Q: So, to continue from where we left off. You were saying, in so many words, that in its attempt to escape from the randomness of the human brain Redemptionism, or Utopianism, is a maladaptation. Is that more or less correct?
A: Yeah, more or less. I’d say that Redemptionism or Utopianism, whichever you prefer, since it never seems to go away, is either proof that the human race is a biologically maladaptive species, or that its “success” at the very least renders us maladaptive both in terms of our responses to the world and our responses to our own responses to the world. Or, in what we say, what we do, and what we have to do to survive.
Q: I’ve heard you say, more than once, that you think the human mind is literally insane. Is this the reason why?
A: Yes.
Q: Could we explore that a bit more before returning to our subject?
A: Sure. Well, actually, an exploration of the insanity of the mind fits perfectly into our subject of Explanation and Power.
Q: How so? In what way?
A: Well, when, anyone in power places their explanation of the world above criticism. And this happens in families with parents, or siblings, or both, since a sibling isn’t going to be able to do something like that unless one or both parents approve.
But, the same thing happens with far more devastating effect in any culture whose social institutions are controlled by a power center operating in what I refer to as the realm of the absolute, which Hegel railed against, especially in politics, for a reason.
As Shakespeare once wrote, We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and most of those dreams are nightmares. An unpleasant fact that a glance at most families and cultures will easily confirm, since family is to culture what a seed is to a tree.
Q: And, as you said in Part VIII, Personality is to the Individual what Culture is to Human Behavior. So, could we bring our discussion back to the Individual, especially to see how it relates to everything we’ve been talking about?
A: Sure. When any Individual, that is, when any randomly assembled package of interests, enters a social institution the smooth working of that institution becomes impossible.
Q: Haha! Don’t I know that from experience.
How would you explain that?
A: There are many ways to explain this.
In keeping with our Q & A the one I would offer now would be from the point of view of human behavior. Directions given from above and feedback from below necessarily threaten to destabilize the position of the individual of that institution. That is, threaten to destabilize their “politics”, as it were. That’s why both instructions and feedback are so often distorted. One on the way down, the other on the way up. Looking up, the perspective is primarily one of resentment, looking down, one of contempt.
Q: Why is that?
A: Because the view from the bottom regards the higher levels as an obstacle or hindrance to their aggression, while the view from above regards the lower levels as fundamentally incompetent.
Q: What are some of the consequences of this?
A: One is that this resentment and contempt increases the randomness of response within the institution, and paradoxically (and interestingly), the resulting randomness can either destroy the institution or make it more viable, more adaptable.
Q: There’s a further and even more profound consequence of all of this, isn’t there?
A: Yes, there is. Or, well, there can be.
Q: And, is it safe to say that it’s central to your work and life?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: Obviously I know what it is from our work together. But, for the sake of this Q & A could you share it with your readers?
A: Of course. It’s cultural transcendence.
Q: Speaking of our Q & A, how about if we end it with a discussion of that very theme of cultural transcendence?
Kommentit