Why lives matter and whether some may matter more than others

Recently, I was pointed to a fascinating article in the New Yorker and, believe it or not, it got me thinking. And even now, I'm still exploring those thoughts which I thought I'd share, at least in part, because I keep seeing things that I'm thinking about popping up as issues in other contexts that keep firing that thinking even more.

One of the key themes in the article, approached aesthetically and from the art side of life (a blog on its own, so let me leave it at that for now), was race, which is, in fact, the very first word in the title. And it was here that I had to stop and ask myself, what can this be about, since we know, biologically, scientifically, with all the power and authority of the scientific community, that race simply doesn't exist. The only proper use of the term is in the phrase "human race", everything else is simply a distortion of reality. But here was this insightful and thought-provoking article nevertheless. It was also about art, and among all the other questions it raised (which is, in my not-so-humble-opinion is what good articles should do much more than shower one with mere information), was is there such a thing as "Black Art", which obviously there is, but what is it if it isn't racial? In other words, how was I to understand what the author was trying to say? And here are my first thoughts:

As I noted who knows how many times in my posts so far, whether we like it or not and whether we know it or not, the way people think (and I'm using the term very loosely here) hasn't always been the way people think. My friends Jean Gebser, in his Ever-present Origin, and William Irwin Thompson, in his The Time Falling Bodies Take to Light or Coming into Being, have made this case much more convincingly and poignantly than I have, but it boils down to this:

Each of us gets thrown (to use a Heideggerian term) into this world at some place at some time through no fault (or influence of our own). Thereafter, everything that happens to us, everything we do, how and what we learn, what we like or dislike, is experience. It turns out the Germans have two different words that we, in English, describe with just this one. namely Erlebnis and Erfahrung. The Gebser translators Barstad/Mikunas dealt with this issue by translating the former as "vital experience" and the latter as "lived (or undergone) experience". For example, "That roller coaster ride was quite the experience" (Erlebnis) in contrast with "Spending two years abroad was quite the experience" (Erfahrung). The differences in meaning are subtle, to be sure, but relevant. We intuit that the former is somehow "deeper" or not as readily accessible to our waking consciousness, which becomes clear the moment someone asks us to explain each of these in more detail. With the roller coaster we often end up saying something like "Ahh, you had to have been there, what a ride!" Yet in the latter case, we find ourselves telling anecdote, or stories, about things that happened while abroad. Someone who's never ridden a roller coaster may have trouble with the first kind of experience; those who have will relate it to their own, and in the latter case, depending upon the skill of the teller, the stories may make more lasting or fleeting impressions upon us.

Now, for as mundane as this may sound, I do think, in light of what Gebser, and Thompson, and others, are saying, we can start to understand how different realities may arise within the one overall framework we have called everyday life. In the course of human history, these modes of perception and mentation have been practiced, ingrained and passed on to succeeding generations. This might be the love or fear of roller coasters, or it might be the openness or closedness to other ways of slicing the reality pie. Once, these were shared among all humans, but over time, the group grew, split, wandered off, and became isolated from the others, but the underlying process remained the same. Over the millennia, the primary vital experiences were (most likely unconsciously) collected and collated into what came to be regarded as ethnic and later cultural constructs. Hence, we can see that while at the deepest levels of our psyches there are things (Jung would call them archetypes) that we share, but at less deep levels, shared experiences are more particular to a given group of indivduals who are in this way still very much connected to one another.

Anyone familiar with even the general run of history knows that particular groups of human beings, at any given time, have held any number of ideas, many of which seem odd, or even ignorant, to us today: a flat earth, a geocentric universe, the superiority of one's own group compared to all others, and for a whole slough of crazy reasons, "race". It was easy enough, especially at the superficial level at which most humans most often operate to simply split off "others" based on physical characteristics, such as skin color and hair texture, or more abstract, sometimes arbitrary, notions such as technological progress, "advancement", or culture (whatever it might have been defined as). These "seemed" to work, but as is so often the case when humans are involved, there were lots of negative side effects: oppression, exploitation, colonization, genocide, and more, all based on notions that in the meantime have turned out to be false. In other words, experience comes from within and is definitely imposed from without. Knowing this, we should simply flip over a mental switch or two and we move forward with our new knowledge. But we all know it's not as simple as that.

As a result of all our own individual and collective experiences that we have made using these false notions, we find it difficult to get out of the corner into which we painted ourselves. Once silly statements by not-so-bright demogogues (like Trump) now appear downright ludicrous and maliciously ignorant. Prejudices of all types reveal themselves clearly for what they are: unfounded judgements based on false knowledge. And this brings us back to our starting point:

As I said earlier, each of us suddenly shows up in this world at some place at some time through no fault (or influence of our own). Thereafter, everything that happens to us, everything we do, how and what we learn, what we like or dislike, is experience. But, this experience is both individual and collective as we have seen, and it is highly determined by the surroundings in which it takes place, whole history of experience that has been passed down through the group over the years and every experience that has been imposed upon any group that sees itself cohering for whatever reason. What is more, the "group" may change as well. Our forebears knew no countries (that is, nation-states), but for some reason we place a lot of value on them today. We have DNA strains in our bodies that come from the widest of sources and these combinations are -- how could it be otherwise -- different from our next-door neighbors' and most of us have no idea what they do or might mean. In other words, within a given general cultural grouping there are myriad subgroupings that mix, match, overlap, reciprocally influence, and differentiate themselves from one another. Each of these is legitimate in and of itself and how viable it is for how long is determined by the coherency and consistency of the experiences in which it is rooted.

It is easy to consider the world at a very superficial level ... for example, a country, like the United States ... and think that everyone there shares every national and cultural value in common, but this would be an obvious mistake, for it ignores everything that makes any one of us who he or she is. Within the United States (and we could take any country or region anywhere in the world and show the same processes at work), there are subgroups, ethnicities, subcultures that are very determining and stable entities which we can understand even without such faulty notions such as race. But for the longest time, race was a big card and it wss played hard there: Blacks in the USA were practically the last historically to be freed from slavery; the Emancipation Proclamation was fought politically and socially; Jim Crow ruled the roost for over a century; in my own childhood, separate facilities for "Colored" were commonplace; Brown v. the Board of Education caused more problems than it solved; the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was even recently gutted; so it is apparent that for whatever reasons, at least those considered black had anything but equal rights, equal treatment in the eyes of the law and certainly not in neighborhoods with which I was familiar. Unfortunately, we all know that the those mental switches haven't been flipped and some may even be rusted in place. So even if we now know there's no such thing as race, it doesn't undo the lived and undergone experience of a significant portion of a familiar population. Saying there's not a problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem, it only means you are not willing to admit there may still be a problem after all.

Getting passed race, for example -- if what I'm thinking is on track -- means taking the vital and lived experience of others into consideration when dealing with them. We all share some things in common (deepest-level human experience), what we don't share in common (so-called "black" experience as compared to, let us say "red" or "yellow" or "white" experience) is common by nature: They're experiences and we can know that experience is what forms and determines who we are, hence we have a personally accessible way of understanding that a person has both vital and lived experiences and a whole history of experiences related to whichever groupings s/he may belong to. The process is the same even if the end-results are different. In other words, if you haven't already, there are ways and legitimately sustainable ways to better understand what others might be going through.

Any serious readerr will tell you how enriching even vicarious experiences are, and we now have an experience model that can enhance the one they were using all along. It's up to you, in the end. And I'm going to be more than interested in hearing what true racists are going to be saying once they find out there card has been trumped. (And you can decide if that pun was intended or not).

Making stories true whether they are or not

Conspiracy theorists of a certain kind like to deny that we were ever on the moon. They denigrate that narrative by saying it's a myth. The most common use of the word "myth" is probably this one. When we want to stress the fictionality or untruth of a story, a tale, a narrative of any kind, we call it "just a myth".

There are stories that are documentably false, stories that have such a slight and small grain of truth in them that to even hint that they are real or true or accurate should be reason enough to doubt the intellectual integrity of the person making the claim. But, there are any number of such stories circulating and they are believed and cherished and held in high esteem nevertheless. The prime examples of which are those which somehow describe (some would go so far as to say define) our culture or nation or any similar larger-than-just-me group. It doesn't matter which particular culture or nation you take, they're all pretty much the same in this regard.

These stories are full of heroes and heroines, larger than life persons and deeds, catastrophic and cataclysmic events that threaten annihilation, superhuman feats of daring, unfathomable cleverness and wit ... the good guys always win, order is established (or restored), and if we would only keep these stories before us, we could live happily ever after. So, how is that in some cases we can slam others for propagating myths, but in certain other cases, we're willing to lay our lives down for a story we can verify is simply not true. That's one of the things that so fascinates me about human beings.

Some countries, like the Nordic ones for example, have actual old myths and sagas to call upon. Other, newer nations, like England, France, the USA have more recent histories, but their tales don't pale in comparison to the older ones. After all, they're just stories, they're just myths, so why do we get so flustered and hot under the collar when others, particularly someone from a different culture, calls them into question?

To many moderns -- or postmoderns, or whatever it is we think we are these days -- think that classical myths are simply childlike attempts to explain things the people couldn't understand. In a sense this is true, even today. Given our rather deficient understanding of history and the path humankind has traversed, given our overzealous belief in technology and our alleged advancements, we can't begin to appreciate them. If we can recognize, however, that what myths that we believe in do is give us some kind of common understanding of ourselves and who we are, then we can dig in a bit deeper and realize that perhaps the ideals they are trying to portray may be worth further consideration.

We obviously need new stories that bring us together, and we should be aware that it is easy to be blinded by one's own sense of greatness, or wanting to feel like more, or wanting some sense in one's life. What we need is to become aware of what these stories would mean if we could make them true. We need to be more conscious of their significance and the threats they bear. There are definitely two sides to the myth coin.

An iceberg sunk the Titanic, and it could happen to us

The thing about icebergs is you can't see most of what they are, but they're there anyway. The thing about prejudices is that you don't know where they come from, but they're there anyway. The thing about stereotypes is that you don't know why you believe them, but you believe them anyway. The thing about myths is that you don't know where they come from, but you believe them anyway as well. Just like we don't know how to account for 75% of the mass of the visible universe, we can't account for the motivations for most of what we believe and what makes us act the way we do.

Truth be told, we don't know what we're doing, nor why we're doing it most of the time. Why is that?

Sigmund Freud, G-d bless him, opened Pandora's box at the turn of the last century. We can think what we want about his theories on how the mind works, but one thing you can't take away from him is his insight into the fact that the unconscious determines much more of what we do and how we act than we would like to admit ... well, more than we are willing to admit. No, Siggie didn't get a whole lot right, but in that regard, he hit the proverbial nail smack on the head.

Just because we "know" this, doesn't mean for a second that we've done anything about it. Most of us are still driven by our unconscious. More of us are Mr. Hydes than we are Dr. Jekylls, whether we want to admit it or not. Why is that? Well, quite simply because we are (truly) afraid of shining the light of day (or knowledge or truth) on the dark (that is, unknown, unconscious, repressed) part of ourselves.

We like to think we are good, upstanding, and humane, yet, at night, when we turn off the lights, in the twilight prior to sleep, we are plagued by the ghosts of fear (of others), hate (of Muslims, or ), uncertainty (about how we're seen by others), guilt (perhaps someone has seen through our personal facade), and simple trepidation (how do we continue to keep up appearances). Our problem is that what we proclaim to be good, right, and proper is based on unconscious assumptions and beliefs that most of us don't even know we have. In other words, we have our own (personal) myths that we hold to be true.

In some cases, these myths tell us that we are the "good guys", that what we do is for the best of all, that our history is one of benevolence and enlightenment, that our intentions were always pure and that our actions, even when they fell short of their goal, were unselfish and noble. Yes, that is what we would like to believe, but for those who have taken the time to look honestly and intently in the mirror, we know that the reality has fallen rather short of the desire.

We in the West are not alone in this. It is, it would seem, a universal illness of our age. We like to think we are informed, knowledgeable, enlightened, even wise. And so our myths get a bad name, because we accept them blindly, without thinking, without consciousness.

Myths, however, are real, and they are true in that realm in which they operate. What we also need to know is that we must engage them as they are, and unlike the unmovable and unbreakable iceberg that sunk the world's mightiest ship, we can reshape and remold them into those stories who unfortunately tell us who we are, but mercifully, can show us who we really want to be.

Invisible heroes

There was a time when we could still be invisible. There was a time, not so long ago, when you could just blend into the background and nobody really knew you were there. You didn't have to be seen if you didn't want to be. The masses that surrounded you provided a degree of anonymity that we simply took for granted. Oh, sure, everybody was pushing you to "get out there", to "make yourself known", to "be your own person". That's what a competitive society expects, at any rate. And Warhol's dictum about everyone's 15 minutes of fame brought a few out of the woodwork that didn't necessarily have to be center stage. But, it was possible to stay out of the limelight, out of the spotlight, if you really wanted to.

Those days are long gone. There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. More of you is available to more people than you ever dreamed possible. Oh, everything out there is not all accurate, to be sure. There are contradictions and changes and reversals and who knows what else, but there's no real way to put it all together in a coherent picture. You're exposed, but you're incomplete. It all adds up to a something-like-you, but not really you, if you even really know who you are. More and more, that chaotic mass of perceptions and details and factoids is you ... and you for all the world to see.

If you can't get away anymore, what do you do? Like I said before, you have to be aware and take care. But the last time I mentioned that it was all about what's going on outside, out there, in the public -- and, as the FBI and NSA have so often reminded, almost public. The same tactics apply inside, in here where it's just between me, myself and I. Truth be told, that's the far more crucial realm, and it could be the last great frontier, if we had but the courage to go for it.

For all the chaos and mayhem most of them tend to cause, one of the fundamental tenets of all major religions has been this not-to-be-taken-lightly inner journey. The charge inscribed across the portal to the temple to Apollo at Delphi stated it about as simply as it gets: "Know Thyself". Throughout most of our history as human beings, this Quest, I'll call it, has played a central, constitutive part of our mythologies. Campbell's Hero With A Thousand Faces was part and parcel of our understanding of ourselves. Alas, we demythologized the world, became advanced, made progress, scientized and sanitized ourselves, and now our lives have become rather empty of meaning, but full of things and gadgets and opinions and attitudes, or whatever else it is from facing ourselves.

Back in the late 80s, there was a glimmer of hope that we might pick up the torch again, for example with Bly's Little Book on the Human Shadow, but the Wall fell and Capitalism allegedly seized the day and we were able to get intoxicated once again on things and progress and money and burning more oil and heating up the planet. If you're consumed with getting ahead, you've simply got no time for getting into yourself. Your Ego, sure, but the rest? Not so much.

After all, it's a risky endeavor with an uncertain outcome, and what is more, it could demand an heroic amount of effort, or even be, heaven forbid, dangerous. What kind of fool runs an errand like that?

Ask Shakespeare.

Different strokes ...

There was a time when the world was full of magic. There were nymphs and sprites, gnomes and dwarves, wizards and witches, and an array of both positive and negative forces that determined much of our lives. Almost all of us experience the world this way when we are children, for our environment is full of wonder and terror and protection and amazement.

Because of the association with childhood, this way of thinking is most often belittled by us moderns, but unjustifiably so. My favorite example of it, however, is in the film, "The Gods Must Be Crazy". While flying over the Kalahari, a pilot simply throws his Coke bottle out the window of his plane and it is found by Xi, a local bushman. Like everything else around them, the tribe first believes it to be another gift from the gods. It is the hardest things they have ever experienced, and it brings an unhappy, even destructive, dynamic into their lives. They agree that the gods must have made a mistake and the "evil thing", as they have come to call it, must go, so Xi declares he will take it to the end of the world and throw it off. The rest of the movie depicts all of his experiences with the modern world along the way. While the decision and the solution may appear child-like, Xi is anything but a child. He is a respected member of the tribe; he provides and cares for his family; he is willing to travel into the unknown to protect everyone from the evil influences of this "thing"; and, as is seen throughout the rest of the movie, he is a clever, resourceful, highly-skilled problem-solver. No, this is a loving, caring, responsible adult who just happens to understand the world very differently than those he encounters along the way.

The gods in Xi's world are capable of carelessness. They aren't particularly powerful even if they are caring for the tribe. Over time, however, the powers attributed to the gods increase in strength and become more formalized and find new expressions. These may be seen in the exquisite paintings found in the Lascaux Caves in Southern France, dating back some 40,000 years, or in the highly refined and intricately developed cosmology of the Ancient Egyptians. The pantheon of gods expands, and each god is in command of a particular force or power or controls some clearly defined aspect of life and nature. Whereas art and writing are unknown in Xi's Magical world, both of these methods of expression become dominant factors in the Mythical world. Of course, we moderns like to belittle this type of thinking as well. We find it these days in the adolescent love of superheroes, sports legends, our reverence for our "alma mater", be it high school or college (though in these latter instances it is not only tolerated but encouraged, oddly enough).

Two points are worth noting here. First, neither of these modes are childish ways of thinking. Xi demonstrates this clearly for the Magical structure, and the great empires of the past -- the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans -- were all products of the Mythical structure of consciousness. Second, in both cases, we can find examples of such consciousness in our everyday, modern lives. They are not dead and forgotten, they have not be discarded, rather they have been maintained, cultivated and adapted to play important roles in our lives.

Our modern problem is, to a great extent, that we fail to recognize them and put them off, but, as I believe, much to our own peril.

Reference
Gebser, J. (1986) The Ever-present Origin, Authorized translation by Noel Barstad with Algis Mikunas, Athens/OH, Ohio University Press [originally published 1949]. (EPO)

The Mythical structure of consciousness

With the advent of the Cro-Magnons, the human became a tool-making individual, also one who formed into larger social structures. As Feuerstein (1987) points out, it is clear from the archaeological finds that the Cro-Magnons had evolved a symbolic universe that was religious and shamanistic. Part of this appears to have been a keen interest in calendric reckoning, and with it we may presume the existence of a fairly complex mythology (p75). This structure can be considered two-dimensional since it is characterized by fundamental polarities. Word was the reflector of inner silence; myth was the reflector of the soul (Feuerstein, p79). Religion appears as the interaction between memory and feeling (Feuerstein, p87f). The person is beginning to recognize himself as distinct from others. The next 30,000 odd years or so spent developing these various mythologies. Language is becoming ever more important, it will be noted, and not only receptive, but active, language at that. Not the ear, but the mouth is important in making transparent what is involved in being and life. The mouth now becomes the spiritual organ. We witness, as well, the initial concretization of the "I", a kind of proto-individual.

Many myths deal explicitly with humanity's (unperspectival) separation from nature. Witness the story of the Fall in Genesis (and its admonition to go forth and dominate nature); and the myth of Prometheus and the giving of fire to humans. These both indicate a strong awareness of the human's differentness from nature. Humanity is coming into its own, although it is anything but independent of nature. One could characterize this as a two-dimensional understanding of the world. Within the circle of believers is where the important acts of life take place. The mere forces of nature have a beingness, often anthropomorphized, but a beingness nevertheless. Myth, then, or the mythologeme is the primary form of expression of this period. Subsets of this basic form would be the gods, symbols and mysteries. These figures provide the emerging consciousness with imaginative images around which to center man's knowledge and understanding of the world. If the Magic structure of consciousness is the emotional aspect, then the Mythical structure is the imaginative one. It is this fact that makes mythology so difficult for us moderns to deal with. The plethora of images (gods) and the seeming inconsistent pantheons of deities brings the rational mind quickly to confusion. Who can keep track of all these figures, their meanings, their correspondences and their associations? This is the time of the dream.

Up until this time, that is in the magical structure of consciousness, souls and afterlives were not of great importance (at least we do not find a lot of evidence thereof). Yet in the fully developed mythical consciousness, this is important. The entire civilization of Egypt, as we know it, revolved around this very issue. When we are told, then, in certain rosicrucian documents that we must descend into Egypt, we are being told that we must regain, not revert to, our mythical heritage.

Mouths begin to play a more important role. Not only is the shaman and wise person of the tribe a repository of wisdom, others, the poets, such as Homer, begin to play a more important role in the culture. And this does not really begin to happen until the mythical structure of consciousness. The "I" is not yet fully developed, to be sure, but it has developed to that point that it recognizes and demands a separation from nature, from its environment. We can take this as evidence of an increasing crystallization of the ego. We are on the way to selfhood.

Of course, mythology is very much alive today. This explains the popularity of Joseph Campbell and his work on myth. It explains the appeal that Robert Bly and his "Gathering of Men" workshops have. What both Campbell and Bly do is tell stories: imaginative, intuitively understood stories that reveal to us things that our current rational mode of thinking prohibits us from knowing. We have much to learn from myth, however, and should be ever aware of its influences.

References
Feuerstein, G. (1987) Structures of consciousness: The genius of Jean Gebser - An introduction and critique, Lower Lake/CA, Integral Publishing.

Gebser, J. (1986) The Ever-present Origin, Authorized translation by Noel Barstad with Algis Mikunas, Athens/OH, Ohio University Press [originally published 1949]. (EPO)