Compass Strokes

“Action, as distinguished from fabrication, is never possible in isolation; to be isolated is to be deprived of the capacity to act.” 

- Hannah Arendt

Play

Each of man’s confrontations with his surroundings sets forth an immediate change within his perceptive field. Whatever he experiences, whatever he touches, is left as a mark on his person. Man is irrevocably conditioned by his surroundings. In order to survive, he must actively participate in the organic process of the world. He must make his own of all experiences to fully grasp his life-world; he must become an active participant in what constitutes his human existence. Only by accepting the boundaries of our human condition can we experience freedom; only when we make sense of our existence in the world can we experience meaningfulness, and we can only make sense of our existence if we participate with the world around us. For in isolation one is deprived of the capacity to act.

 

Taxonomic Landscapes

The process of taxonomy had proved fruitful for the construction of an intersubjective framework for human interaction. However, in this process of categorizing the world grew the first seed of alienation. The concrete connections were replaced by one abstract connection: master and slave. By alienating himself from nature, man observed how nature had developed and an end was put to any further dialogue between the two. Naïve optimism spread with the idea that anything could be possible by implementing scientific thinking into widely diverse societal strata. The conceptual consequence of this development was shortly made visible.

   Socialism can be deemed a first attempt to come to terms with mankind’s barbaric origin. Its ultimate goal was the realization of a new dawn of man. The basis of socialism was to produce an improved version of mankind, for humans were regarded as unfinished material subject to the course of biological evolution. The enlightenment had, however, endowed mankind with the tools necessary to take action into its own hands, the Cartesian tradition that was emphasized even more by German romanticism influenced the Western tradition of rational thought. The construction of a faultless society would mark the end of evolution, which would be replaced by a man-made revolution. If humanity can control nature by understanding biology, the possibilities of perfecting any species were infinite.

   The practical consequences of putting such a philosophical disposition to practice within the natural and social sciences produced horrifying results. However, this disposition is yet active within a far range of areas of modern life. Scientism, the view that the empirical methods of natural and physical science are held to be universally valid in all fields of knowledge is still regarded as a suitable framework for modern bureaucracy. During the first decades of the 20^th century, this political-philosophical outlook formed into a dogmatist discourse within Western society. Eugenics was an extreme form of social policy with a strict economic attitude according to which the less capable human beings were regarded as serving no use at all. A century after, the side effects were rendered visible; totalitarianism, Nazism and Fascism had run the wealthiest cultures in the world to their knees.

The general concept that had produced such questionable results was surprisingly not abandoned after the war. Instead, the will to actively diminish the influence of the negative aspects of human nature grew yet stronger. However, this was no longer put in practice by implementing systems of negation; an anti-human rationality was put in motion within the European society. Such a practical philosophical mistake could only have been possible within nations wherein the people had already been objectivized for two centuries. The biological determinism that had shaped the eugenics movement, a movement that would have an impact of social politics up to the 21^st century, had been reshaped and applied to the post-war progressivism within Europe. A mental revival was deemed necessary to once again clean the slate of humanity from the brutal onslaughts against the enlightenment’s claim that rationality was an individual entity separate from our frail bodies. Civilization could no longer deny the negations inherent within the tradition of the enlightenment.

   With the advent of mechanized technology, our culture tried to perfect the nature of our selves to protect the worldview garnered from the philosophical speculations of three centuries past. Human mentality longed for transcendence from physical reality in the true Cartesian sense. Within today’s post-industrial society this has produced a state of alienation, which has transformed mankind into metaphors in the hands of the passive power of computerized labour. We are lost within the contradictoriness and multivoicedness of an epoch that no longer values humanity but which instead has come to deeply despise the most intuitive of our emotions. The destructiveness of human nature is a negation within the current economic system, which in itself can be regarded as the practical manifestation of man’s weakness. By turning our backs on our true nature, we have created a society in which there is no longer any place for ourselves – its creators. 

    The cultural rationalization of the West has, hand in hand with Scientism, created a negative dialectic wherein the efficiency of the processes is valued more highly than the moral implication they serve. The Christian doctrine and its denunciation of human emotions was an important influence for the creation of capitalist economics. In a system void of moral beliefs, there is also no consideration for the state of humanity. In later times, attention has also been brought to the medical state of our species. We are now not only able to rationalize our moral shortcomings by way of technology but we are also able to perfect our physical nature. Illnesses are cured and lives are extended; who is going to accept illnesses when this means immediate removal in the economic world? Who would be willing to accept their own death when this nowadays proves that we have no place within the machinery of modern society?

It is believed that the widespread use of genetics and other technologies might result in significant increases in human intelligence, which would re-enable us to take part in the post-industrial world of economics. Some expect serious increases in the life span of each individual. We might also be able to construct technological structures that would greatly alter our socioeconomic infrastructure. Steady advances in computer technology devaluates human work force more and more for each passing day as the economy already from the start sought to deconsecrate our nature. We have created a world, which, in a not too distant future, will no longer require our existence for its survival.

   This is as most evident in popular culture as now we cannot distinguish between that which is man-made and that which is made by a machine. We have become so alienated from our own nature that we are unable to objectively judge what is human and what is not. Our next generation may be the first to experience a world where the meaning of life is not a philosophical standpoint but a question of engineering. Our civilization has previously been defined by its ability to construct tools but we are now also becoming more and more capable to outsource our cognition. There has been a marked increase of substitution of human cognition into the external world. We must ask ourselves some fundamental questions that have been left for the sake of science for many centuries. What does it mean to be human? What kind of society do we want? And where do we draw the line between humanity, nature and technology? The cognitive line between humanity and its environment is now being drawn further and further away, postponing the Cultural Revolution that will occur when we are faced with these questions.

To be able to deal with the on-going evolution of the technological economy, the transhumanist vision has created a system based on a true deconstruction of the human condition. It is the vision that we would finally be able to get rid of all undesirable traits of our nature by continuing to develop human-altering technologies for these specific purposes. Its philosophical roots can be traced back to the enlightenment. Four centuries later when all former values have been deconstructed, these values are still inherent to our culture. Transhumanism seeks to seek out the post-human condition and its desirability and possibilities – it would mean the merging of man and machine, the final step in the dialectics of the capitalist system, an acceptance of the current technological hegemony. It focuses on eventual outcomes of current developments and tries to affirm the possibility of fundamentally improving the human condition. The concept of what it is to be human is now being threatened not only from an economic perspective but also from a philosophical standpoint, and as long as we do not overcome the postmodern dilemma by once again asking ourselves what humanity actually implies and what moral values we should cherish in our communities we might be forced to reshape our biology and redefine our history to be able to function within post-industrial capitalism.

Into One-Another

“Each life experience, each insight into the world takes place and is substantiated by the body. Love, pain, hunger, disgust cannot be conceived. Rather, they penetrate us with a force that is inconceivable. The capacity to sympathize or empathize, to share in somebody else’s pain, is contingent upon one’s own suffering. Yet the consciousness of corporeality also harbours the fact of death, which is beyond experience and yet inscribed upon our lives from the very beginning.”

Reified

“The role compensates for a lack: ultimately, for the lack of life; more immediately, for the lack of another role.”

The MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) recognizes 16 separate personality types based on Jung’s four mental functions; sensing and intuition, thinking and feeling. The ability to detect a person’s inferior functions is the decisive step in determining the personality of an individual. Consequently, these aspects of one’s personality are thus regarded as “underdeveloped”. From a social perspective, a person suffering from an underdeveloped personality experience difficulties in fully adapting to social situations and has as of yet to learn how to fully integrate into society by way of behavior, thoughts, feelings and self-expression.

These inferiorities are discerned by applying a general cultural framework; the collective unconscious. The archetypes from which our culture stems from are abstract formations relating to an underlying cultural concept which inevitably manifest themselves in our everyday lives. The individuation process, that particular process where we accustom ourselves to our environment by sensing what individual qualities are promoted and which ones are scorned, is our way to come to terms with ourselves within the boundaries of the archetypes bestowed upon our lives. By unconsciously compromising our personalities we set in motion a complex psychological role playing game in which we repress certain aspects of our personality to experience successful integration within our environment. In short, we learn to fool ourselves by forcefully regressing our personalities only to act according to specific roles.

These roles have come to be the sole ground for all human relations and the only way for us to define ourselves. We act not according to who we really are but by what role society lends us. We learn to suppress our tendencies in order to condition ourselves for society. This sickening act of self-betrayal, the individuation process, is the only way which allows us to construct ourselves as an indivisible unit within our cultural boundaries. However, as soon as we allow ourselves to be surrendered by public opinion, afraid to step aside to judge our actions independently, instead succumbing to the path of least resistance, we forfeit all chances of individual development.

The yearning for true individuality is an ongoing process during our whole lives but only in certain pivotal moments does it evolve into an act of pure survival; when the ground on which we lie crumbles and we are forced to change perspective (which occurs for some sooner rather than later in life - for some not at all) we are thrown out of the zone of comfort within our current role and we desperately yearn to claim our individuality once more. In this struggle to find true personality some might might once more take refuge in the conventionality of compromising individualism in favor of the societal role play, an irrational albeit unconscious decision – and we will yet again find ourselves established on slowly disintegrating ground.

When adhering to the roles set by current society we lose all individuality. Our values become muddled, our thoughts become an external abstraction instead of an inherent feature by which we rationally lead our lives and we experience reality as a distorted entity into we are not yet fully integrated; we adapt to the order of things, we yet again make ourselves Others by means of adaptation. Recognition by society becomes the highest goal. The individual sets aside all inner longings and is once more faced by the endless struggle of impoverished reification. “The role is the self-caricature which we carry about with us everywhere, and which everywhere brings us face-to-face with an absence.”

We are Others

“For me to be at ease, I must have open space […] I must have the freedom of my space.”

To have not reflected upon that which has turned our lives into a machinery results in us becoming more enveloped in this materialistic spiral of self-treason and lies. Modern man, that much used idiom, fights an endless struggle against the gadgets which defines our actions; we have tried to externalize our abilities in the mechanisms. These mechanisms, however, are pivotal materialistic icons of our civilization. Internet, the technology which was once thought to enrich our social relations has in reality turned out to be an evolution of the social inequalities of our time.

Modern technology has in itself created a bureaucratized hierarchical system that has come to define modern interrelations between man. When yet unrealized, the potentialities of our relatively new communicational capabilities seemed to stand ground in the battle against social injustice; in a world where everyone has a voice and all of us are able to fully express ourselves in a neutral space, man becomes free. Man would no longer be bound and judged according to our economical status or social situation. All are free.

Internet, that interstitial space of contemporary reality, has in itself become entangled in the bureaucratizing modern civilization. It is no longer the exception to the rule but a further evolution of the social strata that have always been part of human coexistence; it has succumbed to the prefabricated trifles and depersonalized space of fruitless communication. All of us have become the voyeurs of our lives, we’re struggling the same battle only on another battlefield, where we are judged by the faces we put on. On this battlefield of social relations all our decisions are in the hands of the endless homeostatic mechanism according to which the exchange of deference of humiliation is the name of the game. Isolation succumbs us and in the density of the crowds we find that emptiness overcomes us.

Farewell Transmission

After meddling with overtly theoretical posts, I’ve decided to come back to earth by starting to write not of the psychological obstacles standing in the way of psychological development. Instead, I will pursue ways of making changes to my current way of life. The reason is that, for the last couple of months, I’ve been losing touch with the guiding light of morality and I’ve been consciously hiding behind the veil of ignorance, apparently unwilling to make change happen in my day-to-day life. Therefore, I’ve decided to finally get back on track – and blog about the process. Not only will this allow anyone to see through any lies I might be telling myself in this (perhaps a bit naïve) pursuit of mine.

The first step is, naturally, to find an area which I feel might be in need of perfection. This is also the easiest step. Equally important, though, is to have a clearly defined strategy as to how to approach my current wrongdoings. I am not in the clear as to what strategy to implement, so I decided to figure out my views of the two polar opposites within this category;

Incremental Change: To take small steps which may finally lead up to a major readjustments of living habits. This might be the most realistic way of approaching unhealthy habits. However, as I’ve struggled to become self-aware during these few years of living that I’ve experienced, I’ve come to realize that incremental change certainly won’t take me anywhere. Henceforth, the strategy with the highest likelihood to succeed is…

Radical Change: Some people would describe it as “purging”, but radical change gets rid of every kind of step-by-step process and deals with the problems head on; the process is also the goal. If one decides to make a change, why not do it straight away?

Is radical change only for the stubborn people? Does it presuppose that the people implementing this strategy already have dealt with the psychological obstacles before taking real action? I would say no. Why?

Humans thrive on their habits and the illusion of security they give us. People will always be afraid of change, be it positive or negative, unconsciously or willingly. Are we not, by trying to change incrementally, giving in to our habits and therefore feeding the hand that eventually will pick up that axe and decapitate us? I want to be free of my reliance on habits, not gradually create new ones to satisfy my id. By fully giving up my former habits, or being thrown to the wolves (whatever you prefer), I imagine myself being able to fully control myself. Gradually creating new habits means that one will always rely on the habitual stability it brings – and letting go of the new habits will be as hard as letting go of the old ones.

So, a couple of paragraphs later, what have I achieved? Nothing. I am still lurking about in the limbo of theoretical decisions. As long as I allow myself to wait in this grey zone of passiveness, my life will be no different and I will still be living the biggest paradox of all; the life as my own subordinate. What, then, is the next step?

Radical change.

The Past Didn’t Go Anywhere

Every moment we experience, be it eating an ice cream or finding what we believe might be true love, will inevitably be colored by the shades of our past. We can never be more than the sum of our previous experiences; the predicament of reality. In our endless struggle with coming to terms with the past we disassociate with ourselves, becoming ghosts of our former selves. The disassociation with our true identity creates a breach between our inner selves and the outside world. When we cannot allow ourselves to admit the past, we can never truly experience the now as we have lost our frame of reference. What is left are moments derived of true meaning; a shallow, emotionless frame.

There is no such thing as a past, present or a future self. The self is in a state of eternal becoming; the past, present and future is in a constant state of flux dependent on one another for their existence. Our sense of identity is found within this flux. What has been done by us at any point in our lives will be done endlessly throughout the rest of our lives. It has inevitably shaped our personalities and will therefore color our perception of reality. Without our history, we are not more than atoms floating around in a hollow existence devoid of meaning. How can we let go of our past when it is the only thing that defines us?

Maximizers and Satisficers

A few days ago I made a visit to the library to find a few books that’d be to my liking. When my visit was over, I was carrying six books underneath my arms. Why? In case I find one of the books uninteresting or boring, I am always able to put it down and pick another book instead. This kind of behavior is not uncommon to me; I am what the modern psychologists would call maximizer. I am always trying to maximize my experiences - as opposed to satisficers, those who seem, for the most part, to be satisfied. At a first glance it might seem favorable to be a maximizer, since we automatically assume that maximization will lead to a more complete state of being but I am living proof of the opposite.

In the process of finding ways to make things better, one must always approach them with a negative attitude. To improve a situation, for example, there has to be something wrong with it to begin with. As a satisficer, there seems to be no reason not to be content with what one is given and they are therefore generally pleased with life and all its shortcomings. Maximizers, i.e. me, on the other hand, obsesses over the most minor details in their desperate ambition to live a more fulfilling life. The consequence is obvious; instead of utilizing our possibilities we are constantly unsatisfied with what we experience and achieve. This blog, for instance, could be a whole lot better and my contempt for imperfection makes me unwilling to even try posting something most days.

So there I was, carrying six books from the library. It is not an unusual sight, a young person borrowing several books from the library, but the main reason as to why I chose to borrow that many books was not because I wanted to read them all. The fact of the matter was that I couldn’t decide which one to read. Which book will give me the most fulfilling experience? was my only question when I scoured the shelves of our local library. Not being able to know beforehand if any of the books were worth my time, I picked a couple of them in case the one I started reading would get boring or, even worse, if it didn’t give me the intellectual stimulation I demanded from the time I was to invest in it.

The constant feeling of being unsatisfied is not only mentally exhausting, it also makes it hard for me to enjoy life while, at the same time, hindering me from feeling pleased with myself, my achievements and my surroundings. The principle of maximization in, for example, economy, sciences and government are crucial to the development of modern society, but as a personal characteristic it can become overwhelming. In my attempts to control this impulse, I have tried to set up certain rules:

• Limit the time you spend making the decision
• When having made a decision, never regret it
• Focus of the benefits of your choice
• Never regret having made a certain decision

And the most important thing to learn in bridling one’s thoughts:

• Make peace with your mind

A short reflection on the philosophy of Eckart Tolle

After having read both The Power of Now and A New World, two books which I thought would be of great importance for me, instead of feeling emotionally enlightened I feel nothing but contempt for Tolle’s ideas of how one should live life. As an atheist who believes in the sanctity of individualism, the idea of Being as an invisible bond between man, animal and nature (Being is to Tolle’s philosophy what Atman is to Hinduism). He argues that the ego, that is our individual wants and needs, is heavily opposed to the true state of “Being” and that it is the goal of every human being to transcend into the state of Being (if you think that I am already repeating myself, try reading the aforementioned books) and thus experiencing the true meaning of existence by discarding our egoism and individual needs in order to achieve Happiness.
The thing that strikes me the most with Tolle’s philosophy is the total opposition to the core of humanity and modern civilization. To enter the state of true Being, one must not only discard our greatest hopes and fears but also the one thing that makes us human, that makes us the individuals we are; our memory. I am of the firm belief that personality is defined by our wants, needs, mistakes and moments of suffering. Not allowing ourselves to be in contact with our memories and their influences on our emotions is contra productive to the evolution of humanity. Living in the moment, in Eckart Tolle’s definition, is to let go of the core foundations of our existence.
Every civilization is characterized by a different mindset, a result of the melting pot of ideas deriving from the endless experiences of its inhabitants. All human beings are, therefore, a separate entities in a larger scheme of things. Individuality is a natural state of civilization simply because the life of every individual is different. Our experiences of reality are wholly unique, which is the only reason as to why cultures and peoples differ in the most rudimentary ways. Should we allow ourselves to forget who we are, to forget our strengths and weaknesses (which, as everything else, is a result of our ways of life), the development of modern civilization will cease.
For Tolle, our greatest enemy is the sense of dissatisfaction, of always wanting more, but instead of trying to overcome dissatisfaction (as Tolle argues that we should), modern man has embraced this weakness and transformed it into a positive driving force for the future welfare of the human society. The core of evolution is the need to improve and the ability to do so. As with all human characteristics, there is always the danger of wallowing in negativity, but these moments are also a part of our lives. What Eckart Tolle fails to admit is that we must all live through the hardships of life in order to become complete. Avoiding the ego, i.e. our individualism and personality, would result in the fall of modern civilization and all the things we associate with it; science, culture, education etc. The current forms of these manifestations have come into being simply because we have allowed ourselves to remember and learn from past mistakes, and the only reason that they are still evolving is simply because our “ego’s” need for improvement has proved to be a fruitful incentive for the future betterment of humanity.

We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on. (Richard P. Feynman)