I read your Zeitgeist article in the New View just recently, and was struck by the tight parallels with Mattias Desmet's recently published book The Psychology of Totalitarianism. I very much appreciate and resonate with the insights and perspective of his book and your articles. I wonder how aware of each other you are?
Thanks, your feedback is greatly appreciated. Originally I was taking my cues from Jung, but yes, I have recently read Mattias Desmet's new book too - it is masterful!
In fact, I am working on a new piece which makes significant reference to that book, and in particular the insights it offers for practical response to the problem. A large part of my motive for the piece is to encourage more people to read the book. It's a huge contribution to comprehending and responding to the deep difficulties we are in.
So if you like the piece (should be published in about a week), please consider forwarding it to others who might be receptive. Spreading awareness of the nature of the issue is one of the main avenues of action open to us.
Nice to hear. I thought that would be hard to believe so much parallel if you weren't aware of his writings. Well done in synthesizing into your own perspective, and I look forward to your next piece. I'm in Vermont in the US, and recently had the interesting opportunity to have lunch and a nice discussion with Mattias in person. I particularly appreciate his emphasis on the value in holding a dissenting perspective publicly and with sincerity and conviction, while not being antagonistic about it. It is such an important exercise in holding ground, and cultivating and articulating an alternative vision of what is and what could be. The act of holding the ground for our truth of perspective is such an important opportunity to engage our own ideas and stories, and to engage fruitfully with others.
I'm just wrapping up reading a colleague's book on engaging across divides; Monica Guzman's "I Never Thought of it That Way". I really like her point on the value on patience (as well as curiosity humility and integrity). She points out that sometimes (maybe more often than not, on the hard stuff) the gesture of building a bridge must be made separately from an attachment or expectation of someone crossing that bridge towards us. Just having the bridge there into the future is valuable. That gives time for people to use it when they are ready. If we withdraw our bridges, or burn them, when we aren't met with reciprocity and understanding then the gesture is fruitless. Changing a perspective, or being willing to entertain someone else's, when it is deeply held is challenging for any of us, and the grace of being given time and space to engage is such a gift. It's wonderful when someone is ready and willing to meet us on a bridge between divided perspectives, but it is counterproductive to coerce or mandate anyone to join us on that bridge. And the added benefit of building and leaving bridges around is that it counters the incentives to silo unto our own and hunker down. At a certain point, seeing those open invitations out there may spark anew curiosity, humility, and openness. We all know from experience this past couple years that beating each other over the heads with data and information sure isn't a path forward!
No, no, the parallel is indeed remarkable: I had not heard of Mattias Desmet or his work when I wrote the Zeitgeist piece. I was relating what I was seeing around me to Jung's work on mass psychosis (and its relation to totalitarianism), and combining it with some other thoughts, especially the problem of mechanistic thinking. It is my next piece that will be a synthesis of Desmet with my own thoughts.
The remarkable nature of that parallel is what blew me away when I found Desmet's book: to find someone who wrote so well on ideas that have been developing in me for some years - not only on mass psychosis, but on mechanistic thinking too! For me, thoughts on that latter theme were inspired both by anthroposophy and what I have learned over the years of complexity theory. Exciting enough to find such eloquence on exactly those subjects, but Desmet added more. For example, the specific formulation that 'materialist science must inevitably lead to totalitarianism'. That's a powerful thought, and seems to me clearly true. The other things he added were the ones you speak of: the realisation that regaling 'group A' with more facts and evidence will only inflame them and make them dig in harder. (He helped reduce my inclination to try!) That, on the other hand, simply creating a milleu where a counter-argument exists can moderate the extremes of government action they might be willing to support. And that 'group B', conversely, can be won over by respectfully and thoughtfully presented perspectives. I was already seeing that in my own discussions with many people, but it was good to bring such things into sharper focus.
Fully with you on your various comments on bridges.
I have added Monica Guzman's book to my long and growing list of 'possible purchases'. In the spirit of Desmet, there are few things needed more than insights on 'speaking across the divide'!
Thankyou very much for coining your 'Mass Psychosis'. There is a native american Hosteen Klah, who was able to walk into Hurricanes (I fear less the tsunami). Instead it seems the unassailable dogma of ignorance. Freudian transferrance requires it inevitable that under suspicion, those convicted of individual psychoses, should there words, thoughts or actions extend beyond the pales of conventional wisdoms, be assigned the full brunting of psychosis by anyone in authority before one.
Immediately, a mass psychosis is diagnosed within one and into a pure black hole of not-knowing; a whole troop of us whisked away this Way - questionable services, for full treatment, in dealing with whatever is wrong. Medicatrd psychosis. The full irony is that I am fully qualified in cognitive science, but after failing my way at (#metoo) full-left-counter Sussex University, never made my way to on-paper Phd, elicting 'the equation', due double-nobel, countering full whatever's up with today's (veganism helps) power on the simplicity of an organ under fire only in labrats and monkey cells.
Instead a dry-run weak veneer of 'what is supposed to be the world', lies ontop a superficial veneer often (not always) weak-at-the-seams. Changing the system is an inevitability necessitating incessant hamsters-wheel of change. What's new? Why not instead see both systems; a tree rotten to the core, amidst the fire and ice? Gardens of Eden.
Thank you. Your comments are especially relevant having read your 'Matterhorn' piece. That our systems are becoming brutal is a central issue. I offer what I hope is a relevant thought on how that happened:
During recent centuries, humanity became enamoured with 'mechanism'. The universe itself was percieved as a big machine. Not only was manufucaturing industrialised, so was education, farming, medicine, and everything else. While science is today more multi-faceted, there are still plenty of people today who think that the human being is a kind of machine. 'Sytstems' are primary, human beings are secondary. Non-mechanistic phenomena, processes or realities' are an inconvenience which it is not 'practical' to consider.
There is considerable debate at present about whether the general condition of the world is getting better or worse. Many statistics are produced about important parameters which are improving. And they are true. Deaths from natural disasters are way down, literacy has long been rising, people are living longer, tree cover is in many places increasing. There are even quite significant analyses suggesting that the equation of natural resources vs population levels may not be the problem it was formerly believed to be. (See authors such as Julian Simon, Paul Sabin, Marion Tupy, Peter Zeihan). There is however a tragic paradox in the fact that while medical advances have meant that people can live much longer, many of them don't want to, and suicide rates are soaring. And whilel advances like greater freedom and autonomy undoubtedly happened, that seems now in danger of going into reverse. People are more tolerant on social differences, but are becoming massively intolerant of political difference. The conclusion I am inclined to draw is that while certain 'external measurables' are improving, sometimes dramatically, something is definitely getting worse: Our world is getting less human. The mechanistic paradigm has, by the 21st century, become one which finds it expedient to objectify everything including human beings, and that has led to a kind of creeping brutality. We have a 'global community' which pretends to equally respect all religions while in fact equally ridiculing all religions, which pretends to favour diversity while seeking to eradicate it, and which abuses the population in the name of protecting it. In politics, education, business, medicine, and everywhere else, systems continue to be built on machine metaphors. We end up not with systems serving people, but with people serving systems. And then people controlled by systems and people abused by systems.
If we would like to reduce the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity of the world, as well as the brutality in our systems, and rising mental illness, we must find some way to put the princple of humanity first, and the principle of the system second. To say so is not naïve; it is necessary.
It’s like we are living through a societal tsunami and recalls the desperation of helpless beach goers scrambling to escape the terror of inundation on the Indonesian coast in 2018. Thank you for your clear-eyed assessment and measure of hope.
Thanks for the response. I recognise the metaphor well. I have seen that tsunami in my mind's eye for years – growing and growing, and coming in a kind of huge slow motion. Perhaps though, I'd like to get beyond the metaphor, both by declining (reasonably or otherwise) to accept that it is unstoppable, and also by doing something which is less realistic in a literal tsunami – sowing seeds for the rebuilding even as we watch it coming towards us.
I read your Zeitgeist article in the New View just recently, and was struck by the tight parallels with Mattias Desmet's recently published book The Psychology of Totalitarianism. I very much appreciate and resonate with the insights and perspective of his book and your articles. I wonder how aware of each other you are?
Thanks, your feedback is greatly appreciated. Originally I was taking my cues from Jung, but yes, I have recently read Mattias Desmet's new book too - it is masterful!
In fact, I am working on a new piece which makes significant reference to that book, and in particular the insights it offers for practical response to the problem. A large part of my motive for the piece is to encourage more people to read the book. It's a huge contribution to comprehending and responding to the deep difficulties we are in.
So if you like the piece (should be published in about a week), please consider forwarding it to others who might be receptive. Spreading awareness of the nature of the issue is one of the main avenues of action open to us.
Thanks again.
Nice to hear. I thought that would be hard to believe so much parallel if you weren't aware of his writings. Well done in synthesizing into your own perspective, and I look forward to your next piece. I'm in Vermont in the US, and recently had the interesting opportunity to have lunch and a nice discussion with Mattias in person. I particularly appreciate his emphasis on the value in holding a dissenting perspective publicly and with sincerity and conviction, while not being antagonistic about it. It is such an important exercise in holding ground, and cultivating and articulating an alternative vision of what is and what could be. The act of holding the ground for our truth of perspective is such an important opportunity to engage our own ideas and stories, and to engage fruitfully with others.
I'm just wrapping up reading a colleague's book on engaging across divides; Monica Guzman's "I Never Thought of it That Way". I really like her point on the value on patience (as well as curiosity humility and integrity). She points out that sometimes (maybe more often than not, on the hard stuff) the gesture of building a bridge must be made separately from an attachment or expectation of someone crossing that bridge towards us. Just having the bridge there into the future is valuable. That gives time for people to use it when they are ready. If we withdraw our bridges, or burn them, when we aren't met with reciprocity and understanding then the gesture is fruitless. Changing a perspective, or being willing to entertain someone else's, when it is deeply held is challenging for any of us, and the grace of being given time and space to engage is such a gift. It's wonderful when someone is ready and willing to meet us on a bridge between divided perspectives, but it is counterproductive to coerce or mandate anyone to join us on that bridge. And the added benefit of building and leaving bridges around is that it counters the incentives to silo unto our own and hunker down. At a certain point, seeing those open invitations out there may spark anew curiosity, humility, and openness. We all know from experience this past couple years that beating each other over the heads with data and information sure isn't a path forward!
No, no, the parallel is indeed remarkable: I had not heard of Mattias Desmet or his work when I wrote the Zeitgeist piece. I was relating what I was seeing around me to Jung's work on mass psychosis (and its relation to totalitarianism), and combining it with some other thoughts, especially the problem of mechanistic thinking. It is my next piece that will be a synthesis of Desmet with my own thoughts.
The remarkable nature of that parallel is what blew me away when I found Desmet's book: to find someone who wrote so well on ideas that have been developing in me for some years - not only on mass psychosis, but on mechanistic thinking too! For me, thoughts on that latter theme were inspired both by anthroposophy and what I have learned over the years of complexity theory. Exciting enough to find such eloquence on exactly those subjects, but Desmet added more. For example, the specific formulation that 'materialist science must inevitably lead to totalitarianism'. That's a powerful thought, and seems to me clearly true. The other things he added were the ones you speak of: the realisation that regaling 'group A' with more facts and evidence will only inflame them and make them dig in harder. (He helped reduce my inclination to try!) That, on the other hand, simply creating a milleu where a counter-argument exists can moderate the extremes of government action they might be willing to support. And that 'group B', conversely, can be won over by respectfully and thoughtfully presented perspectives. I was already seeing that in my own discussions with many people, but it was good to bring such things into sharper focus.
Fully with you on your various comments on bridges.
Thanks again for your thoughts!
I have added Monica Guzman's book to my long and growing list of 'possible purchases'. In the spirit of Desmet, there are few things needed more than insights on 'speaking across the divide'!
Dear Micheal,
Thankyou very much for coining your 'Mass Psychosis'. There is a native american Hosteen Klah, who was able to walk into Hurricanes (I fear less the tsunami). Instead it seems the unassailable dogma of ignorance. Freudian transferrance requires it inevitable that under suspicion, those convicted of individual psychoses, should there words, thoughts or actions extend beyond the pales of conventional wisdoms, be assigned the full brunting of psychosis by anyone in authority before one.
https://totheoutside.wordpress.com/2020/05/30/scaling-the-matterhorn/
Immediately, a mass psychosis is diagnosed within one and into a pure black hole of not-knowing; a whole troop of us whisked away this Way - questionable services, for full treatment, in dealing with whatever is wrong. Medicatrd psychosis. The full irony is that I am fully qualified in cognitive science, but after failing my way at (#metoo) full-left-counter Sussex University, never made my way to on-paper Phd, elicting 'the equation', due double-nobel, countering full whatever's up with today's (veganism helps) power on the simplicity of an organ under fire only in labrats and monkey cells.
Instead a dry-run weak veneer of 'what is supposed to be the world', lies ontop a superficial veneer often (not always) weak-at-the-seams. Changing the system is an inevitability necessitating incessant hamsters-wheel of change. What's new? Why not instead see both systems; a tree rotten to the core, amidst the fire and ice? Gardens of Eden.
Thanks again,
Thank you. Your comments are especially relevant having read your 'Matterhorn' piece. That our systems are becoming brutal is a central issue. I offer what I hope is a relevant thought on how that happened:
During recent centuries, humanity became enamoured with 'mechanism'. The universe itself was percieved as a big machine. Not only was manufucaturing industrialised, so was education, farming, medicine, and everything else. While science is today more multi-faceted, there are still plenty of people today who think that the human being is a kind of machine. 'Sytstems' are primary, human beings are secondary. Non-mechanistic phenomena, processes or realities' are an inconvenience which it is not 'practical' to consider.
There is considerable debate at present about whether the general condition of the world is getting better or worse. Many statistics are produced about important parameters which are improving. And they are true. Deaths from natural disasters are way down, literacy has long been rising, people are living longer, tree cover is in many places increasing. There are even quite significant analyses suggesting that the equation of natural resources vs population levels may not be the problem it was formerly believed to be. (See authors such as Julian Simon, Paul Sabin, Marion Tupy, Peter Zeihan). There is however a tragic paradox in the fact that while medical advances have meant that people can live much longer, many of them don't want to, and suicide rates are soaring. And whilel advances like greater freedom and autonomy undoubtedly happened, that seems now in danger of going into reverse. People are more tolerant on social differences, but are becoming massively intolerant of political difference. The conclusion I am inclined to draw is that while certain 'external measurables' are improving, sometimes dramatically, something is definitely getting worse: Our world is getting less human. The mechanistic paradigm has, by the 21st century, become one which finds it expedient to objectify everything including human beings, and that has led to a kind of creeping brutality. We have a 'global community' which pretends to equally respect all religions while in fact equally ridiculing all religions, which pretends to favour diversity while seeking to eradicate it, and which abuses the population in the name of protecting it. In politics, education, business, medicine, and everywhere else, systems continue to be built on machine metaphors. We end up not with systems serving people, but with people serving systems. And then people controlled by systems and people abused by systems.
If we would like to reduce the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity of the world, as well as the brutality in our systems, and rising mental illness, we must find some way to put the princple of humanity first, and the principle of the system second. To say so is not naïve; it is necessary.
It’s like we are living through a societal tsunami and recalls the desperation of helpless beach goers scrambling to escape the terror of inundation on the Indonesian coast in 2018. Thank you for your clear-eyed assessment and measure of hope.
Thanks for the response. I recognise the metaphor well. I have seen that tsunami in my mind's eye for years – growing and growing, and coming in a kind of huge slow motion. Perhaps though, I'd like to get beyond the metaphor, both by declining (reasonably or otherwise) to accept that it is unstoppable, and also by doing something which is less realistic in a literal tsunami – sowing seeds for the rebuilding even as we watch it coming towards us.