The
Oh you thought the Greeks had a democracy? But of course that democracy could not include all. Aristotle would quite emphatically insist ένας μηχανικός ή μια εμπορική ζωή» είναι «άδοξη και εχθρική προς την αρετή ("a mechanic or a mercantile life {is} ignoble and inimical to virtue").
Was America’s democratic nation more inclusive? Well I might suggest you close your textbooks on the Great Americans and view it from the perspective of the mechanic with the calloused hands and the slave with the broken back.
What was democracy to the enslaved? Only then can you begin to understand what democracy was to the enslaver.
What was democracy to the Lowell factory girl, to the dirty-faced coal miner, to the Irish rail layer, to the farmer who fed the nation, only to become indebted and gaunt while the masters thrived with overstuffed bellies that overhung their britches while they sat with their foot in a tub of cold water to alleviate the gout that being carried to destinations had given them.
You cannot present democracy from the perspective only of its leaders and understand democracy.
Because no great man can exist without thousands of untermensch from whose lives the great man propelled himself into greatness.
Slavemasters didn’t live only on the plantations. They lived (and live) in the fantasies of greatness.
The lives of the rich and famous. Oh yes let me view your golden spigots so I can envy you and willingly kill your enemies only to view your opulence.
Where here is the psychosis? The one who has to have spigots made of gold or the one forced to install them?
Or perhaps the psychosis is being forced to labor for and witness the insecurities of the Masta who needs to bathe in water from golden spigots because he is so inept he can’t reach over his belly and scrub his own testicles.
But he can command the woman of servitude to clean them with her mouth. And while she is crying of the indignity, her husband, cuckolded and powerless to protest, presents his daughter as an entertainment for his friends.
This is the psychosis of the individual cut off from his community and somatized to be convinced how much better off he is to be free from the communal bonds and find an individual slave-identity.
This is our learned intellectualism. This is mental illness that developed a mentally ill society that only Gods descending from heaven or Superman flying through the clouds can alleviate.
These thoughts are presented to suggest that we have misjudged ourselves severely. We have studied our psychology and our behavior through the lens of a uniqueness to ourselves and ultimately we have attributed a difference to ourselves we call our intelligence.My proposal is that such studies distort our own perspective into what Jacques Lacan has defined as a mirror stage upon which we appear.
Lacan infers that as an infant,at roughly six months of age, begins to be capable of recognizing an image of himself. He then begins to manipulate the image, say by making faces at it or by moving his hands. Of course the mirror is only mimicking the child’s motions, it is not creating any separate actions of its own, but the image of the mirror takes on a reality of its own in the infant’s play, the infant recognizing the image as that of himself and yet attempting to formulate a different being in the image, a doppelganger of himself so to speak. Lacan writes:
In my view, this activity has a specific meaning up to the age of eighteen months, and reveals both a libidinal dynamism that has hitherto remained prob- lematic and an ontological structure of the human world that fits in with my reflections on paranoiac knowledge.
It suffices to understand the mirror stage in this context as an identification, in the full sense analysis gives to the term: namely, the transformation that takes place in the subject when he assumes [assume] an image--an image that is seemingly predestined to have an effect at this phase, as witnessed by the use in analytic theory of antiquity's term, "imago." 2
Lacan suggests that the animal-knowledge of man can be affected by a “force field” of social dialecticism that creatures desire, that Lacan suggests are somehow scant in their achievability. This creates a “surrealistic dissatisfaction” and what is a recognizable self-image creates a paranoia of his image that by this stage of life—a mere six months–the child begins to observe, that he can be manipulated by himself and thereby interjects the alarming inference of recognizing that he is being manipulated by those within his orbit.
Now Lacan was giving these lectures prior to world war two, and then resumed after the war, in a series of collected lectures known as Ecrits. And yet this insight has pretty well been confirmed by contemporary studies that illustrate that around six months of age, the infant does indeed begin conceptualizing an idea of himself as both a subject and object. He begins to perceive his identity is separate and he begins to understand that he is treated as a separate identity by others and that that identity is not always in conjunction; or that his own perspective of himself might not necessarily be best satisfied unless he seeks more favorable interpretations of himself from within in his orbit.
Fifteen years ago it would have been considered laughable that an infant of six months could be conceiving of himself as both subjective and objective personalities and relating both not only to himself but to others he encountered, especially in regards to their relationship with him. Lacan will go on in the “mirror Image” lecture to say:
“Correlatively, the I formation is symbolized in dreams by a fortified camp, or even a stadium-distributing, between the arena within its walls and its outer border of gravel-pits and marshes, two opposed fields of battle where the subject scenario) strikingly symbolizes the id. Similarly, though here in the mental sphere, we find fortified structures constructed, the metaphors for which arise spontaneously, as if deriving from the subject's very symptoms, to designate the mechanisms of obsessive neurosis: inversion, isolation, reduplication, undoing what has been done, and displacement. But were I to build on these subjective data alone--were I to so much as free them from the experiential condition that makes me view them as based on a language technique-my theoretical efforts would remain exposed to the charge of lapsing into the unthinkable, that of an absolute subject.”2
The “I” Lacan is referring to here is not the I, Lacan, giving a lecture from the subjective reasoning of Lacan’s interpretation of the human personality-development. Lacan is suggesting this “I” is the infant recognizing that remaining an absolute subject would be unthinkably non-beneficial to himself and the individual infant begins to assume an objective identification of himself. Without this objectification of the self, then the self finds the spontaneous arrival of all of the mentioned systems, and finds himself displaced as a subject.
Therapeutical psychiatry is the study of the subjective displacements; behavioral psychologists only find definition in the objectives actions that can be measured. And of course the cognitive behaviorists attempted to reconnect the two. The problem remains however that the behaviourists retain the only methodology that can actually be measured; and therefore potentially falsified. But mostly what behaviorists were able to demonstrate how easy it was to manipulate and implant new behaviors—not just in out species, but in other species as well. The problem here is to claim that the manipulated behavior is the behavior of the species. It is only the manipulated behavior, not the unmanipulated behavior and the results do not prove results about how people will behave if unmanipulated, but the ease in which people can be manipulated.
Genetic markers that have been potentially identified to confirm certain mental illnesses are genetically inheritable have stirred up considerable headlines, but broader studies have always shown the errors in these methodologies. Although the debate will rage on…there are those who actually want mental illness to be identifiable as both medical, and genetic but all actual evidence to date has not born this out; some would prefer to claim it is inconclusive.
But look, a dog’s behavior can be modified; a dog can also become depressed if he feels unaccepted or becomes abused by his human family. I have certainly witnessed such dogs who slink away exhibiting signs of being underappreciated—that can be witnessed in humans as well.
I would not like to say that the mentally defined illnesses do not effect the health in those so defined; and of course as well as potentially creating poorer body health; poorer body health could or would, in turn, influence the development of mentally defined health.
And this is one of the very issues of human judgements in general. Hume was not incorrect in suggesting that humans frequently (quite regularly) base judgments on perceived cause-and-effect sequences. John stole the eggs because…he was an evil person?...he was hungry?
Could this be the sum? Here is where Szasz fails, in my judgment. The cause-effect connection is a perception, but not necessarily an actuality. It may be cloudy, but it might not rain. Or on a nice sunny day without a cloud in view, the sky suddenly darkens and torrents of rain that seemingly quite instantaneously flood the streets. Of course there are causes for both, but not necessarily apparent causes. Effects are often causes of effects and causes and effects can be simultaneous, or separated by time. Multiple causes can create similar effects but a multitude of effects can occur because of a simple cause.
But like beginnings and endings, humans tend to view A. cause. B.effect.
This follows that. American fought a revolution. America became an independent nation. But there were a multitude of causes that led to the revolution which itself was not even a singular revolution and the result was not necessarily the founding of a different nation—they still spoke English, maintained the English system of governance to a greater degree than Americans have ever admitted to etc.; and in fact still seem to think being American should equate to speaking English. But there are several other questions that might be brought forth.
Was America ever an independency as a singular nation or was it always state and regional unities trying to impose their identities on other states and regions? Was, in other words, America ever one “independent” country?
The answer is slightly more complex than the statement that the war led to American independence. As the rebellion proceeded effects of the battle consequently gave rise to both causes and effects and the causes of the regional conflicts were not always the same in every region. Nor was the “conclusion” of the war equal in either cause or effect on all regions of the nation and many effects in one region created differing causes in other regions.
All of this is to suggest that while there are continuous revolving doors of changes that take place the separation of these changes into one-to-one cause-and-effect analysis is complex and can never directly a single cause to any effect. . It’s not that there are not causes that create effects; but that every occurrence creates effects that creates new causes all of which are continually multiplying their effects that are creating the causes for new effects.
From the very moment of insemination, varying causes and effects determine whether a new life will be born. It is not a given that insemination will result in a birth. Causes and effects do not remain determined but determine each other as potentialities. But the normal mind, the everyday mind loses scope of all of the potentialities and is limited only to particulate perceptions. The idea that your brain presents a picture of you to you, or hides information from you makes it seem as if there is a you different from your physical body.
But the actuality is that the you of which is your body and the part of you that controls you (the brain that regulates both your internal functions and external observations) is much more than what you are aware of, or what you might call your conscience. But that doesn’t mean there is some Cartesian dualism, some extra-physical reality, it only means that the entity that is a You, or a person, is simply unaware of most of itself.
The mind, or brain has a double duty, both of which are to maintain the life of the entity. The internal brain regulates the internal systems and unless there is a problem with that regulation, our awareness remains in complete ignorance. I may know blood flows through my toe, but I am aware of it doing so, unless it is cut or it swells up from an infection. The brain also must protect you from the external world so the dreaded tiger doesn’t gobble you up. But as we have referred to already, the tiger may not be the tiger if the tiger never becomes part of our awareness, our brain will be on the alert for the tiger, but most of what we detect from our senses we also remain unaware of. But the senses remain on the alert for the tiger and when the presence of the tiger is suspected, the brain alerts us. But it also alerts us about those we can share with, the community of people/things, that are safe.
Ludwig Binswanger was a Heideggerian psychologist who interpreted Heidegger’s Being-inness as an existential a priori. The person is in existence and interprets existence from the perspective of an existential ontology. The being assumes its own existence by assigning meanings to objects before identifying the objects. Binswanger is seeming to suggest that we assign to the tiger the fear of itself before we define the tiger as itself.3
This concept captures, along with Lacan’s conception of mirroring ourselves, into a subject and object that become a surrounding template for the psychologically unobservable personality.
We may very well sense our objective presence, some may even attempt to deny the reality of a subjective presence. But if we realize that the human infant begins immediately to define its environment in its first breaths to discern the caregiver from the tiger, we see that the child’s first cognizant observations are assignments of meanings to define the needful (caregiving) from the harmful (tiger).
By the age of six months the child is also beginning to apply these definitions, or meanings, to himself and the process of learning no longer is subjective or objective, but a mirror that reflects the subjective to an observed objective individual. The mirror becomes the individual’s reflection of himself within the world as an object that observes and is observed.
For most of us, it is the subjective self that has defined the objective role he carries into the world, becomes the disconnected subject that we no longer observe doing the observing; or even manipulating our movements by its movements that are portrayed in our objective realities.
Thereafter we may certainly contemplate that we are interpreting our environment in different manners than the other; and we may reflect upon subjective inferences that might constitute the differences. But the truth is we will not typically view ourselves other than an object that acts and sometimes as an object that thinks (subjectively).
But unless there is a degree of disembodiment we believe ourselves to be entities or objects. We view ourselves as the external mass of ourselves, and despite all of the attempts to impress upon us a possibly disembodied subjective consciousness, no one really can envision going to heaven or achieving nirvana completely disembodied. Sure there are those who teach that no physical reality exists in the beyond world; we nevertheless see ourselves as a physical reality and don’t really envision any type of reality of ourselves without any type of physicality. Even the panpsychist attempt to present a universal consciousness finds its appeal in the possibility of this consciousness continuing to exist in that universal consciousness.
It is not that we are incapable of comprehending that any individual could end. Many do accept death as fait accompli. That does not mean we can comprehend what non-existence of our object projection, our body, actually means; nor can we contemplate any contemplation of our minds as a non-object. We may understand, or believe we will no longer be an object, it is impossible to conceive the meaning of being a non-object with any relationship to our self. All meanings, no matter their abstractive qualities, can be meaningful if they are non-objective.So if I do think of, or view my death, I see the object of me lying in a coffin, I may even view the object of me being viewed lying in the coffin (though once in that coffin it might be unlikely that I would find either to be true.)
Death is often seen as a sort of the Great Tiger. But as I wrote previously I have never become afraid of the tiger. Everyone doesn’t necessarily need to fear anything. Fear is a projection into our minds that most probably should remain dormant and generally unrecognized by our awareness—unless there is need to be aware.
When our toe is endangered by injury we need to become aware of our toe, mostly though, it’s just our toe and we are unconscious of what is happening inside of our toe. Mostly we should not be aware of the Tiger, unless we are signaled that the Tiger is actually harmful and flight (of some sort, maybe not “fleeing”) is necessary for preservation.
But what happens when labels are thrown around and tigers are stalking suburban cities. Our fears create isolation and this is what develops into mental illnesses. Too many subjective tigers, and a self trying to escape into the rabbit hole to hide from his own perception of his objectivity being threatened.
Unreal threats are manipulated tigers that challenge our existence and disguise the sources (causes) of our manipulated tigers into fearing the loss of our life. But we can’t fear losing what we are incapable of conceptualizing; but we can conceptualize the fear of the tiger who might possibly take this objective existence away from me. I can conceptualize the image of someone taking that life from me even if I am incapable of conceptualizing my own not-being-here.
Developed fears; the insecurities that are developed as tigers that are not actual threats are manipulations that are introduced into our behavior and just as Skinner’s pigeons and rats learned to press levers before the punishment, manipulated anxieties alter our behavior to take offense at perceived enemies by pressing behavioral levers before the manipulated anxieties become real.
And so we act against the perceived tiger before we can be clawed into death by the tiger. These are manipulated by presenting them as perceived images introduced into our awareness. But then we no longer have any sense of real danger—the auto-crash that unsafe driving might cause and a reduced alertness because we think we can avoid the automobile tiger from harming us.
We have become alert to false tigers at the risk of ignorance to the actual confrontation with the real tiger and our brains have become trained to push levers before danger which lessens our alertness to actual danger.
My book is now available for sale as an e-book. If anyone is interested in obtaining a hard-back copy, pre-orders are being accepted.
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/thoughts-essays-on-developing-personalities-v1-the-thoughts-ken-taylor/1146775517?ean=2940184434100
About the Author
My own educational background, for what it is worth 56 hours in psychiatry and sociology before scrapping it all; (and, granting, obtaining a mildly Popperish interpretation of these subjects as rather theoretically unfounded). Beginning afresh to study and get a degree in Philosophy of Religion, which some might term a degree in Theology; but that degree is usually a postgraduate degree. I never actually pursued a postgraduate degree due to limited finances.
But for most of my life I continually audited and took courses at local postgraduate centers in regions where I lived at the time. These included Howard University, George Washington and American University in Washington D.C.; Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary of Virginia (now called the Virginia Theological Seminary); Duke University; Hebrew University of Cincinnati (HUC-JIR); Northwestern University in Chicago; and the University of Nevada-Reno (UNR).