Two
ideas, stand out in “7.2. About the mind and thinking“,
that have fundamental implications for the societal process of
knowledge formation :
-
“ the total power of the ‘body’s processing machine’1 is bound to remain hidden forever from our thinking mind “
- “ the difficulty to master the process of conscious reconciliation of the subconscious experience is an intrinsic limitation to the formation of knowledge “
This post addresses the following:
___________
7.4.1.
The role of the mind
The body’s
processing machine addresses all matters relating to the following :
-
survival of the human body,
-
the linkages and inter-relatedness of humanity with the whole universe.
The
mind will, for ever, be blind to most
of those matters. But
seen that the mind arises, out of the
plan of
the
body’s processing machine,
what is it
that
the mind is meant to address ?
From the
perspective of the body, and of biological evolution, the answer
resides in the increase of their own potential within the realm of
the agenda of life. As I wrote here above “the
agenda of the principle of life is to increase the complexity of the
systems sustaining species”. Evolution has a direction.
Forward all toward more complexity. It
begs thus the question ‘how can the mind participate directly or
indirectly in increasing the complexity of the systems sustaining
living species? ’.
I think
that the answer to this question resides in life’s second
evolutionary path that I addressed in the following terms in 7.1. :
“societal
evolution since its emergence has always been a zillion times faster
than biological evolution, in
driving physical and mental changes in the individual-particles
making up our species and, in generating ever more complexity in
human societies”.
We saw
here above how the mind has been instrumental in the process of
knowledge formation that started in small bands. And knowledge
formation is what has put in motion the economic changes that
increased the capacity of small bands to feed more mouths. The
resulting growth in population destabilized the small band model of
organization and this begged for a new form of organization capable
to manage larger groups. After a long transition made of
experimentation, everywhere on earth, local groups settled on the
same tribal model of society that institutionalized the formation of
knowledge in the person of the (wo)man of knowledge or shaman.
The mind
has thus acted as the catalyst of the emergence of knowledge
formation that unleashed the potential of societal evolution. And the
mind arose out of the singularity that emerged from the working of
the body’s processing machine. The links in this chain of causality
invoke so many complex processes that one is tempted to think that
the whole process was acted out as if it was intentional. I know that
this idea is opening a can of worms. Modernity screwed so firmly in
our minds, the materialist way of thinking that posits ‘everything
that is’ emerged randomly starting from the working of the smallest
of particles, that we have come to admit the proposition as if it was
a dogma. But why would the alternative way of thinking, which posits
‘everything that is’ has emerged from the unfolding of the grand
plan of the universe, be less valid ?
With the
emergence of power societies the working of the mind had been
assaulted by the propaganda of the men of power to manipulate their
citizens into submission. Attracted by the material rewards bestowed
by power some men of knowledge have acted as the purveyors of a new
worldview which was then propagandized by visual arts for all to
share.
___________
China was
perhaps the unique exception to this power scheme. Due to the
vastness of its territory the process of tribal cultural unification
was continuous without interruption until the wise-men, who were
acting as the symbol of that cultural unification, bestowed on
themselves some of the characters of power, like material
possessions, that separated them from the other men of knowledge and
their people. This separation eventually traced the path to a later
dynastic transmission of the symbolism of cultural unity which
initiated imperial power. But all along this process of cultural
unification, and its transformation into imperial power, animism
remained the worldview shared by all under the auspices of the
wo(men) of knowledge or shaman. In the early empire they were called
the “Wu”2
and exercised their functions in Chinese imperial courts. According
to Donald MacInnis the Wu exercised their functions as late as in the
CCP dynasty.
In
contrast during the Middle-Eastern3
transition from tribal societies to empire the tribal cultural
unification, that was the reason for building Gobekli Tepe some
12,000 years ago, rapidly reached the physical limits of a
comparatively small territory. This explains why power societies
emerged far earlier than in China. Power in the Middle-East erupted
as an answer to an animist cultural unification that had been
paralyzed by a lack of territory to expand in. And this explains why
the continuity of the animist worldview was broken in favor of new
worldviews that justified the power grab by a minority over the
group. Gobekli Tepe was the representation of the knowledge formation
of the animist worldview that the local populations were sharing. To
help the spread of the new foundational narrative Gobekli Tepe had to
disappear. It was simply buried.
The
differences, in the territorial context in which the transition from
tribal societies to power societies unfolded, explains why the
Middle-east and China ended up with such radically different axioms
of civilization. Since their emergence these axioms have been shared
for thousands of years by the minds of the citizens of the countries
participating in these two civilizational realms and they gradually
ossified into unconscious habits.
In periods
of high tension, as for example the present day tensions between the
US and China, peoples’ attitudes transform in caricatures of these
civilizational axioms. And so we observe that the successful
economically reborn grand-mother of nations, China, is wondering how
an adolescent US nation can possibly want to impose its rules on it.
The US for its part, observing China’s otherness, wants to
transform it in its own ‘exceptional image’ and threatens to
destroy it if it does not comply4.
There is no better caricature of Western dualism than an angry and
totally unconscious US nation …
__________
With
Early-Modernity the narrative of the Western worldview was adapted to
the interests of the new rich merchants and image crafters supplied
the visual representations to spread their propaganda. In the process
their status mutated from image crafters to artists. Modernism
rejected the early-Modern worldview and in the ensuing confusion of
the 2nd WW US state propagandists and merchants sized the
opportunity and took over the ownership of the art-world. I address
these questions extensively in the “Organic
Art Manifesto”. What is important to note here is that
the US liquidation of the historical function of art parallels the
liquidation of worldviews in Western societies that gave way to
Western societal atomization in Late-Modernity.
As we have
seen Late-Modernity is concluding with the convergence of (–1)
the shift of the center of gravity of the economy-world and the
crisis of the governance-world that it unleashes, (–2)
the converging side-effects of Modernity that already initiated the
6th mass-extinction of life on earth. And the scenarios,
about the potential outcome of this convergence as I laid them out in
7.3, do not bode well for the future of homo-sapiens. But we should
remember that it is in the nature, of the way of the universe, to
clean up after a species spoils its habitat. Herein resides our
present predicament but also, I think, the chance for our species to
participate in the continuity of life on earth.
What I
mean here is founded in a subconscious mindscape than the reason of
my conscious mind has difficulties to reconciliate. In this
subconscious mindscape I see a new balance of nature emerging from
this clean-up by the way of the universe. And in this new balance
resides a new and indispensable role for the mind. This role will be
to force the adjustment of the worldview of After-Modernity to the
imperatives of the multiple systems that the body’s processing
machine addresses :
-
the survival of the human body,
-
the linkages and inter-relatedness of humanity with all other entities on earth,
-
the linkages and inter-relatedness of humanity with the whole universe.
In other
words the role of the mind that I see potentially developing in
After-Modernity relates to the conception of the new worldview. The
fiasco of Modernity and the resulting balancing act of nature will
force humanity to return to the application of our ancestors’
precautionary principle which will give a new impetus to a form of
knowledge formation more attuned to humanity’s ancestral animist
way.
To be more
precise I think that in light of the predicament of Late-Modernity,
the power of the mind will be called upon to formalize principles of
knowledge formation that are in agreement with the imperatives
addressed by the body’s processing machine. The future knowledge
formation of humanity will be restricted to the process of conscious
reconciliation of the subconscious experience. And this restriction
will limit the access to knowledge to a small minority. Thinking
about the future implies being able to imagine its unfolding in the
particular context of After-Modernity. The primary concern in
After-Modernity will, without any possible doubt, be to ensure that
knowledge produces the adequate responses so that societal evolution
unfolds in full respect of the precautionary principle. Societal
necessity will force future societies to re-institute the function of
the traditional wo(men) of knowledge to care about the formation of
societal knowledge that is necessary in order to possibly apply the
precautionary principle.
If the
minds of future men of knowledge were to succeed in this task,
whatever serious the damages of Modernity might be, humanity might be
set on the path of a new cycle of increased societal complexity. And
humanity would then have a real chance to jump, over any Modernity
style dead-ends, and to march into a far more advanced cycle of
sustainable complexity than whatever Modern scientism might be
dreaming about today …
7.4.2.
Limitations to societal formation of knowledge
As I wrote
here above “the
difficulty to master the process of conscious reconciliation of the
subconscious experience is an intrinsic limitation to the process
of knowledge
formation”. I
addressed the distinction between knowledge and science in “chapter
1: pragmatism versus ideology - science
versus knowledge”.
We
have to come to terms with the fact that knowledge
and
science are
not the
same thing
:
“ Knowledge
concentrates on trying to counter negative impacts on society and its
citizens that might originate – in the body-mind of the
individuals, – in the interactions of the species with the
elements in its local habitat – in interactions with bigger
ensembles and ultimately with the whole. Understanding that
everything is interrelated, that human well-being can easily be
disrupted, and mastering the remedies against such disruptions is
called wisdom. Wisdom is avoiding the rise of negative outside
factors or side-effects. This particular role of knowledge was
construed primarily as a “precautionary principle” meant to
exclude the possibility of any human actions that could lead to the
rise of side-effects that would affect the generations to come”.
The role
of science is fundamentally different from the role of knowledge :
“Since
its inception science has been financed by investors, or by
institutions acting as their public servants, with the hope to return
them profits. As such science is limited to the acquisition of
“knowings” about very narrow segments of reality that are
destined to help investors to reduce the costs of their actual
productions or to develop totally new productions. Science is thus at
the service of capital and its public servants. In contrast the
finality of knowledge is exclusively to ensure human well-being.”
To help
investors realize further profits science recourses exclusively to
the conscious mind. The conscious mind functions very well to gain
‘knowings’, within a very short timespan, that are applicable to
the production of new commodities. But the fact of the matter is that
under Modernity the reason that is at work within capital has taken
such a profound control over the conscious mind that the
precautionary principle is simply ignored. Late-Modernity is live
proof that the profit motive plays a spell on the conscious mind of
capital holders, of scientists, and of nearly all the citizens who
are constantly in a trance-like waiting for their commodities.
Part
of the
predicament, that we face in Late-Modernity, is
to
force
scientists to recognize the
reality of their
captive
condition.
Naomi
Oreskes latest article “The
greatest scam in history”5
gives
us some hints as to this capture :
“…
for
more than 30 years, the fossil-fuel industry and its allies have
denied the truth about anthropogenic global warming. They have
systematically misled the American people and so purposely
contributed to endless delays in dealing with the issue by, among
other things, discounting and disparaging climate science,
mispresenting scientific findings, and attempting to discredit
climate scientists. … Science isn’t enough. The rest of us are
needed. And we are needed now.”
The
problem with Naomi Oreskes’ conclusion is that in the present media
climate of fake news, lies, and misrepresentations the public just
does no longer know who to believe. The social sciences, and more
particularly economics, are seen as having legitimized globalization
and in the eyes of the populations science is thus responsible for
the loss of good paying jobs and the liquidation of the middle-class
in the West. This, and so many other side-effects caused by the
inventions of scientists, helps to explain why the populations have
largely lost trust in science.
Knowledge
has
definitely been
the
ultimate
priority
of
humanity over
the last tens of thousands of years.
Science
is
a young toddler in
contrast, and
if
it survives the
predicament of
Late-Modernity,
it
will
definitely be made a subservient to
knowledge. Its responsibility in generating the damages of Modernity
will indeed
not
be forgotten so
lightly.
The new founding myths of After-Modernity will take care of that. In
the eyes of future historians Modernity
will
figure as
a short parenthesis between the
end
of power societies
and After-Modernity. Modernity
will be viewed as the apogee of power societies. But
this short parenthesis will for ever be remembered as the worse
calamity to
befell life on earth.
Having
clarified
the distinction between science and
knowledge I want to address the process of knowledge formation as it
has been observed to operate as
a societal process all along
history. But
to do that I’ll
make a detour through the Dao De Jing.
I have indeed
been
perplexed for a long time by its
chapter
656
:
-
line 1, reads as follows : “The ancients who knew how to follow the Tao Aimed not to enlighten the people. But to keep them ignorant ”,
-
line 2 : “The reason it is difficult for the people to leave in peace Is because of too much knowledge. Those who seek to rule a country by knowledge Are the nation's curse. Those who seek not to rule a country by knowledge Are the nation's blessing”.7Translation by Lin Yutang
In
our present context of Late-Modernity
the content of this sentence is
going
straight
against
the grain of political correctness. It has taken me 4 decades of
studying Animism and Chinese Traditional Culture to come
to appreciate
the profound wisdom residing
in
this political incorrectness. And this
new understanding was also the key that allowed me to unlock the
mystery of the present
loss
of cohesion in
Western societies.
Here
follow a few other translations, of the
same
sentences,
that
will
help to clarify their meaning :
-
John R. Mabry :
-
Line 1: “In ancient times those who followed the Tao Did not try to educate the people. They chose to let them be”.
-
Line 2: “The reason people become hard to govern Is that they think they know it all. So, if a leader tries to lead through cleverness, He is nothing but a liability. But if a leader leads, not through cleverness, but through goodness, this is a blessing to all”.
-
-
Peter Merel:
-
“The ancients did not seek to rule people with knowledge, But to help them become natural”.
-
“It is difficult for knowledgeable people to become natural. To use law to control a nation weakens the nation. But to use nature to control a nation strengthens the nation“.
-
-
Ch’u Ta-Kao :
-
“In olden times the best practicers of Tao did not use it to awaken the people to knowledge, But used it to restore them to simplicity”.
-
“People are difficult to govern because they have much knowledge. Therefore to govern the country by increasing the people's knowledge is to be the destroyer of the country; To govern the country by decreasing their knowledge is to be the blessers of the country.”.
-
-
World Peace :
-
“From time immemorial the sage has not tried to teach oneness but has embedded peace and harmony in the openness of a simple life”.
-
“Why is it so hard to rule? Because people are at one with their leaders. Leaders who use cleverness are confronted with more cleverness. Cleverness only manifests confusion. Those who flow in the peace and harmony of oneness lead without attempting cleverness and are a blessing to everyone”.
-
The
animist
knowledge,
as
well as the knowledge contained in
all great religions and traditional philosophies that
evolved at the end of the transition from tribes to empires,
were passed down through secret apprenticeship by
men of knowledge who were at the service of their fellow citizens but
who also lived at a distance from them.
The
‘Dao De Jing’ refers to the working of this ancient system. But
why
would
knowledge have
been kept
at a distance from
the
people?
The
‘Dao De Jing’ observes that knowledge
is
a curse because
it distances its holder from the simplicity of the
working of nature
and
mires
his
mind
into
confusion which
limits
the
achievement
of his
full potential.
For
these reasons
the
‘Dao De Jing’
teaches to help people become natural, to return
to a simple life,
by embedding
peace and harmony at
the core of their life.
Traditional
Chinese Culture embodies these principles. By focusing on pragmatism
in daily life, planting gathering conserving cooking etc…,
it hides the abstractions being
elaborated
in the minds of the wo(men) of knowledge in order to devise the
best ways
to manage their society. And
so the people are being spared the confusion resulting from
cleverness and
the competition that it entails.
___________
In
High-Modernity big
capital holders
ordered
their
public servants to initiate an education service in
order to
ease the
production of ever more sophisticated material goods. Education
was indeed
meant
to train the minds to the technical needs of production and to the
techniques of marketing and
sales. Consumerism
was
highly encouraged all
throughout
society.
But
education did not succeed to limit the access to knowledge solely to
this functional need. All kinds of other matters reached the minds of
the students. And
so High-Modernity
overwhelmed the individual with knowledge that
was meant to
ensure his
capacity
to chose among
the multiplicity of available commodities and candidates for public
office. This choice became
synonymous with
the exercise
of
the
individual’s
‘free will’. And
so the propaganda cycle was complete.
But
the
logical outcome
of the
spread of knowings to
ease
consumerism and
democracy had
non-intended consequences
:
-
the confusion of the minds into ‘cleverness’ projected the illusion in the individuals’ minds that they know better about anything than anyone else including scientists and other specialists. And so “The reason people become hard to govern Is that they think they know it all” as John R. Mabry correctly notes in his translation of line 2.
-
the confusion of the markets for ideas, into a noise machine, equalized everybody on its level playing field, – former men of knowledge, – scientists, – political decision makers, – and all kinds of charlatans. The consequence of this equalization became crystal clear in Late-Modernity. The noise machine has reached such deafening levels that no one is able any longer to make the distinction between what is real and what is fake.
This
observation simply
confirms
the
analysis that
hyper-individualism
has
concluded in
societal
atomization which
is when
the individuals are separated and live in complete isolation and
loneliness.
But
the
fact of the matter is that virtual
bonding does not compensate for the absence of real bonding and so
societal
atomization
inevitably
collapses
societal cohesion. The
loss of their societal cohesion
announces
the inevitable
fall
of Western societies out
of the
domain of history.
This
is the moment when big capital and its servants took notice that they
were losing the plot. They
are now rushing to put in place all kind of totalitarian measures in
the hope of keeping the lid over their cooking societal pots while
accusing Chinese state
capital holders
of their own sins.
___________
At
the origins of societal evolution,
in the context of small bands,
the
reservation of knowledge as
the
exclusive
domain
of the shaman,
was instituted as the natural outcome of the
penury of hands available
to
gather the means of subsistence for
all. This was the reason why
one individual, the least productive one
in
gathering, was
tasked with the group’s knowledge formation. A second parameter
soon reinforced the shamans’ monopoly on knowledge. The trances
that transported their mind into their subconscious frightened their
fellow tribesmen out of their wits.
This
resulted in their
voluntary
and deliberate social
estrangement
from
their
wo(men) of knowledge.
In
other words the fear
of the process of knowledge formation is
what kept
tribesmen at a distance from
knowledge.
The
build-up of that social distance between the tribesmen and their
shaman forced the latter to socialize with their peers into the
neighboring tribes during initiation ceremonies held, out of view of
their
fellow tribesmen,
in the underworld
of caves or under
the
cover of forests. What
the Dao De Jing celebrates is that particular
historical
process of knowledge formation, that
kept the citizens at a distance from knowledge, under
animism.
The
distance between citizens and knowledge
persisted under
the Chinese empire but
its geographic expansion was
gradually attracting
more minds.
The
Dao De Jing was
vouching quite explicitly
against
the enlargement of the state and the decline in the distance between
citizens and knowledge.
A question
now arises: does that historical estrangement of the population from
the process of knowledge formation still make any sense today?
For
minds that have been hardening,
for the entirety of their lives under
the
ideology of Modernity,
it makes no doubt that this kind of question will
appear as
a
deception to sustain the power of the
elite. But does
this question warrant such a distrust?
In
light of our
present Western context
this
kind
of historical
estrangement of the population, from the process of knowledge
formation, appears
first as
a necessary adaptation to the hard reality that knowledge formation
is an extremely difficult and harsh process that is not a given to
everyone. And
secondly
it appears as the appropriate answer to the following
3
facts
:
-
“the difficulty to master the process of conscious reconciliation of the subconscious experience is an intrinsic limitation to the access of knowledge”. This remains as true today as it always was for our ancestors8.
-
the captive state of science, toward capital, denies it a societally significant role in knowledge formation and corners it into being a servant of big capital. The role of science is the production of knowings that will help capital to generate more profits. 9 Some leeway is allowed scientists in fundamental science. For sure; I know. But Let’s never forget that fundamental science itself is financed to supply avenues for ‘application science’ which is a direct client of capital.
-
in the context of power societies the media is owned by big capital and it spews daily fake news and propaganda to manipulate the minds into submission which is maddening the citizens into a state of incomprehension
In
light of the predicament of Late-Modernity we
can safely
predict that, after the emergence of what comes after Modernity, the
power of the mind
will necessarily be
called upon to act as
the protector of
the imperatives addressed by the body’s processing machine.
And so the fresh memory of the damages inflicted by Modernity will
force humanity to return to the application of the precautionary
principle.
It is at
this stage that the 3 factors here above are acquiring their real
significance. Indeed. Only knowledge has the societal ability to
impose the respect of the precautionary principle. For this very
reason it is my understanding that after experimentation our
descendants will ‘naturally’ rediscover the necessity of
guaranteeing the independence of knowledge formation from societal
interests and from the separation of the individuals through
‘cleverness’. This will justify instituting the role of the
wo(men) of knowledge in After-Modernity.
__________
Notes
1 In
7.2. on mind and thinking:
“The
conscious mind is a process that emerges out of a ‘singularity’
resulting from the working, of what I call the body’s processing
machine which totals the processing power, –
of the brain –
of the gut –
and of our DNA-RNA”.
2 “Wu”
is translated as “shaman” in Chinese. The “Wu” are
referenced in Chinese literature as assistants to the imperial
courts till as late as the Late Qing. McInnis even traces their
presence around the leadership of the CCP
-
“Shamanism Theory and the Early Chinese Wu” by Thomas Michael
-
“Wu and Shaman” by Gilles Boileau.
-
“Religion in China Today: Policy and Practice”. By MacInnis Donald. Maryknoll, MD Maryknoll Press. 1989
3 About
the transition from tribal societies to empire see: “From
Modernity to After-Modernity (18). Part 2. Theoretical
considerations. Chapter
4. About societal governance and societal evolution.”
5 "The
Greatest Scam in History: How the Energy Companies Took Us All”
by
Naomi Oreskes in
countercurrents.org.
November 11, 2019
8 About
the traditional animist process of knowledge formation: see “From
Modernity to After-Modernity. Book 2: About theoretical
considerations. Chapter
1. About the formation of human knowledge”
9 Knowledge
versus knowings. See “What is going on? Chapter
1: pragmatism versus ideology. 1.1. Worldview and quasi-worldview.
Science
versus knowledge.”
No comments:
Post a Comment