[MD] Individual v Collective

[Michael Hamilton]

Ian, Arlo

Thanks for prodding me to clarify a bit.

Ian wrote:
> But you're not suggesting humans had no such self-awareness before
> Descartes are you ? Yes Descartes analysed and tried to formalise it,
> and probably kicked-off a period of obsession with the mental subject
> distinct from physical objects - so he influenced how subsequent
> culture viewed that self-awareness, but it didn't evolve with him ...
> languages still used "I", "me" "we" "they" "it" concepts before then
> didn't they ?

It's hard to describe the difference between the subjective awareness
I've been banging on about and the rudimentary self-awareness
expressed in concepts like "I", "me", "we", "they", "it". I can easily
clarify that I'm ABSOLUTELY NOT saying that there was no awareness or
consciousness prior to Descartes and subjective awareness. Quite the
opposite. What I'm trying to describe is a new _kind_ of awareness
that emerged around the time of Descartes. Thinking about it, I think
you're right, Ian - this subjective awareness must have been knocking
around prior to Descartes. In all likelihood, it had been springing up
intermittently in various places for centuries. As you say, what he
did was to formalise it, and at the same time to hugely facilitate its
spread into almost every nook and cranny of the Western mythos.
Descartes was a big heavy static latch for individual subjective
awareness and SOM.

Arlo wrote:
> Are you suggesting that people did not have a sense of themselves as
> "self-aware" before Descartes? Do you not think, for example, that (the
> original Greek) Phaedrus saw himself as soley an ant in a colony?

I don't know enough about Phaedrus to understand why you picked him as
an example, but again, I will concede that there were probably
isolated cases of subjective awareness prior to Descartes.

I'm still struggling, though, because I haven't properly defined that
subjective awareness. I'll try: I'm talking about alienation from
nature and the body. Alienation from the world. Coupled with this is
something I wrote about a while back: the feeling that our impulses,
instincts, inspiration, feelings, thoughts and emotions arise from
within ourselves, rather than from nature. The feeling that we are
autonomous decision-makers rather than puppets of society or the
cosmos. Judging from bits of this description, I have to agree with
you to some extent, Arlo, that this perspective is a "malady".
However, we need to appreciate where we'd be without this malady. For
one thing, science would be virtually impossible. For another thing...
well, see what you make of this excellent piece of lunatic philosophy
by Jeff Nuttall:

----------------
"To dissolve the world, the self, the ego into the general vibrancy of
the cosmos is to refuse the unique function of being physical ('like a
human'). That the Id, the energies, the fundamental self, is nothing
more than a part of the sum of cosmic energy is, I believe, true. That
the conscious, the self-conscious mind, the ego, the _identity_, is an
obstruction to one's union with the cosmos is also true. What is
missed by the mystics, however, is that there is a purpose, and a
_divine_ purpose, to the human alienation from the cosmos. The
recognition, definition of Being, in wonderment and ecstasy can only
be carried out by a conscious entity alienated from the eternal
totality. You can't dig It if you _are_ It. No man beholds his own
face.

"Self-consciousness is, then, the faculty which (a) divides human
beings off from Being and thus (b) bestows upon humanity that sense of
_otherness_ from Being, that distancing from the cosmos wheeby the
worshipping, _identifying_ reaction of wonderment becomes possible.
_True wonderment is not a realization but a hopeless ecstasy of
longing_. To satisfy that longing is to terminate wonderment and leave
its cosmic function unfulfilled."
----------------

I've made my (Jeff's) point, but the following paragraphs are too
inspiring for me to be able to resist continuing the quote. All this
is very reminiscent of ZMM, but I think it adds something valuable --
about the Quality of alienation:

----------------
"The proper functioning of wonderment is enfuelled by that continuous
illumination from the cosmic self, the quick, the automatic spiritual
self. In modern technological living the spiritual cosmic self has
become so estranged that the wonderment faculty was near-completely
numbed. You _can not_ regard the world in terms of its utilitarian
potential, in terms of how well you can harness it to still your petty
fears, and, at the same time maintain your proper function as the
agent of wonderment. It was, then, necessary to re-establish that
contact with the cosmic self, to revive one's faculty of wonder. It
was necessary to turn to 'inner space', to bathe oneself in the
virulent music streaming like sperm and light from the stratospheres
of the mind. LSD has brought this awareness about.

"It is now necessary to come back from inner space. Having revived the
faculty of wonderment it is necessary to apply it, to channel one's
cosmic self through one's unique identity, to illuminate and
strengthen the currently despised ego and thus to _recognize_ the same
cosmic energy manifest in the splendours of the _outer material
world_. If we cannot translate the spiritual into terms of
constructive physical action, if spiritual vision cannot inform our
physical ocular vision, then the spiritual is none of our damn
business."
(Jeff Nuttall, Bomb Culture, 1970, p241-2)
----------------

Thoughts?

Regards,
Mike