Ayn Rand might, or like Orwell and others, is so ingrained in us that we tend to go in predisposed to fear it. Judging a situation on its own merits is hard, because it requires one to (at least in that moment) to give up on a reality that however imperfect, is at least known and understood.
To me, looking at coming changes through an existential lens is at the same time scary and difficult, but also liberating. Right now for example, aren’t we less likely to see those that are “different” persecuted for the way in which they differ? I could argue that this alone allows for growth in human consciousness simply because it eliminates the pressure to see people as “other” in the first place. We may need to work a little harder to get at who “we” are, and perhaps we need stronger reminders that we are not who Target tells us we are. But if we see that our neighbor is safe to be different from “normal” society and still be part of society, maybe we’ll be more willing to accept the ways in which we ourselves are “different” at deeper and more personal levels. If this is the case, then perhaps we’re better off even if it means we’ll have to work a little harder to get there.
Ted,
I agree with your essential points, though I would like to add that the changes today are a problem in that they have a disorienting effect when they occur faster than we can process their meaning and purpose. They have a tendency to run on unconsciously and, as Neumann pointed out, while they do represent a great expansion of consciousness (what you say about the projection of differences and “other” is on point; though, as Nietzsche called it: a “problem with horns”), we need an understanding of symbols and symbolic behavior to see how our own unconsciousness creates negative consequences. There are those who exploit disorientation for their own ends which, I think, places a great responsibility on the individual to interpret the effects of science and technology in a less literal way than thought runs today.
I replied to a comment on another site (http://www.depthpsychologyalliance.com/) which was an attempt to sum up the threats from the fast-paced changes we’re experiencing today: “One of the reasons I think Jung’s and Neumann’s work is important is that they outlined natural functions and showed them to have certain objective intent. They rest on a primitive psychic foundation which required a very long time to evolve. Jung has demonstrated that their design is to connect us to ourselves and others according to the purposes of natural law, and psychologically they translate into the values which contribute to the evolution of life on earth. They have a devotional religious character: the nature of unconscious functioning. To the extent that natural values are artificially diverted into objects, we lose those connections. The more they’re projected onto objects and things, the less connected we are to life. At a certain point of separation, the natural psyche turns more destructive than creative. Our psychology “becomes relativized and profoundly disturbed” as Neumann wrote. The mass manipulation and diverting of unconscious values into objects for the purposes of the personal gain of a few has been very successful (they’re very good at it). But the resulting destruction of the last fifty years is not sustainable for life on earth at the current pace. As Jung pointed out, these processes are objective — we’re subject to natural laws whether we believe in them or not.” — just kind of a footnote that keeps me grounded in this crazy complicated world we live in.
Thank you, Ted, for your ideas. Exchanging ideas helps toward understanding what we’re doing here — we need that. One of the questions I ask myself about changes is: does their contribution to evolution outweigh their destructive effects (consider our enormous capability for destruction today)? I think we need a firm grounding in the natural psyche to determine that.
Evan