Die Zeitgeist / The Spirit of the Times

PDF: Die Zeitgeist – Waterstone

“About a third of my cases are suffering from no clinically definable neurosis, but from the senselessness and emptiness of their lives. This can be defined as the general neurosis of our times.” (Jung)

It pleases me greatly whenever I’ve lost my bearings in a foreign city and chance upon a map with an ubiquitous ‘you are here’ marker. The point of reference allows me establish where I am, recalibrate my compass and plot a course to my destination.

Over the past couple of years, it appears some rabble-rouser has gone and removed all the red dots from people’s maps, creating a great deal of confusion and anxiety about the future of society. No one quite knows where they are or how to find their way. Many are questioning where they actually want to go, and whether that place still exists.

This rabble-rouser goes by the name Die Zeitgeist, or ‘The Spirit of the Times.’

A charlatan too swift to apprehend, I have tailed him at a distance and now attempt to elucidate what I think I’ve distinguished. As observed by Jung, “no one can flatter himself that he is immune to the spirit of his own epoch, or even that he possesses a full understanding of it,” therefore this is an exercise of unqualified speculation from an influenced perspective.

All attempts to constrain the breadth and depth of said speculation have been rendered futile on account of the multifarious and unbounded nature of the topic. Insofar as practicable, I have attempted to separate notions into broad chapters, through which a thin thread of progressive development runs.

This analysis is heavily indebted to the works of Jung, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Goethe, Huxley, Orwell, London, Rand, Plotinus, Plato and Lau Tzu, which explore many of the aforementioned concepts in significantly greater depth. Collectively, they have shaped the lens through which I have endeavoured to interpret the material furnished by being an observer and student of life.

A measure of dishonour is borne on my part as author; for many of the charges laid herein I also level upon myself. As such, I am in no position to wield the authority of one who leads by example. I am however in a position to describe what I see when I look into the mirror, through eyes which have been burned by gazing deeper into Nietzsche’s abyss, and a mind which has been lamed by reality.

I.e. this is an epic rant.

I

PHASES

“Life belongs to the living, and he who lives must be prepared for changes.” (Goethe)

Attempting to apprehend the state of the world today, we need to begin with a basic premise: that society, like an individual growing up, moves through phases. Given the spans of our lifetimes tend to play out within one distinct phase, we often overlook the fact they change and that vastly different phases have existed throughout recorded history. We also take for granted that the phase we find ourselves living in is enduring, and nonchalantly presume it will continue indefinitely.

As surely as day follows night, and we experience the turn of seasons, so too does The Spirit of the Times change, but never is it predictable.  Much like The Phantom, the mysterious essence of Die Zeitgeist remains something of an obscure constant, although the individual behind the façade of purple Lycra changes with each generation.

The Occident today is in a political phase we know as ‘democracy’ and an economic phase known as ‘capitalism.’ These underpinnings have allowed for increasing quantities of excess libido (living energy) made available to those fortunate enough to be living atop the upper crust[1] of civilisation. For the best part of the past four hundred years, the Western world has been immersed in the powerful ideological phase of scientific rationalism, which today is the concretised and validated way of attaining to knowledge.

Representative democracy and capitalism are organic systems which have evolved and adapted through changing circumstances. Particularly over the last century, both progressed with snowballing scale, complexity and centralisation. The distribution of political and economic power has become gradually more concentrated, and their transparency considerably more inscrutable.

Until recently, the combination of democracy and capitalism have operated reasonably well in maintaining relative civil stability among developed nations. The empirical logic of scientific enquiry has also provided us with myriad advances which have improved quality of life.

However, there comes a point at which an imperfect system fails either due to internal dysfunction or due to its no longer being able to cope with the workload it is subjected to. Towards the end of a system’s life, the inherent dysfunctions and deficiencies become more pronounced, and to compensate for these, untried interventions outside the system’s normal rules are enacted to promote stabilisation. These measures have unintended consequences, some of which we have already observed, and others yet to occur which we are unable to foresee.

Similarly, the rationalistic system we use to make sense of the world around us is pushing against the outer limits of its explanatory power and encountering domains where it is confronted with its own impotence.

There is evidence to suggest all three have passed their noon, but for the moment, the world’s eye is focussed upon the economic system because that is where it has been trained to focus. The economic system is the prevalent God of this epoch, and it is not difficult to see why.

II

DEUS EX MACHINA

“A giant octopus living way down at the bottom of the ocean. It has this tremendously powerful life force, a bunch of long, undulating legs, and its heading somewhere, moving through the darkness of the ocean…it takes all kinds of different shapes – sometimes its ‘the nation,’ and sometimes its ‘the law,’ and sometimes it takes on shapes that are more difficult and dangerous than that. You can try cutting off its legs, but they just keep growing back. Nobody can kill it. It’s too strong and it lives too far down in the ocean. Nobody knows where its heart is.” (Murakami)

Murakami’s metaphor of the octopus utters an eerie likeness to Deus Ex Machina, The God in the Machine. ‘God’ in the sense of Meaning, Truth, Power and the centre of gravity which draws devotion, and ‘Machine’ denoting the scheme of modern civilisation which has its foundation in economics.

Among the most dumbfounding achievements of Die Zeitgeist is the uprooting of God from inside and transplanting it outside, analogous to the displacement of energy away from the Soul.

I can only describe this phenomenon indirectly through association. We can see it if we look to where we vest meaning, truth, power, time and energy. Meaning is vested in brands of dogmatic orthodoxy. Truth is vested in science and reason. Power is vested in currency, aesthetic and intelligence. Time and energy are vested in attaining to power.

Observe the common thread which runs through all these things – they are all notional authorities outside the individual. Together, these notional authorities constitute elements of the machine. By this machine, two imperative functions are served: (1) the support of living (2) the provision of a narrative.

The first function is a practical one, supporting living through a mechanism of economic exchange, wherein the individual barters his time and energy for money; the means to finance his existence. Through the course of his work/employment, he generates goods or services for which others are willing to pay. The time and energy contributions of the individual are known as Labour, and the equipment and structures which facilitate his work is known as Capital.

In order to make for himself a life in familiar society, the individual must surrender to the authorities and subject himself to them. Further, if he is to live without debilitating dissonance, he must also embrace the narrative. The narrative is what allows more of the individual’s life force (libido) to be extracted and keep him in submission to Deus Ex Machina.

In object, the narrative itself is highly intricate, but generally envelops aspects of material wellbeing, some measure of status, and the sequential fulfilment of defined milestones involving education, vocation, relationship and parenthood. Collectively, these form a life narrative or ‘story’ which is equated with meaning and contentment.

Each element of the narrative ostensibly fills a hole in the individual’s life puzzle and has a rôle in reducing or distracting from despair. Consider for example the benefit of possessing material means of survival – being able to exist comfortably without concern for finding your next meal represents a significant reduction in basic anxiety. However, this security of career is akin to a homeless man sent to prison. Though he loses his freedom, he gains the security of a roof over his head and the assurance of being provided his daily bread. Adoption of the narrative is, at its most basic, a trade-off of freedom against certainty.

In establishing and conditioning a prescriptive life narrative, the machine subsumes God. When we examine the terms habitually attached to man’s action toward deity – worship, reverence, sacrifice and devotion, we see that these same terms typify his action towards the narrative and what it encompasses.

Notice that the narrative disregards individual reconciliation and the recognition of internal authority. Rather, it relies upon the imposition of myriad external authorities, both in prescribing what is meaningful, thereby according those things authority, and in its coronation of the institutional and conceptual authorities established within the machine’s framework.

Authority is a crucial consideration because, as its name intimates, it ascribes who or what your life story will be authored by. Authorship can be represented metaphorically by a graveyard of books, each book the narrative of a departed soul. Their covers carry but two lines: a title giving the name of the life, and an author under whose will the narrative was produced. The vast majority of us live out our narratives under the illusion it will be credited to ourselves.

Particularly when we become momentarily cognisant of our loss of authorship, it seems as if the entire apparatus were being directed by an exogenous will, and we are tempted to lay the blame upon fate, a warped world, the devil, or some other such personified archetype.

However, the machine has no will of its own, it is simply that: a machine. Its ingenuity comes from the intention of those who program it and the hands which operate it, and its power is extracted from the fuel which feeds it. Humans are extensions of the machine, and its products are a reflection of its constituents. To the extent it creates oppression, harm, and iniquity; this merely reflects the shadowy, selfish natures within each of us who in some way partake, magnified on a global scale.

To address the question of why we have put God into the machine, it is necessary to consider what a machine fundamentally is – an automated contraption that is designed to do ‘something’ consistently. Two of a machine’s basic qualities are structure and causality. Everything within a machine is underpinned by a structural framework, and effects can be explained via chain of causality – implicitly, there is no room for mystery or abstraction aside from the occasional error or unexpected outcome which is attributed to malfunction or chance.

These qualities are requisites for the rationalist world we have fashioned to free ourselves from the obscurity of those things which we cannot explain. To be civilised entails that the instinctive law of the jungle is replaced with an organised, mechanistic scheme which governs existence. Psychologically, it is a safer world where we are able to reduce, explain and rationalise everything around us through cause and effect. The natural sciences epitomise this frame of thinking, and through our science, we have knowledge, which gives us apparent power over the subject matter.

On the contrary, when we acknowledge effects which have no discernible cause, we are forced to concede they are beyond our understanding, therefore outside our control, and hence we fear them. Fear is a powerful motivator, and unsurprisingly, the radius of the machine’s authority continually expands by inventing explanations because it must always encompass a critical mass of phenomena. If too much content escapes into the void which falls outside the machine’s sphere (or bubble) of hegemony, it will begin to lose both its gravity and monopolistic hold on God.

Concomitant with the rise of the God in the Machine has been the elevation of extrinsic intellectual and aesthetic values and resultant devaluation of intrinsic spiritual values. A significant dilemma thus arises for the individual: how does one reconcile with his soul if it resides outside him? The conclusion which must be drawn is that consciousness cannot move forward until this transfer of value is reversed, and the authority of God is seized from the machine and reclaimed by the individual.

III

THE UNRECONCILED INDIVIDUAL

“In reality the ego is like the clown in the circus, who is always putting in his oar to make the audience think that whatever happens is his doing.” (Freud)

The usurpation of authority is but one of the yokes under which Die Zeitgiest writhes, the second is the fragmentation of the individual.

Fragmentation increasingly manifests itself in lack of direction; with respect to career, relationships, life, and the world in general. Although it would seem these waters aren’t nearly as navigable as they once were, this is not the fundamental problem. It is more a matter of the compass rather than the waters. If the instrument of navigation has been tampered with and points to a magnetic north displaced far from true north, then finding oneself lost at sea is an inevitability.

Drawing a metaphor, an unreconciled, fragmented individual is no better at finding direction than is the sabotaged compass. We have here a root cause for anxiety which can be seen masquerading as the seeking of external validation or sanction for significant life decisions, typically involving such matters as relationships and careers. Such is the disconnection from instinct brought about by its systematised depotentiation by external authorities that the individual is increasingly becoming rudderless, subject to drift in whichever direction the current flows.

For the most part, modern man is not a unity, rather an assemblage of discordant fragments which are constantly chafing against one another. Among these fragments are repressed undesirable traits, splinters from other personalities and remnants from past phases of development. Between these unintegrated fragments, there is friction.

Ego or the ‘I’ is the dominant fragment, which in constellation with its supporting fragments constitutes the governing will, primary identity or ‘self’ of the individual. A defining feature of ego is its specific gravity, or propensity to attract and constellate energy to itself, thereby increasing its mass and developing stronger gravity. It is among the tasks of the ego to superimpose itself above the orphaned fragments[2], and control them as firmly as possible, inhibiting their vocalisation, thereby giving the appearance of a composed and socially functional singularity.

Our ego has at its disposal the operating conscious, and we are under its influence save for those rare episodes were impulses from the unconscious evade its control. The ego is the will that presides over and directs the conscious life. It has been speculated that the unconscious mind may have an equivalent, a shadow ego, which presides over unconscious contents, though its will is not obvious because we cannot observe the effects of its action. In so far as the unconscious life plays out in the psychic as opposed to the physical realm, it is like a ghost driver.

Under repression, these unconscious fragments which do not form part of the ego complex are kept beneath the threshold of consciousness until they are activated either on their own accord or by some exogenous provocation. Particularly in the case of the latter, the individual may be reminded that the problem; the darkness or shadow, actually resides within, that they have an abominable, decaying portrait just like Dorian Gray’s[3]. Consequently, rather than allowing itself to be devalued in order to assimilate the stray waifs and wraiths, the ego inclines to be refractory and seeks to assert and increase its dominance over the fragments.

This refractory tendency has two important energic effects. First, the unassimilated shadow fragments, denied of discharge through integration, instead seek to vent themselves via projection[4], thereby creating major distortions in human interrelations. Second, the assertion of ego expends psychic energy, and because the ego isolates the other fragments, it is unable to access their latent energy, and so must source this energy externally.

Though it is yet to be proven, I would venture this energy requirement is partially responsible for the will to power, whereby the insatiable hunger of ego devours every scrap of energy it can procure, apathetic to how it is appropriated. Evidently, were this energy requirement eliminated, it would follow that ego would be a less militant force.

Moving back to the issue at hand, the more beseeching question is why the individual is unreconciled. The answer lies in accumulative imbalances. Through the process of development, there is a heavy a focus on the external and constant evasion of the internal – we are taught to analyse and absorb from without, but not to introspect within. In consequence, the neglected orphan fragments of the individual become increasingly distant and despondent.

Specialisation dominates our world today, and participation is made easier for an individual who has a highly differentiated function. As such, we see a highly prescriptive developmental path which is heavily biased toward honing either the thinking or feeling functions, but seldom focuses on both.

The material and social reward garnered by someone on either extreme is significantly more than the hybrid who sits in the middle. As a direct consequence, only a small proportion of humanity possess some semblance of balance between left and right, and this will continue so long as our visibility of life objectives does not extend to self-actualisation[5].

So, in order to adapt to the environment, efforts are geared toward distinguishing cultivating one function at the expense of the other. The endowment of libido or living energy held by an individual is directed toward logical (aligned with thinking) or abstract (aligned with feeling) outlets, and this dichotomy is encouraged because what is socially valuable, both with respect to survival and recognition/reward, is bestowed upon specialists who endeavour toward an extreme.

Lack of balance arises because the expansion and dominance of one faculty necessarily comes at the expense and suppression of its counterpart, as psychic energy is rerouted. One strengthens with repeated practice and becomes well honed, whilst the neglected other remains undeveloped or wastes away.  It is the exception to find a prodigious scientist who isn’t somewhat emotionally immature, and equally to find a natural virtuoso who can firmly grasp complex chains of reasoning. This conveniently explains the prevalence of weedy or corpulent nerds, and likewise the tendency of meathead gym junkies to be as dumb as dog shit.

Despite the worldly advantages a highly differentiated function affords, the compounding imbalance leaves in its wake an increasingly dejected orphan with whom we are unreconciled. As the orphan is further repressed, becomes more difficult to handle and hence we experience greater strain and anxiety.

IV

THE GENERAL LEVEL OF ANXIETY

“One becomes accustomed so quickly. A man wants to earn money in order to be happy and his whole effort and the best of his life are devoted to the earning of that money. Happiness is forgotten; the means are taken for the end.” (Camus)

The General Level of Anxiety (GLA) and its interface with the energy permeating the world is a large scale replica of anxiety in the individual psychic apparatus. A proportion of the dissonance is borne by each individual’s personal unconscious, and another is levied upon the collective unconscious.

These unconscious repositories can act as a store or capacitor for ‘undesirable’ psychic energy. On grounds of needing to maintain balance, the carrying and handling capacity of the unconscious substrate is finite, which is evidenced by its repressed contents periodically being discharged with varying frequency and intensity.

To understand why the General Level of Anxiety is increasing and where of undesirable[6]  psychic energy originates, I raise the concept of temporal wish fulfilment. Some way or other, wish fulfilment is what we go about doing in the daily business of life and direct a great deal of our time and energy toward.

When we can provide for our immediate wishes, be they material or emotional, we would assume their gratification means no unresolved negative fragments are left seeking a domicile. When we can conceive and visualise the realisation of other wishes in the future, their lack of resolution is discharged by hope/anticipation. Again, this prevents their being sunk into the unconscious at full potency.

In times when humans wanted only for food and shelter, perhaps the unfulfilled wishes went as far as animalistic relics of lust and a bit of violence. Animals discharge these in the manner nature intended and we don’t give it a second glance. Humans (for their civility) by contrast, supress these desires into the unconscious. In addition to instinctive wishes, Die Zeitgeist imposes heavier burdens upon the individual in terms of the (a) number (b) scale, and (c) complexity of wishes that need to be fulfilled.

These wishes, predominantly material, social and metaphysical in nature, are contingent on scarce resources necessary for their attainment (both material resources, and metaphysical resources such as energy and love), the competition for which makes fulfilment difficult. Despite our striving, there are instances where the expectation of future realisation is crushed by circumstance or the futility of our efforts. For every chronically unfulfilled wish, an attaching negative charge of anxiety is created. Because anxiety interferes with conscious existence and it cannot be fully discharged outwardly, it tends to be repressed into the unconscious, out of sight, but not out of mind.

Unfortunately, the unconscious is a store and not a discharger. What goes into it isn’t destroyed, doesn’t decay, it simply stays there waiting for an opportunity to discharge. As much higher loads of toxicity are dumped into the unconscious, so both the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious become increasingly noxious, volatile, and pressurised. Recalling that its carrying capacity is finite, each escalation heightens both the risk and magnitude of discharge. Discharge occurs through different avenues depending on whether it is the personal or the collective.

It is a derivative effect of unfulfilled wishes that some of the anxiety discharge doesn’t get sunk into the unconscious, but is instead directed to other individuals, significantly through projection of the shadow, but also through the solicitation of pity.

The other primary avenue for discharge is dreams. Freud’s Dream Psychology describes the (personal) unconscious as a deep reservoir which is separated from our (personal) conscious by a powerful governor/sentry which is known as the ‘censor.’

The censor keeps the motility of unconscious fragments in check and is vigorously active in waking life. However, at the fringes of consciousness and in the sleep-state, the censor is sufficiently off-guard to allow some diffusion or discharge of unconscious contents into the perception’s field of view as dreams or nightmares.

A subset of dreams are impulses of repressed wishes seeking to be fulfilled. In order for the repressed wish to convey itself past the sentry, it must hitch a ride as a stowaway on some other inert psychic material residing in the preconscious (memory) which is without emotional intensity, and use it in the manner of a bridge.

When the unconscious material attaches itself to a neutral uncharged memory, the resultant compound becomes a charged or ‘toned’ instance and is conveyed through to perception in the form of a dream wherein the wish is figuratively fulfilled, although it does not come through unscathed; the censor first distorts it.

Discharge from the collective unconscious is considerably more complex. Freud attributed the contents of the unconscious to unfulfilled infantile wishes, primarily of a sexual nature, and these being the cause for both discharges in the forms of neurosis and dreams. Jung’s evaluation is less reductionist and altogether a more reasonable concept to carry for its flexibility.

When Jung discusses the collective unconscious, he is alluding to a repository that contains the sum total of human experience across time, from this substrate spawns universal symbols and myths. If we invoke Jung’s understanding, the collective unconscious is an expanse considerably vaster and more enigmatic than the personal unconscious and contains all manner of phantoms which our present understanding is unable to comprehend.

It is also postulated that these unfulfilled impulses (specifically those which are deemed unacceptable) form a not insubstantial proportion of the material which constitutes the individual’s shadow, the hatred of which is projected onto other individuals subconsciously insofar as they share shadow attributes. This is why it is important to step back and assess what it is about a person that rubs you the wrong way, and attempt to reconcile it with your own shadow. In most cases, the attributes are those same ones you dislike about yourself.

Collective projections are the psychological harbingers to wars. We have all likely heard stories involving someone with an irrational hatred toward another individual which becomes obsessive and results in unconscionable behaviour (no pun intended). If we replace the individuals with populations or states, the large-scale projection stirs analogous obsessive hatred and puts countries on the war path.

Increasingly, I get the impression that the collective unconscious needs to discharge and society is being groomed for another war. Debt is a very fertile ground for the intensification of projections because it is very easy to demonise the imprudent, reckless lender, as it is the blasé, extravagant borrower. It remains to be seen whether the current situation will be resolved without recourse to conflict.

IV

AFFLICTIONS OF DIE ZIETGEIST

“I inquired what wickedness is, and I didn’t find a substance, but a perversity of will twisted away from the highest substance – towards inferior things, rejecting its own inner life and swelling with external matter.” (St. Augustine of Hippo)

An impression of Die Zeitgeist can be gauged by observing the behaviours and propensities of the mass. Combing through my collected notes for patterns, I have cautiously rendered them into distinct phenomena. The unreconciled individual and the rise in the general level of anxiety previously described are the higher level infirmities, beneath which lie a second tier of comorbid afflictions common to our time.

Here I have struggled to separate the two elements of Die Zeitgeist. The spirit of the times exists in both the conscious and unconscious realms. Perceived as an iceberg model, it is composed of social consciousness; that visible portion which sits above the waterline, and submerged beneath it the collective unconscious.

Most of the phenomena are observable constellations of behaviours, occurring with high frequency, which manifest in the conscious realm, but which originate from unconscious sources. For this reason, were society a patient being diagnosed, they would well be classed as collective neuroses.

a.       Emotional Hypochondriasis (Dramatism)

Look to the online ravings of many teenagers and twenty-somethings and you will be hit with an overdose of drama.  As an analyst, I am certain that the mini-celebrity status enjoyed by those self-indulgent enough to post every sordid detail of their lives online is illusory and exists entirely within the mind. Perhaps they are not prepared to accept that the vast majority of the world is too busy indulging their own vanity to care about their mountainous molehills.

Among the subjects of this exhibitionism, drama features prominently. Personified, drama is an insufferably vain addict who draws nourishment from external attention. Drama, and for that matter any indulgence of vanity, is necessary insofar as we are unable to reconcile with the prospect of worthlessness; we must place ourselves in a frame in which the world revolves around us. We like the idea of gravity, because only an object with substance may possess this force of attraction. An apparition or hallucination which lacks a physical presence hasn’t the power to pull.

Western media creates material anxiety through what it depicts and glorifies.  Conditioned by unremitting exposure to warped media, the presence of drama in relationships and life in general is regarded as normal. This to the point where there is an inclination to dramatise situations and create drama where it does not exist.

Oftentimes these tendencies manifest in relationships, where the dramatist self-sabotages by failing to communicate properly and openly with the other, hence allowing the drama to escalate.

Instead of discussing the matter in a rational and adult manner with the other, they instead develop an often embellished story which they then relate to close ‘friends.’

I employ inverted commas here because ‘friend’ is another term whose definition has become devalued. A ‘strong’ friend will set aside predisposition, be as objective as possible, even at the risk of inflicting harsh truths. The ‘weak’ friend will be biased in favour of the dramatist, lending their support and empathy, thus strengthening the embellishment through confirmation bias. This is how small trivial problems can escalate to threaten the survival of a relationship.

The gods of pleasure and pain make for harsh taskmasters. To overcome the feeling of fetid stagnation that issues from a highly routinised existence within the machine; the boredom of persisting in a relentless tepid climate, many have taken to oscillating between Saharan heat and Arctic cold; moving between the poles of pleasure and pain in order to feel alive. Drama is needed to drive this oscillation, and it is a reflection of the quickening pulse of society that it occurs with higher frequency, shorter wavelength and heightened amplitude.

Emotional Hypochondriasis is a systemic problem which results in the semi-aware arrogation of libido. Heartstrings are the conduit through which this arrogation is made possible. Obligation is an instilled value across most cultures; obligation which incapacitates individuals and binds them to live for others. One’s own burden is weight enough to bear, but we live under a value system where the individual is expected to laden himself with the burdens of others, as well as his own.

In consequence, there is a loss of energy though friction. Because the bearing of exogenous emotional burden is not natural, it is resisted by the instinctive part of our nature, and creates discord between the instinctive survivalist and the conditioned martyr.

Wherever possible, the focus should be to minimise friction in life precisely because it results in wastage and deadweight loss. Emotional Hypochondriasis – the incessant petitioning for others to bear some share of one’s burden, does nothing for the cause of forward evolution.

b.      Confusion / Psychic Weakness

Increased confusion is an antecedent to Emotional Hypochondriasis. As I overviewed in a prior analysis some years ago, we have a trend of developmental acceleration, seeing children growing up faster than ever before, pushed into adult spheres before their minds have sufficient ability to cope, let alone understand; one example being relationships.

The individual psyche been confused and subdued to the point it no longer appears to trust its own volition. In particular, I refer instances where external sanction is sought to ratify important life decisions. A cohesive individual who is attuned to their  instinct and conscience should not need to seek a second opinion on his or her own major life undertakings.

But for the unattuned individual, when problems or impasses arise within these spheres and there is no adequate authority, the result is bewilderment. Emotion usurps reason, and instead of apprehending the issue with a measured, rational, adult approach, the individual resorts to juvenile tactics; most commonly under the broad categories of aggression, manipulation, aloofness, delusion, and self-pity.

We all like to think that our lives are difficult, stressful and that no-one understands what we’re going through; that somehow we have been singled out by some greater force to experience unique living anxiety.

As to why ‘first world problem’ syndrome occurs, I would posit the gash of adversity has not cut deep enough for true pain to be felt, and therefore the threshold of suffering is necessarily much shallower. This explains why young people disintegrate when a month-long relationship breaks up; their emotional defences have not been put through the same inuring fire as someone who has seen war; they do not possess an adequate relative reference point, nor coping strength or resilience.

Lower handling capacity has dire ramifications for the psychic response to shock. If you’ve spent your life living in a temperate climate and are suddenly thrust into Arctic cold, it is safe to assume you won’t know how to survive. Much of Western youth isn’t bloodied and battle-hardened but complacent, docile and feeble – highly vulnerable to psychic shock brought about by phase shifts in Die Zeitgeist. In this regard, Australia will be the canary in the coal mine for it is inhabited by an entire generation that developed in an incubatory bubble, never directly impacted by economic shock, war, or severe adversity on such a scale. It is therefore not surprising that the majority have weak, fragile minds and will hence crumble fastest upon onset of real adversity.

c.       Narrowing of Effective Range

Historically, effective range (associative aptitude) was predominantly curtailed by a predisposition against association too far outside of one’s social class. Increasingly, this narrowness of association is extending to a broader array of qualities, among them appearance and subculture. With each axis of differentiation we recognise and segregate ourselves by, the recognition given to the common thread of our humanity is reduced, resulting in a more fragmented world soul[7].

Differential value is subjective absurdity because it is perceived by the eyes of a society whose ranking criteria is fickle and idiosyncratic; the internal definition within each sub-class tends to be whichever of the three predominant ranking traits they possess in relative advantage to the other. Broadly termed, these traits are material, intellectual and aesthetic supremacy.

For this reason, a highly intelligent person will tend toward evaluating others based on their level of intelligence; habitually looking down upon ‘simple-minded’ people, and similarly why the affluent tend to snub the working class.

Factors such as differentiated schooling, sheltered/insular upbringings and the continued rise of subculture are strongly comorbid with narrow effective range because they are conducive to social fragmentation. Each of these dynamics explicitly create differentiated groups and foster prejudice indirectly through constrained association. When a group of extremists are isolated together, an escalation in their extremism is often observed.

d.      Talismanic Obsession

I wanted to dwell on this topic because the sheer amount of groping for meaning I witness daily indicates that people are falling. The quest for meaning has instigated increasingly outlandish flirtations with talismanic objects and rituals. The term ‘talisman’ is here extended to both physical objects (traditional talismans) and sinks (activities) into which individuals channel living energy or libido.

Where there is an absence of some activity (work, television, social interaction etc.) that captivates sensory attention, many people experience a feeling of emptiness. The emptiness issues partly from their being uncomfortable in the deafening silence of introspection. As a pastime, introspection isn’t terribly popular because it forces upon the individual a confrontation with his or her own shadow. The dilemma of avoiding this conversation and dealing with emptiness has prompted us to create a veritable smorgasbord of filling provisions with dubious nutritional value.

These provisions are talismans and sinks – perversions of libido (living energy) which distract attention from introspection and attempt to overcome the unreconciled void through extrinsic means.

With respect to talismans proper, the primitive practice of charging random objects with psychic energy remains alive and well. There is no substantive difference between the confidences of a tribal warrior wielding his spear imbued by the village Witch Doctor, than a modern day ‘disciple’ with his crucifix, rabbit foot or quartz crystal.

In the natural world, these items exist as inanimate objects, but in the psychic realm, they have mana[8] attached to them. Particularly under circumstances and situations entailing high uncertainty and insecurity, we observe a reversion to this ‘magical’ practice because there is a belief that god (in the sense of power and meaning) is without and not within.

Sinks (activities into which time is sunk which don’t materially or spiritually enrich) operate on a similar premise; to address anxiety in a way that is externally focussed and evades introspection. So too with the vesting of authority in ‘experts’ and the creation of gods in entertainers.

What is striking about talismans is that they are all forms of external authority which have arisen in part because humanity has been disabused of its natural compulsion to trust its own instinct and recognise internal authority. The creature has had its senses blunted and been trained to heed directives from external authorities and idols, almost without question, and is left in a state of confusion in the absence of authority.

Whether it be an object (magic eight ball, religious totem), a person (celebrity, guru, clairvoyant) or activity (work, television), any authority to which we cede our living energy or time should be subjected to a test or interrogation of motive. Where there is a clear reason to entrust time and libido (for example, working to earn a living or to create) or necessity, so be it. But where the motives are less noble, particularly those of distracting or escaping from the self, we should question why we are doing it and whether that time and energy could be better directed.

V

THE DIONYSIAN SHIFT: VICE & FOLLY

“It is not man who counts, but his one differentiated function. Man no longer appears as man in our collective culture: he is merely represented by a function, what is more he identifies himself with this function and denies the relevance of the other inferior functions.” (Jung)

Ancient Greek philosophy distinguishes two polar opposites, the Apollonian character, representing the mind, form, order, reason, and moderation, against its opposite, the Dionysian, which encompasses the heart, abstraction, chaos, emotion and indulgence. In a very simple reduction, the extremes could be represented as ‘work’ and ‘play.’

The ideal proportion between the two is not the topic of consideration because they are qualitative forces which evade numerical measurement. We can however make broad, relative observations in the balance of Apollonian and Dionysian leanings between individuals, cultures, institutions, and epochs.

A society with too great an Apollonian dominance becomes patriarchal, oppressed and austere. It petrifies and its movement is lamed.

A society with too great a Dionysian dominance becomes shambolic, superficial, and complacent. It dissolves and its sight is blinded.

When approached from the standpoint which views equilibrium as the optimal state, then if there is an escalating imbalance toward one pole, so too is there accretion in the countervailing force which eventually deposes whatever mode is incumbent[9]. The one gives rise to the other as surely as night follows day.

Following the receding of the Apollonian dominance after second world war, Die Zeitgeist is presently gripped by a growing Dionysian dominance.Particularly amongst the younger generations, this shift toward the Dionysian pole is markedly pronounced. Heavier indulgence is the counter to more strenuous conditions of existence and it is strikingly evident in their speak, dress, occupations, distractions, values and mentality.

Continuing shifts have a cascading character; with each new generation, the percentage of dominance increases such that Generation-Y may be 70% Dionysian, and Generation-Z 80% Dionysian, until such time as there is a shock, such as war, which causes inversion. At the other end of the cascade, older, less Dionysian generations are influenced by the times, so become more Dionysian, and the oldest, least Dionysian generations die out. In this way the entirety of society undergoes a secular shift.

In character, we could take the example of a Paris Hilton and a Sigmund Freud and ask which one modern day society most closely resembles. Figurative auto-erotic stimulation, creation for its own sake, embellishment serving no functional purpose. We live in a world where entire cities rise for show rather than necessity. Our society is Dionysian, and its prominence is most clear in the dominions of vanity and kitsch.

a.       Ascendency of Vanity

Some years ago I was quoted as saying “stupidity is the world’s greatest disease.” I now have reason to retract this statement – for stupidity has been displaced with a viler affliction: vanity. Vanity is the world’s greatest disease. A society full of stupid people is bad, but a world of vain ones is catastrophic.

Having been a feature of humanity for time immemorial, vanity is not a recent phenomenon, however the past decade has seen an extreme escalation in its intensity. Today is an era of rancid excess where many of the dividends of time and energy afforded by technology and development have been squandered into pagan pursuits, decadence and surreal indulgences.

A moderate amount of vanity is a tolerable vice, but it becomes dangerous when it holds enough sway to have a meaningful impact in driving misallocation and appropriation of productive resources. Last week, I walked past two bakeries that sold baked goods exclusively for dogs within a space of half an hour. No further comment need be made.

b.            Ascendancy of Kitsch

Many a life now appears to be a cheap, mass-produced knock-off. Kitsch, as an ideal, represents the devaluation of originality, the elevation of imitation over emulation and the treacherous one-sidedness that all but flatly denies the existence of darkness.

Kitsch is best represented by in the spiritual sense by warm and fuzzy positive-thinking mumbo-jumbo otherwise known as ‘New Age’, and in the material sense by fashions and hollow, commoditised art.

The end of art is to create something meaningful. The finest pieces tend to be possessed of ethereal resonance and the ability to transport the beholder. Great art, both visual and lyrical, is often prized for its communication and reflection of unconscious sentiments and imagery which are outside the expressive range of the mass, and has the ability to generate the reverberation of speaking with ten thousand voices.

Art is the product of primordial creative force seizing an individual and making him its instrument. It is not the slag manufactured by the creative horde pleading “love me!” to the world who create to indulge their vain fantasy or line their pockets.

This dictum of ingenuity as opposed to imitation applies equally to the individual. The original has realised substance and subsumed it. The imitator must plagiarise and often needs validation in the form of followers to neutralise his Pinocchio Complex. Unable to become real, he remains a replica cast from the same Kitsch mould; his only claim of repute is being a limited edition screen-print from a run of ten thousand.

Kitsch is the most dangerous where it attempts to postulate paths to enlightenment which are exclusively progressive, explicitly negating all notions of descent. Kitsch preaches all manner of warm, soft, cud-like ideals which are easy to digest and creates a class of half-blinds who fail to recognise that truth is more often found lying in vile rankness at the bottom of a very deep well than it is perched atop a marble staircase.

The aspects of vanity and kitsch aspect are linked to the incidence and magnitude of surrealism. When Dionysian society is rich and hedonistic, it squanders its time and libido into the superfluous. Both its products: material, intellectual, spiritual, and its populace become absurd derivatives twice removed from reality.

VI

HYPERREALITY & IMAGO

“Conditioned from the cradle, unceasingly distracted, mesmerised systematically, their uniformed victims would go on obediently marching and counter-marching, go on, always and everywhere, killing and dying with the perfect docility of trained poodles.” (Huxley)

Among younger generations, there is a very significant shift in consciousness occurring. It pertains specifically to the substitution of fantasy and derivatives for reality and originals. This phenomenon is occurring across numerous domains: social interaction, art, consumption, and life itself through the diversion of time and energy into sinks.[10]

Generation-Z particularly, being conditioned by technology from an early age, do not adequately distinguish between love garnered in the online world through such things as Tumblr followings or Facebook friends and love garnered in the actual world from embodied friendships and relationships. In fact, they almost treat the two as substitutes.

Wish fulfilment at a wholesale level is gradually being transplanted from physical to electronic realisation, and the human psyche trained to accept the latter as a valid substitute for the former. Although this may well be a fiendishly elegant solution to overconsumption of physical resources, it places another degree of separation between the consciousness and soul of the individual.

This ‘Hyperreality’ and the vesting therein of life, is the essence of degeneration because it devalues the real and replaces it with phantoms. Those immersed in Hyperreality adapt better to a contrived environment at the expense of proficiency at life.

We live under a quickening delta of change and successive generations have declining capacity to reconcile with the system they exist in because it changes faster than their ability to adapt to it, creating repressive feelings of anxiety and alienation.

Developmental practices have not kept adequate pace with the increasing complexity of living and changing value systems. Parenting routes tend to follow either an Apollonian or Dionysian[11]  dominance, which creates unbalanced individuals with lower adaptive capacity. Under such circumstances, the fall-back is typically to backslide into nostalgia, but one who attempts to live in a past which is forever being paved over will be buried alive. The alternative escape which defrays, discharges and distracts living anxiety: Hyperreality.

Broadly speaking, where the parents have followed the conventional path and raised the child under an Apollonian value system which encompasses hard work, material achievement, career, thus obtaining a certain ‘position’ in the order; that child won’t tend to have much trouble integrating and living the artifice so long as he or she is not somehow influenced to stray from the beaten track. A fixation on ascending the career and social ladders is comorbid.

Such children inevitably develop into the adults who form relationships conforming to a ‘trophy couple’ stereotype. The trophy couple will often have a top quintile household income, and preoccupy themselves with such matters as which private school to send their children to, hosting dinner parties, seeking out latte venues and jumping on the latest wellbeing bandwagon/fad. In short, what may be described as a very shallow, plastic life, suffused in epicurean materialism. They tend to consume culture and reproduce it in a manner not dissimilar to the bovine conversion of grass to regurgitated cud. Personality disorders such as narcissism are common in this group and depression manifests due to a particularly agonising feeling of spiritual emptiness which often accompanies a materialist lifestyle.

At the other end of the spectrum, the children of magical parents, raised under a Dionysian bias, are oft crushed by the iron heel of society and have an uncanny propensity to end up with substance abuse habits and/or affective disorders. It is in part attributable to the absence of grounding in reality, as they are not properly trained and equipped to handle, nor operate within the society they are born into. It is seen frequently among those raised in the country who move to the city – very few fully adapt. The venom of institutionalisation is one which must be injected early on in life if one is to have any chance of developing immunity. Like the savage transplanted from the reservation to the Brave New World of Aldous Huxley, their inability to fully integrate is often chronic.

Some combination of material and metaphysical anxiety is experienced by both groups, and where escape to the past is not possible, Hyperreality is superimposed upon reality to make it more endurable.

Libido (living energy) and time is thus taken from real life and directed into the Hyperreal sphere, where a higher proportion is wasted for no meaningful gain.

It is not a long bow to draw a comparison with the futurist film The Matrix, which depicts a dystopia wherein the majority of humanity is psychologically incarcerated by the Hyperreality of the film’s namesake. Consciousness was moved from a domain of heavy psychical constraint (physical dystopia), to a domain with relative freedom (artificial Matrix). The allusion to humans being used as batteries in is not an insinuation; it is but a more vicious iteration of present reality. Billions of docile animals having the proverbial lifeblood sapped from their veins, yet oblivious for their diversion to a hallucinogenic image of reality.

These hallucinogenic images could be represented as simulacra if they represented a likeness, however they do not. A simulacra stipulates resemblance as a condition and there is no similarity between a game and real life. To the best of our knowledge, you only get to play the latter once.

Loosely related to the simulacra is the pursuit of ideas or images versus actuals, such as vintage reproduction where an inauthentic likeness is elevated almost to the level of the original. How this transaction is accomplished psychologically hasn’t been demarcated, but its basis rests in our ability to create and relate to imagos.

An imago is a composite object-relationship comprised of an object and projections of the subject. It is the intermediary method by which people attach to an ‘idea’ of something rather than the thing itself. The object-relationship created when an individual (the subject) takes some real attributes of an item or person (the object), and manipulates them, distorting/exaggerating or otherwise imbuing them with emotional bias such that the relationship they create is not to the actual object, but to a strange compound (imago) which is part object and part the subject’s psychological projection.

When this happens and the object disappears, the compound and the subject’s attachment live on. This can be observed distinctly in how people speak about and feel toward someone who’s departed or an ex-partner. It is the strangest thing how despite the lack of an object, the imago persists and is still able to draw significant amounts of energy. The imago represents a dangerous departure from objective reality.

Materialism and consumerism rely significantly on imago dynamics to sell. The entire mantra of advertising is to endow inanimate objects, products and brands with illusory qualities and the creation of irrational associations.

A prominent example is the transcript below, from an financial institution[12] , which attempts to sentimentalise the bank as a person with human qualities.

I was born a hundred years ago.

I helped bring the world closer to home.

I saw men search for dreams at Broken Hill.

And watched my best mates leave.

It was like the world caught fire.

And then Victoria did.

But come what may, Australians always stood strong.

Like Don Bradman carrying an entire country on his shoulders.

Or Lance Hill’s great leap forward.

And me? I taught children to save.

And helped build homes. Millions of them.

I can’t believe how often I saw the impossible become possible.

Or hope become history.

I am Australian.

And I am your bank.

Reification (Verdinglichung- the taking of an object and applying human qualities to it) as a practice has conditioned much of the civilised world to high pliability, such that an external entity can create or change values with less resistance. In consequence, we have object fetishism, infantile hysteria toward hyperreal objects such as celebrities and fictional characters, and real emotions being projected onto objects.

It is underappreciated just how plastic the human mind is – influences impress themselves subliminally by continuous repeated exposure. Continued exposure leads to people equating what they see or read with reality, and this is particularly pervasive with cinematographic and audio-visual media. Plato’s Republic identified the phenomenon behind Hyperreality with its Allegory of the Cave[13] over two and a half thousand years ago.

VII

A CONTRACT WITH CHRONOS

“Debt is the slavery of the free.’ (Publilius Syrus)

Debt is a charge over an entity’s future which can be crystallised and results in enforceable but illusory obligation upon the entity. Applied to an individual, it represents a wish fulfilment today or diminution in current anxiety at the cost wish fulfilment tomorrow or increased future anxiety.

I have devoted a moderate allocation of words to debt, because of both its rôle as a temporary alleviator of conscious anxiety, and its more sinister function as a means of control.

Debt may have come about as an innovative, yet tragically elegant to Karl Marx’s notion of Capitalism eventually being checked by its own realisation.

A necessary by-product of a capitalist system is excess production. We invoke the identity here that income is equal to production. That is to say, that if an economy produces a hundred dollars of goods, then the income shared between Labour and Capital in that economy will also be a hundred dollars. If we assume the income is split fairly, Labour gets fifty dollars (wages), and Capital also gets fifty dollars (profit). Labour uses its fifty dollars to consume goods, whereas Capital cannot consume its entire fifty dollar share, so the economy (specifically, Capital) is left with say, twenty dollars of unconsumed surplus goods that need to go somewhere. In a mercantile system, this surplus can be exported, and thus the excess production is converted back into capital. This needs to happen if Capital is to propagate itself, as is the nature of the beast.

Theoretically, when the world is entirely populated by developed, capitalist economies, there will be no undeveloped economies to absorb all the excess production. This invariably poses a problem because it is reflective of imbalance. If time is allowed to absorb the surplus, then the wheels of production must turn slower until the surplus is absorbed, which requires unemployment.

No country desires unemployment for it creates social instability and burdens the government; so faced with this issue, a sovereign may choose to depreciate its currency, thereby making its surplus production cheaper and thus easier to hawk on the international market. If every country is trying to achieve the same end, currency and trade wars ensue and a vicious cycle takes hold that can end in a physical war.[14]

How can this be subverted? We need to find a way to absorb all this surplus. What if we could get Labour to consume more than the fifty dollars it earns? What if we could somehow get Labour to consume seventy dollars’ worth instead, using Capital’s money, and oblige them to pay it back from their future wages, with interest?

In this way wage slaves came to be: an enforceable charge is created over Labour in favour of Capital, and the power of Capital over Labour is hence strengthened. Interest works as a compensatory mechanism, through which value is transferred from a debtor to a creditor, in this case from Labour to Capital.

Debt stokes the fire which keeps the machine running. Money provides this fuel by incentivising the production of goods and services. Prior to the advent of debt, the capacity to consume these goods and services was delimited to whatever money of his own the individual had at current. If all you had was a dollar, it was not possible to purchase and consume two dollars’ worth of goods.

Debt is efficacious because of an orchestration. In the first sense, we have created a conditioned world which wants more than it needs. No longer content with the basics required for survival, it desires superfluous indulgence beyond the point of triviality. In the second, we have conceived the idea of possession and developed property rights. Together, they constitute the foundation for a society with an ownership fetish which is reflected in our chronic selfishness. It’s mine I tell you.

Thus by a drive to possess, we are possessed. In consequence, the possessed frequent Chronos to draw contracts of debt, exchanging the future for the present.

No one is ‘forced’ to deal with Chronos. The assumption of debt is simply acknowledging your desire to live beyond your present means and consequent willingness to make a trade-off: less tomorrow for more today. In essence, it is a very simple contract, but for the value of consideration.  If you sell your soul to the devil, the transaction is transparent, you know what it will cost you, but when you borrow from Chronos, he does not give you the interest rate.

Debt and its demand to be repaid create an effective charge on the soul, a condition whose potential harmfulness cannot be estimated at the point of its accrual. Perhaps it is not coincidental that the verb to contract is also the operative for disease.

At a collective, aggregated level, debt does not exist, because all charges on one in favour of another cancel out when taken together as a whole. If X owes Y a dollar, Y owes Z a dollar, and Z owes X a dollar, the system is a closed circle. Hypothetically, if everyone in the world repaid their debts tomorrow (assuming they had the ability to do so), each would possess what he is presently entitled to possess. However, it is now culturally ingrained in the modern psyche that the fruits of debt are something of an entitlement based on a vague undertaking to take from the future. Debt may be classed as a Hyperreal representation of a promissory obligation.

In literature, time travel tends to have side effects, most notably when the future is altered because of the impact the time traveller has when he goes back into the past: his mere presence there changes the future. Similarly, when money is taken from the future, it has an impact on the present, which then sets the future on a different course. The interest rate cannot, by virtue of sheer ineptitude, objectively mediate nor neutralise this variation.

Debt as a concept bears some striking parallels with the balances of psychic energy between individuals. No small amount of the world’s anxiety exists due to charges individuals hold upon one another, through relations of expectation, authority and loyalty among other things. Because we recognise these charges as valid, the individual is unable to feel freedom, being perpetually at the mercy of another’s whims. Human beings trade on this, actively seeking to increase the charges they hold upon others to placate and compensate for those charges under which they are bound.

Were we all to release our own emotional holds upon others, the general level of anxiety would be reduced dramatically. However, this canon underlying human interaction is deeply ingrained, so again, it will take focussed conscious effort to simply accomplish a reversal in the accumulation of charges, and so reducing the level of charges will be a very gradual process.

In many cases, it is the same senseless logic with which one person may hold an active grudge against another. There is a needless and wholly futile expenditure and wastage of psychic energy.

VIII

THE INCUMBENCY OF POWER

“We are in power. Nobody will deny it. By virtue of that power we shall remain in power…We have no words to waste on you. When you reach out your vaunted strong hands for our palaces and purpled ease, we will show you what strength is. In roar of shell and shrapnel and in whine of machine-guns will our answer be couched. We will grind you revolutionists down under our heel, and we shall walk upon your faces. The world is ours, we are its lords, and ours it shall remain. As for the host of labour, it has been in the dirt since history began, and I read history aright. And in the dirt it shall remain so long as I and mine and those that come after us have the power. There is the word. It is the king of words -Power. Not God, not Mammon, but Power. Pour it over your tongue till it tingles with it. Power.”

Wickson’s chilling psalm in Jack London’s The Iron Heel bluntly illustrates the incumbency of power.

Wherever there are substantial vested political and financial interests, and these interests are in power, it is reasonable to assume that they will go to extensive lengths to maintain that power. Power has a certain inertia to it; it is inclined to preside over whatever action it deems necessary to maintain its position, such being the principle of self-preservation. It also has significant material and political resources at its disposal, not least of which is the programmed dependency among the vast majority of the constituency.

A great deal of nervous energy is building up in the collective unconscious today, in both the Occident and the Orient. As we have already observed with recent rioting in Egypt and Greece, where there is no regulated release valve, nervous energy is unleashed in an animalistic fashion with destructive consequences.

Clashes between those attempting to prop the denizen system up) and those who seek to tear it down will become more frequent and intense, creating more instability.

Where an adequate amount of fear, instability and uncertainty exist, the uninformed populace will surrender liberties to a higher authority which says “leave it to me” and promises to assuage that fear. To maintain the status quo, any increase in chaos must necessarily be met be a commensurate increase in control. It is a precondition that the level of chaos must first increase before more power is surrendered to authority. It cannot be any other way because without chaos, there is no need for an authority to control it; the one begets the other.

Traditionally, these higher authorities have been Governments, but this may not be the case going forward. Fractures are appearing in democracy; the governments of the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and many European states are increasingly impotent on account of weak governing mandates which border on being non-existent. The economic systems of the West are overwhelmingly dependent on the pyrrhic magic of debt, and inordinate amounts of manipulation and interference are being used in an effort to hold the whole shambolic mess together. Laissez Faire capitalism by definition (literally ‘leave it alone’) precludes interference; therefore we should be seriously questioning the ongoing viability of Capitalism as it stands when interventions are occurring on their current scale and frequency.

What is now becoming evident is that the traditional Western system is in imperial decline and the institutions which have hitherto been critical to maintaining the psychic status quo in the world are obsolete and straining visibly. The stage is set for another psychic crisis.

Psychic crises are best described as large-scale neuroses that take hold of a population, whose familiar symptoms include depression, anxiety, anger, uncertainty, instability and despair. A psychic crisis can be triggered by severe imbalances, unremitting oppression, psychological overload or a concentration of projection.

World War II was the most illustrious example of the latter in modern history. A society or nation whose psychic environment is characterised by tension or hostility brought about by economic hardship, in-fighting, corruption and poor security is at higher risk of riot, revolution and civil war. To mitigate this risk, a sovereign can mobilise and discharge the nervous energy of its populace by redirecting it against an outside enemy, having the effect of subordinating internal conflicts as the constituency bands together against a perceived common external threat.

It begins with a propaganda campaign seeking to demonise the target group and attribute negative projections, thereby reducing its moral standing. When the target’s position is reduced to a certain point, it becomes palatable and permissible to initiate physical violence on moral grounds. Propaganda is often an anticipatory measure intended to ratify forthcoming action.

World War II was a psychic crisis, and I can’t help but feel a sense of foreboding that the conditions are ripening for it to happen again. We need only look at the media, and how it grooms perspective with its subliminally nefarious wordplay. Men, women and children are not killed in military operations, they are ‘insurgents.’ Fatal mistakes are classified as ‘collateral damage.’ Those with markedly different opinions are labelled ‘extremists.’

The United States has developed mass projection into something of an art form. It seems whenever the citizenry get particularly angsty, war gets declared on some unfortunate autocratic schlep. However, it would be amiss to single out America for it is a global phenomenon. The sovereign debt crisis is causing immense tension in many countries, and under such circumstances, self-interest tends to prevail over collective resolution. Should resultant trade protectionism and currency manipulation eventuate in coming years, we will see a marked increase in xenophobic propaganda and deterioration in international relations.

Populations will become more pliable as their plight seeks an outlet, and politicians, whose vocation specifically attracts those with a will to power, will seize upon and leverage this pliability. Time and again we have seen horrifying machines of war being built and put to use. Akin to the boy who is given a new toy – it is only a minority that derive utility from simply admiring it; most are compelled with a desire to take it out of its box and play with it.

This is the political path of least resistance: do whatever necessary to keep the system going – because the alternative would be millions of deaths. The dependency level is now so high that the majority of Western civilisation would not be able to survive (on its own materialistic definition) should the system collapse. Weighing up this option on a scale, some very heavy things, which do a great deal of damage (war among them) could be placed on the other side of the scale to prevent systemic collapse because their relative cost would be less. Those atop the pyramid always have the most to lose, thus their uncompromising determination to preserve the structure.

IX

SOCIOLOGICAL PROGNOSIS

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society” (Krishnamurti)

A subtle, but significant polarisation is currently underway – albeit in its infancy; that between those who will cling to the old system, and those who will inaugurate the new. This is the Great Polarisation and may take many decades to occur. Mainstream disintegration will be caused at some juncture by a corresponding polarisation, occurring simultaneously, but which will likely advance faster. The Lesser Polarisation is now well underway, characterised by a widening of distance between extremes and diminution of the middle. In context of material wellbeing, the gap between rich and poor is being amplified. In context of consciousness, the abyss between the aware and the ignorant is expanding.

The polarisation of social class will increase markedly as Generation-Z reaches household-formation age. There will be a smaller intellectual class with financial literacy and higher capacity for independent and rational thought, and a larger constituency of rabble whose minds will be plasticine in the hands of stultifying overlords (media, gurus, marketers, populist politicians). The former will be exploited mercilessly by the latter until oppression reaches a degree sufficient to cause civil unrest.

This new ‘drifter’ class will be characterised by its lack of property ownership, propensity to live hand-to-mouth, and addictions toward sinks[15] which pacify or distract their anxiety. The psychological toll exacted upon this class will be severe, but there will be no shortage of diversions made available to manage their increasing dissonance.

Escapist reliance on sensory distraction, alcohol, and other conscience-deadening drugs will increase, as will self-pity and emotional leeching through the manipulation of charges. Higher anxiety will be met with the temporally unscrupulous solution of trading off the future for the present, thereby deferring and sharpening the inevitable reckoning. Incidences of depression and mood disorder will risk markedly, and there will be a multiple of co-morbidity as mid-life hits and people realise although the first half of their lives have been a relative cruise, the second half is going to be arduous.

There will be a decline in the birth rate on economic grounds, and further government support for education and family welfare may be curtailed to foot the massive healthcare, pharmaceutical and pension burden of the baby boomers. The alternative will be mandated increases in the length of working life to mitigate stress on the system by shifting the weight onto the individual.

There will be a marked increase in dysfunctional marriages as younger couples wed prior to developing an adequate understanding of the gravity of commitment. This will occur because the institution of marriage will come to be regarded more as a means to assuage anxiety through financial security, stability and property ownership, in short, it will become commoditised. The rising feeling of individual incompleteness will promote unions for reasons of fulfilment, and union with the partner will be taken as a crude substitute for the individual’s reconciliation with his or her own soul.

There will be a resultant swell in the ranks of maladjusted youths as the increased work projection load upon parents takes its toll on the psychical environment in the home, both in terms of higher stress and reduced freedom.  As such, the growth being witnessed in artifices offering escapist utility (consumerism, video games, drugs, gratuitous sex) will continue to flourish, and their character will become increasingly surreal. These sinks will absorb a large amount of the individual’s time, means, and energy to counteract the dissonance experienced from harsher economic slavery.

Whether voluntarily or involuntarily, a way will be found through which to extract more of the individual’s life force and keep him in submission to Deus Ex Machina. Unsought items will continue to be invented, and needs fabricated to absorb more of the financial resources for which the individual sacrifices his time and energy.

A poorer ‘deal’ will place the individual under greater oppression because he will have to surrender more authority and autonomy, and in return he will receive less protection, weaker property rights, flimsier safety nets, and lower psychological security.

Individual sovereignty will be subordinated to the nebulous but defensible ‘common good,’ except under the guise of ‘maintaining stability’ and aspects of the forsaken societies depicted in London’s Iron Heel (1907), Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (1957), Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) and Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) will become increasing representative of modern reality. I avail myself of the term ‘increasingly’ because the aspects are already representative of today. This will come to be unless change is compelled and action is taken to correct runaway imbalances.

X

IMBALANCES & ENANTIODROMIA

 “It is hard to come to terms with the errors of the times: if you oppose them, you stand alone; if you allow yourself to be caught up in them, you get neither honour nor joy in the process.” (Goethe)

Enantiodromia is a concept intimated by Heraclitus whereby an extreme or excess eventually produces its opposite. Such reversals may be gradual or violent. Jung posits of Enantiodromia that, whether visible or not, as there is a move away from equilibrium toward an extreme (an imbalance), a compensatory force builds which eventually causes a reversion or inversion, not unlike the lengthy drought broken by monsoonal rain.

As a rubber band is stretched, an opposite tension builds because it desires to return to its natural state. The further it is stretched, the more powerful the tension and the greater effort required to stretch it further. A point is reached where either the rubber band is stretched to its limit and snaps, or the stretching force is overcome by latent tension, causing it to snap back. It is only at the point of natural equilibrium that this tension does not exist.

Many of the psychological, social and economic phenomena I’ve described are direct and indirect manifestations of imbalance. Beholding the chronicles of history, we are repeatedly confronted with long periods of authoritarian repression leading to upheaval, just as credit card spending binges are followed by austerity and bottling of negative emotion most always discharged in violent outburst.

Die Zeitgeist is subject to this self-same equilibrating force and current imbalances prevalent in society will be no different to the rubber band. If China continues to suppress freedoms, there will be a civil uprising at some point. If Western countries continue to kick fiscal cans down the road, they will eventually explode. If we continue to gorge ourselves, hedonism will ultimately yield to asceticism.

Reversions of this nature are precipitated on the same principle as lightning. The meteorological phenomenon is born of a potential difference between the negative charge of the storm cloud and the positive charge of the ground, which escalates until a critical point where the polar energies are equalised with spectacular, vaporising discharge.

In much the same way, Die Zeitgeist (The Spirit of the Times) inhabits conscious ego which holds the reins of the physical world and directs its course. On the other side, the unconscious carries a primeval imprint, an equilibrium which is not subject to whatever modern folly (The Spirit of the Depths).

As we see the conscious world become increasingly carried away, occupying itself with surreal pursuits and values, the potential difference between the Spirit of the Times and the Spirit of the Depths escalates. Stronger dissonance is created as consciousness moves further away from its natural equilibrium. The unconscious accumulates this tension which must ultimately discharge.

Already we are beginning to see a real and observable change occurring in the general perception. An increasing number of people are beginning to realise they are unfulfilled, and the pain this lack of fulfilment causes is getting sharper. The knowledge that the system is wrong is emerging from the shadows of the unconscious and knocking harder on the door of consciousness. This is a mere trickle of The Spirit of the Depths discharging into The Spirit of the Times. Despite increasing levels of awareness however, the mass of humanity will be loath to act because they are materially comfortable, and further tied to the machine, depending upon it not only for their own livelihood, but for the livelihood of their families. Heartstrings are spun of a weave stronger than Kevlar and such moral imperatives (providing for one’s children) are exceptionally resilient. Because of this reliance, this staying power of the status quo, the shift will be far from easy.

High hopes cannot be held for humanity if we recognise the sheer scale of the phase shift required. Brutal introspection is needed to confess the problem’s source is all within – it is of little use seeking a scapegoat, or impugning a nebulous ‘society’ as if it were person. Requisite wisdom is also an obstacle given its short supply across all generations. Although wisdom is normally associated with age, age does not necessarily bring wisdom, as commonly observed in adults who conduct themselves like children.

Further, the tendency for incumbent perspectives to petrify with age means the ability and appetite to change declines with age because any digression compounds[16] more powerfully with each passing year, as does the amount of time and effort required to change. Whilst a sapling is still pliable, crooked growth can be corrected, but once hardened, any effort to change its course will snap the tree’s bough. It becomes harder to relieve someone from an illusion the longer they’ve been under the spell, because it displaces their reality. Change among the older generations thus tends to be precipitated by severe trauma rather than by individual volition.

Youth, on the other hand, has much passion and tenacity, as it often demonstrated with regard to social justice and political issues, but its energy is squandered because it is blind. For the most part, youth has limited comprehension of concealed workings and is extremely narrow in conscious range and shallow in depth. Inherently, the danger is that youth does not have a particular new direction in mind; it only seeks change, more specifically reversal, and pays little heed to its broader and derivative consequences.

Many of the causes from which youth extract moral supremacy are paralleled by deep hypocrisies. The standard of living we enjoy today is the culmination of luck and centuries of expropriation which has created a small pocket of wanton prosperity. Protesters at rallies are incapable of acknowledging that the teat they suckle conveys the blood of the oppressed into their gullets.

In introspection, if were I to acknowledge what I am, the unfair advantages I have, and the injustice wrought upon so many that allows me to live this life, and truly I believed in equality, perhaps the only course of action which would preserve my integrity would be to shoot myself. The only saving grace is that an individual’s deservingness of his life cannot be affirmed nor negated. That is to say, if a person’s life today is a normative product of what they did in past lives, then the entire debate about justice and equality is rendered sterile.

Tolstoy’s clock shows the wrong time because it is either too fast or slow – and he astutely notes that one can either recalibrate its internal movement or simply move the hands. One action corrects the underlying cause; the other merely gives a temporary appearance of correction. Our times are like Tolstoy’s crooked clock. Assessing the methods presently being employed to address the issues and imbalances of Die Zeitgeist, they are analogous to tinkering with the clock’s hands – there isn’t the will to open the clock and get our hands dirty. An individual operates on the same premise, preferring to stultify or entertain himself rather than confront the unconscious contents causing his neurosis.

Imbalances need not be corrected by the unpredictable, whip-lash inducing reversions stipulated by Enantiodromia. The stretched rubber band doesn’t have to snap back, it can be eased back to its natural state. This orderly correction can be achieved, contingent on a willingness to endure opening and fixing the clock: the unsettling process of admission, understanding and integration. Without such a process, true advancement cannot occur.

X

CONCLUSION

“It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And you cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary, decent egg. We must be hatched or go bad.” (C. S. Lewis)

We sail aboard a ship which many of us subconsciously know is sinking, but we are loath to jump overboard and swim for land so long as we can delude ourselves that she will stay afloat. We are fearful of the harrowing passage across icy waters, and anxious about what we may or may not find ashore.

With respect to a way forward, it is dangerously naïve to think the world, today’s Zeitgeist, can turn, as it were, on a dime. Personified, it is a chain smoker, chronic alcoholic and binge eater, who understands these things are harmful, yet finds them excruciatingly difficult to cease. Better still; consider how difficult it is to change some unfavourable pattern or trait in your personality. An addiction which is developed and ingrained over so long a period effectively becomes part of you.

The conditions afflicting our epoch are of a similar nature; powerful addictions cultivated over many decades and centuries, requiring a correspondingly colossal effort to overcome. To relieve someone from an illusion that has been trusted (and compounded) for many years is not an easy feat. It is often the case that removing the parasite kills the host. I have never encountered higher resistance, and it is not surprising that when you tell a man he is an animal, in his fanatical effort to repudiate the claim, he becomes one.

Therefore, it is impractical to suggest such fundamental change can be achieved in the near future save for some biblical catalyst. A cold-turkey approach cannot bring about a release from dependency without causing withdrawal shock or regression.

Though it has been overridden by heavy conditioning, we still possess a primeval imprint of the way we ought to live. To reacquaint with it, there is a long and laborious process of acknowledgement and dissolution that need first be accomplished. With each successive layer of the onion peeled away, more tears will flow, and the task will be a generational undertaking of sustained conscious effort.

At the individual level, we will need to incrementally change our perceptions, judgements, behaviours and interactions to realign values and bring about the required repatriation of energy back to the Soul, not least of which, as indicated by Jung, is the acknowledgement and withdrawal of the shadows we project onto others.

Inertia will build in small increments until the transformative force takes hold and becomes self-sustaining, gathering momentum until it eventually leads to a conscious evolution.

”The road that leads towards happiness from the inside out, through health, through awareness, through a change in one’s attitude towards the world; not towards the mirage of happiness from the outside in, through toys and pills and non-stop distractions.” (Huxley)

P. X. Waterstone, Melbourne, 8th January 2012

Appendix I

THE ZERO-SUM GAME

Wherein it is explained why ‘Occupy’ protesters are hypocrites.

Within its own confines, the financial system is a zero-sum game, which means that for there to be a winner, there must be a loser on the other side. It is also a closed loop: if all the wins are added together, they shall exactly equal the sum of the losses.

The very same system facilitates both accumulations of ludicrous wealth and an Occupy protester’s luxury to demonstrate at his leisure.

Simplistically, whenever I earn a dollar, it does not materialise from thin air. In a zero-sum game, that dollar must be surrendered by someone else. This can happen in a number of ways:

  • Directly, by subtracting it from someone else’s material livelihood
  • Directly, by subtracting it from someone else’s future livelihood through the creation of a debt
  • Indirectly from a population, by the devaluation of money’s purchasing power (inflation[17])

Let us assume the protester is law-abiding and, rather than fare evade, paid for his public transport ticket to get to the protest. The dollar which he used to pay for his ticket likely comes from wages or transfer payments. In the first case, the money is a part share of the dollars taken from the consumer of whatever good or service which his labour helped produce or provide. In the second case, the money is part of a redistribution of dollars taken from taxpayers which is given him by the government. In both cases, that dollar has come from someone else.

Now let’s turn to the multibillionaire. He is exactly the same as the protester, in that his money is a share of the dollars taken from the consumers of whatever good or service he has helped produce. The exceptions are that (a) his contribution likely consisted of capital and entrepreneurial skill rather than just labour, and (b) the good or service in question was more valuable.

Both use the same system, but at different orders of magnitude. So, it is by virtue of the financial system that the protester has the free time to protest. Without the financial system, he would likely be too busy scrounging around for his next meal.

Appendix II

ECONOMIC DISEQUILIBRIUM

In which the concept of economic disequilibrium as it relates to trade relations between sovereigns and currency fluctuation is expounded.

Echoing Appendix 1, the global financial system is also a zero-sum game, but festooned with significant complexity. I can gain a dollar today either by somehow appropriating it from someone else, or by borrowing that dollar on the promise of repaying it at some point in the future.

Imagine you have two bank accounts, one is for day-to-day transactions (C or Current account), and the second is for investment transactions (K or Investment account)

If you sell more goods and services than you buy, you have a surplus (positive balance) in your (C) account, which you then transfer over to your (K) account so you can invest to make a return, for example by buying a rental property, or by lending to someone else and charging them interest.

If you buy more goods and services than you sell, you have a deficit (negative balance) in your (C) account, so you have to transfer from your (K) account to cover the overdraft. If you don’t have enough money in your investment account, you either have to liquidate or sell some investment assets, or you could borrow and thereby take on debt.

The catch is that if you have a surplus in your accounts, you must invest in assets or lend, and if you have a deficit, you must divest assets or borrow.

Now take the above framework above and apply it to two people. Sam, who always spends more than he makes, and so is perpetually in deficit, and Deng, who always makes more than he spends, and so is perpetually in surplus.

Over many years, Deng lends money to Sam on the expectation that Sam will pay him back in the future, with interest. This goes on for a very long time such that Sam owes Deng $10,000,000,000,000 or $10 trillion. Deng uses the Chinese Yuan, and Sam, the US dollar.

In a ‘free’ system, the currency of a country that exports more than it imports will tend to rise because foreigners need to purchase that currency to buy the exports.

However, China’s currency is pegged to the United States dollar at a fixed rate.

So, how does Sam repay Deng? Normally, a debt is extinguished by repayment, or by default and reclamation of collateral. Sovereigns however, have something of a third alternative, which is colloquially known as the ‘printing press.’ When a debt is denominated in a country’s own currency, such as US dollars, the country can erode the value of its debt by simply running the presses and printing more money.

Whenever the United States prints money, the purchasing power held by their dollar deteriorates, meaning that same dollar buys less good and services, and hence the value of the USD relative to all other currencies in the world (that aren’t pegged to it) declines.

When this happens, it becomes more expensive for Americans to buy imported products, and cheaper for foreigners to buy American products. On a relative basis, production in America becomes more competitive, and those industries hire more labour, which reduces unemployment.

Any country with a sovereign currency may revalue their currency in this way by intervening; however the side effect is inflation, and an erosion of living standards. When a large country manipulates its currency, it artificially boosts its international competitiveness and therefore its own employment at the expense of its trading partners.

In order to maintain the status quo, trading partners must devalue or impose other measures such as trade sanctions to protect their own workers. This gives rise to what is known as a trade war via competitive devaluation or protectionism. Trade wars tend to last many years, and increase the risk of physical war because of the tension they create. The tightening of sanctions on Iran by the United States and Iran’s response of threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil shipments is a current example of the tension created by trade wars.

*

A side effect of printing money is the appropriation of wealth from the citizenry through inflation. Consider what it means to have bank account that pays interest.

When you put $100 in the bank at 5% interest, it doesn’t mean when you take it out in a year you will have $105. Firstly, there is tax, and for most people, this means almost a third of the interest you earn will be swept away by the government, leaving you with $103.50. Secondly, there is inflation, which means if prices have increased by 3.5% during the year, then it will cost $103.50 to buy the same basket of goods you could’ve bought for $100 a year ago.

As you can see, you are no better off.

What happens when the interest rate is 5%, but inflation is 10%? Even without tax, this means if you put money in the bank or even under your mattress, you are destroying wealth. So, given a choice, you spend it to avoid losing value. You go out and buy whatever you can because you know prices are rising: food, property, gold, etc.

This is called a negative real interest rate.

If such an environment is sustained, there are runs on banks as hordes of depositors all withdraw their money, because it is the logical thing to do. A bank needs deposits in order to make loans. It can’t lend money to borrowers unless that money is first provided by savers (simplistically), so an economy which requires debt to operate will experience seizure and instability if there is a bank run, unless it can otherwise replace the withdrawn funds. Failing this, the resulting liquidity crisis (shortage of money) causes social unrest. Where its people are unable to go to a bank to withdraw money to pay for living necessities, a society quickly destabilises – an outcome which many a European nation are desperately attempting to avoid.

Appendix III

COMPOUNDING ERROR

A brief discussion on the phenomenon of compounding as it applies to perspective and ego.

I have only recently come to terms with how severely difficult reform is in the absence of some brutal catalyst. Whenever it is the case I encounter someone with significantly more life experience than I possess, I must reconcile with their perspective; their system for apprehending the world and their existence is the product of twenty, thirty, forty years of additional compound interest. If the seed of wisdom is wrong, it doesn’t matter to what impressive height the tree grows – it will not bear fruit.

As a phenomena one need only look to the unhappy rich. At some earlier juncture, most forged an equivalence between wealth and contentment, which then proceeded to compound away over many years, strengthening and self-perpetuating into an identity holding powerful sway in directing their movement through life.

The ego itself operates on a similar principle. As it constellates energy, its density and rigidity increases – we become set in our ways, more resistant to change, and less open to ideas inharmonious with the ones we already hold. Compounding gets more difficult to undo the longer it goes on, thus continuing on the path of least resistance makes it progressively harder to turn around.

Appendix IV

PLATO’S ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE

In ‘The Republic,’ ancient Greek philosopher Plato (c427 BCE – c347 BCE) gives a metaphor for degrees of reality, which has been simplified below.

A group of prisoners has been imprisoned all their lives in a cave, chained so that they cannot see behind them; all they can see is the cave wall in front. Behind them is a fire, and between the prisoners and the fire, a walkway runs. The prisoners do not know of the fire or walkway.

Each day, people, carts and animals travel across the walkway, and the fire projects their shadows onto the cave wall in front of the prisoners. The shadows are the only truth and reality they know.

One prisoner is released from the cave into the real world and sees amongst other things the figures that were walking across the walkway, in real life. He cannot recognise them, nor can he contend with the outside world because its colour, dimensions, complexity and sensations go against his reality, which is constituted only of the shadows.

He is initially angry and confused and wants to go back to his reality of shadows, but after much time, he acclimatises and comes to accept the outside world as reality, and goes back into the cave to convince the others their shadows aren’t real.  Predictably, the others ridicule him as a fool.

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, Jan Saenredam, 1604


Appendix V

KEY REFERENCE LIST & READINGS

List of sources referenced and supporting readings

Camus, A. (1942) The Myth of Sisyphus

Čapek, K. (1923) Rossum’s Universal Robots

Dostoyevsky, F. (1866) Crime and Punishment

Eco, U. (1988) Foucault’s Pendulum

Freud, S. (1920) Dream Psychology / The Psychology of Dreams

Goethe, J. (1829) Faust I

Goethe, J. (1832) Faust II

Huxley, A. (1932) Brave New World

Huxley, A. (1962) Island

Jung, C.G. (1955) Modern Man in Search for a Soul

Jung, C. G. (1974) Dreams

Jung, C.G. (2009) Liber Novus

Kierkegaard, S. (1849) The Sickness Unto Death

Kundera, M. (1984) The Unbearable Lightness of Being

London, J. (1908) The Iron Heel

Murakami, H. (2004) After Dark

Nietzsche, F. (1885) Thus Spoke Zarathrustra

Orwell, G. (1949) 1984

Plato (c418 BCE) Republic

Rand, A. (1957) Atlas Shrugged

Wilde, O. (1890) The Picture of Dorian Grey

Metropolis (1927) Universum Film

The Matrix (1999) Warner Brothers Pictures

Life 2.0 (2010) Andrew Lauren Productions

Index of Notes:


[1] Irrespective of how ‘tough’ some may feel they have it, in global relativity, anyone who can afford to spend the equivalent daily earnings of a Ugandan taxi driver on a pot of beer or cup of coffee is not a ‘battler.’

[2] The superimposition of ego above orphaned fragments is in effect suppression or silencing. The ego may also seek to integrate the fragments but this is highly uncommon.

[3] The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890), Oscar Wilde

[4] Projection is a rampant psychological phenomenon wherein an individual defrays the anxiety caused by his or her ‘shadow’ by attributing and projecting those undesirable or shameful shadow traits and tendencies onto other people.

[5] Where there is a ‘fixation’ on a particular level of Maslow’s Hierarchy, (such as Esteem or Belongingness) higher levels (here, Self-Actualisation) are ignored.

[6] Relating specifically to anxiety: an order of magnitude below Kierkegaard’s ‘despair.’

[7] Fragmentation of the world soul (anima mundi) describes the effect of differentiations which work against the unity of humanity. Its chief contributors are divisions created by political borders and religious denomination.

[8] Magical power or energy

[9] This concept, Enantiodromia, is discussed in detail in Section XIII.

[10] As described in Section IV: d.

[11] Refer section VI for further discussion of the Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy.

[13] See Appendix IV: Plato’s Cave

[14] As an aside, war is also an effective outlet for absorbing excess production, because the munitions and consumables expended in war are destroyed.

[15] ‘Sink’ denotes any trivial activity or object into which time is sunk which is not materially or spiritually enriching

[16] Refer Appendix III for a discussion on Compounding Error.

[17] To illustrate how inflation appropriates value from someone else, consider the following example:

Let’s say I lend Obama one hundred US Dollars at zero interest, further that the value of the US economy is defined by one thousand cheeseburgers priced at $1 each, and its entire stock of money is $1,000. With the money I’ve just lent Obama, therefore, I could have bought 100 cheese or 10% of the US economy’s goods.

I come back in a year to collect, but Obama doesn’t have the money to pay me back, so instead, he prints me fresh hundred dollar bill. I happily put it in my pocket and go out to see what I can buy. There are still one thousand baskets of goods, but because Obama printed new money, there is now $1,100 of money chasing these baskets, so the price has risen to $1.10 each. Now I can only buy 91 baskets of goods for my $100, whereas I would’ve been able to buy 100 baskets before.

Consciousness

As I walk along the bluestone corridor, an ambiance all too familiar. Generic faces reminiscent of souls. Their lips move, but the sounds that issue forth are not intelligible. All I can hear are the cries of the same braying ass.

Most weeks on my way to the lounge at the National Gallery, I take the small detour to Bill Viola’s Ocean without a Shore, an art installation in a blackened room, where a film is projected onto three portrait-oriented screens. Sequentially on each screen, a person approaches, pacing slowly toward the foreground. The ghostly silhouettes appear heavily blurred seen through a sheet of cascading water. Up to the point of stepping through the water’s threshold, the subjects are depicted indistinctly in greyscale. Crossing through the waterfall, they come into sharper focus and vivid colour. One particular character always strikes me; a young woman who approaches the threshold, pushes her fingers through, hesitates momentarily, withdraws, and turns back to the void.

Ocean without a Shore is emblematic of consciousness, the animation in front of the threshold representative of life, and the void behind it non-life. In withdrawing, it is insinuated the young woman prefers death to life.

This entry will venture a broad exploration of consciousness, from its absolutes in life and death, to its gradations and the phenomena which obstruct it.

Definition

Paying homage to Socrates and his penchant for composing from opposite quantities, consciousness can be viewed as a degree determined by some combination of awareness and ignorance, or life and death if you prefer a more poignant representation.

We will begin with the negative absolute: death. Under the simplifying assumption this life is all there is, then the span preceding birth, and span following death are similarly devoid of consciousness. By prerequisite, there can be no awareness when unconscious, which is why a person awakening from a coma will have no recollection of anything that occurred throughout the duration of their cataleptic state.

Moving into life, there are two elements to basic consciousness:

  • Self awareness is the lucid cognisance of our own existence; that we are in the here and now. During the formative years, this awareness gradually switches from one of requirement (food, attention) to one of being.
  • Environmental awareness is the comprehension of our surroundings through our senses; what we see, hear, smell, taste and touch.

Combined, the two awarenesses constitute a rudimentary definition of consciousness. Though the distinction between ‘conscious’ and ‘unconscious’ is straightforward, further analysis is warranted for the gradations that exist within the conscious state.

Conscious States

Within routine existence, our least conscious state is sleep, during which awareness of environment and being is largely dormant. We then move to the state of wakefulness, wherein we spend the majority of our time. Here we are conscious, but the nature of this consciousness varies. The variation is between ‘waking sleep,’ encompassing the habitual or automatic part of living (performing routine tasks, ‘going with the flow’), and ‘fully awake,’ wherein the consciousness is self-aware and has heightened faculties of perception and interpretation. The distinction can be obscure, so to demonstrate, consider the act of going for a walk. In a waking sleep, the task is automatic and your conscious is focussed on your destination or elsewhere (e.g. thinking about work/dramas/fairies.) In a fully awake state however, your conscious is absorbing and actively contemplating faint sounds in the distance, the colours and textures of the scenery, the sensation of the breeze, the scents it carries, and other environmental stimuli.

Waking Sleep is best illustrated by the significant portion of our lives we spend within a routine or engaged in an automatic activity, from driving to making small talk. In such situations, higher consciousness is inert, and there is a tendency to accept rather than actively question. Moreover, the aperture of the lens through which we interpret is narrow. Having a conversation in waking sleep, you focus upon the content and surface attributes of your counterparty. In a fully awake state, your conscious awareness is extended to the nuances of the situation, context, implied content, gestures, micro-expression, tonality, and your counterparty’s interaction with the environment. In short, being fully awake is a state where the conscious is extended over (and is actively engaged in) a radically broader range than what is required to simply perform an action or task.

Schopenhauer’s Representation

What distinguishes the aforementioned states of wakefulness is the degree of conscious intensity. To elaborate further, the discourse of Arthur Schopenhauer illustrates quite eloquently the level of existence as a function of conscious intensity:

“There is no need to speak of savages whose life is often no more than one stage above that of the apes in the trees; consider for instance a porter in Naples or Venice and regard the course of his life from its beginning to its end. Driven by want, sustained by his own strength, supplying the needs of the day, indeed of the hour, through his own labour; a great deal of exertion, constant turmoil, a great deal of hardship, no care for the morro, refreshing rest after exhaustion, much wrangling and brawling, not a moment to spare for reflection, sensual ease in a mild climate and with tolerable food; finally, as the metaphysical element, some crass superstition provided by the Church. This restless, confused dream constitutes the life of millions of men. They know only for the purposes of their present wants: they give no thought to the coherence of their existence, not to speak of that existence itself: to a certain extent they exist without really being aware of it.

Now consider the prudent, sensible merchant, who passes his life in speculations, cautiously carries out well-considered plans, establishes his house, makes provision for wife, child and heirs and also takes an active part in public affairs. This man obviously exists with very much more consciousness than the former: i.e. his existence possesses a higher degree of reality.

Next, observe the scholar, one for instance who explores the history of the past. This man will be conscious of the existence of the whole, beyond the era of his own existence, beyond his own person: he ponders the course of the world.

And finally the poet, and even more the philosopher, in whom thought has attained such a degree that, neglecting individual phenomena in existence, he stands in wonder before existence itself, before this almighty sphinx, and makes of it his problem. Consciousness has in him risen to such a degree of clarity that it has become universal consciousness, through which him idea has stepped beyond all relation to the service of his will and now holds up to him a world which challenges him rather to investigation and contemplation than to involvement in its activities. – If, now, degrees of consciousness are degrees of reality – then when we call such a man the ‘most real being’ the phrase will have sense and meaning.”

Observe with each ascending degree, so rises both the depth and breadth of cognition; the individual’s sphere of engagement extends outward. Granted level of engagement can indicate where an individual is on the continuum between waking sleep and fully awake, it needs to be used cautiously, and in context. An individual may be highly engaged, but in a way which is stultifying to consciousness.  There are a number of such frictional phenomena that prevent the consciousness moving higher and tether it in the dregs. The inhibitors appear chiefly in the forms of behavioural conditioning, idolatry and immersion.

Behavioural Conditioning

Behavioural conditioning is insidious. It confounds me to the point my mind lapses into a repetitive internal monologue of ‘what the fuck?’ Complete immunity from it is exceptionally rare, but blindness to its incidence is an affliction more common than a cold.

Conditioning is a prominent concept in psychology, defined as the process by which certain behaviours are learned or conditioned by use of stimulus to either reinforce or bring about extinction. For example: conditioning a dog to be quiet by punishing it whenever it barks.

I apply it here in the context of misdirection through association. The conditioned behaviour is the general manner in which Western man conducts his life, and the stimulus is a self-reinforcing hedonistic voracity. It is facilitated by society’s structure and how transactions between its members are conducted, namely utilitarian opportunism.

What I am describing is a strong convention linking possession and indulgence with contentment; and that, conditioned to assimilate this association as truth, we have taken to living by it. This is the core of behavioural conditioning, and the key to understanding it is to realise that most everything attainable in life, be it tangible or intangible, is composed of two prime units, energy and time which are imperfect substitutes. Conditioning takes these two units, and perverts their course.

Effectively we have been inculcated with a directive: accumulate, consume, gratify, and devote a considerable amount of our real resources (time and energy) toward those ends.

It is perhaps too rash a contention to broach with impunity, but I will put it forward in any case: that the pursuit of conditioned directives impairs conscious awareness. When focus is concentrated upon narrow ends, particularly where society quantifies worth based on those ends, it can become obsessive and the ends will be furthered at the expense of others which are more meaningful.

In that regard, the first example that comes to mind is employment. For the most part, we work to live, but if we are not careful, this relationship is inverted, and becomes such that we live to work.

At the beginning of a career, it is common to assimilate by plugging the self-esteem into the chosen profession, be painting or banking, and becoming economically and psychologically reliant upon that profession. As the individual becomes further entrenched in their profession, a ratifying tendency develops to suppress dissonance. I will term this tendency ‘specialised snobbery;’ the artificial feeling of importance garnered through specific skill or knowledge, be it real or imagined.

Although specialised snobbery is most visible in professions which masquerade as people: academia, finance, law and medicine, its prevalence extends across all occupations unlikely to hold meaning beyond death. This envelops all physical crafts, most fields of natural and applied science, and all the humanities, perhaps with the exception of Philosophy and related disciplines. Insofar as they all concentrate on worldly and human phenomenon, they are of dubious relevance outside this reality.

An extreme case of behavioural conditioning is illustrated in the society of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, wherein civilian time is deliberately structured so as to be consumed entirely by work, social activity and ritual, leaving almost nothing to solidarity. This overbearing routine detracts significantly from the individual’s free time and energy, which are prerequisites to engaging higher consciousness.

Both Huxley in Brave New World and Orwell in 1984 make connections between:

  1. perversion of time and energy toward conditioned desires (idolatry) >
  2. conditioned/imposed stultifications (immersion) >
  3. psychic regulation >
  4. general ignorance and unawareness >
  5. passive existence >
  6. political control

Were I an autocrat, this is exactly how I would want my power structure to be underpinned: subtle mind control and subjects oblivious to it. In the chain above, idolatry and immersion are the prerequisite impairments of consciousness necessary to establish despotic societies.

Conditioned & Instinctive Desires

Before delving further into how idolatry and immersion, a crucial distinction must be made defining natural objectives which time and energy should be directed toward from artificial objectives which time and energy are diverted toward:

  • Instinctive (natural): Survival, procreation, understanding
  • Conditioned (artificial): Sensory indulgence (immersion), projection

Interestingly, many conditioned desires can be viewed as mutations of their instinctive antecedents. Projection for example, is the human equivalent of the competitive displays such as ‘Peacocking’ and fighting in the animal kingdom, designed to attract mates for the purpose of procreation.

Idolatry (The Obelisks)

I want you to imagine two towering obelisks, each rising from the Earth like an infinite streak whose pinnacle soars beyond sight. One glints blindingly of solid Gold, the other presents the weathered, enduring edifice of granite. Onto their surfaces, large glyphs are engraved; signs of currency upon the Gold obelisk, and symbols of faith upon the Granite.

At their pedestals, billions of worshippers congregate and grovel, awestruck by the monuments which bear the markings of seemingly supernatural craftsmanship. Would you recognise them? They are money and religion; two of the most powerful synthetic forces governing the existence of present-day society, operating on the wings of greed and fear respectively.

What is particularly interesting about these two forces is that they are polarising and stratifying – creating vast divisions within the human race. Wealth imposes a scale from luxury to poverty, and piety is binary: either inclusive or exclusive. Loosely, they are civilised substitutes for the survival imperative which dictates the expenditure of time and energy the animal kingdom.

Money and Religion hamper the ascent of consciousness because they are sinkholes which leech the individual of time and energy, and provide in return security blankets of spurious value. Spurious because the former is only able to assuage material anxiety and the latter’s capacity for ameliorating metaphysical anxiety is contingent on the individual’s surrender of consciousness.    

Consciousness cannot associate itself with synthetic quantities – it resides in a domain outside human construct. Were consciousness to have an obelisk, it would be that of wisdom, and it would be intangible, represented by light. Its followers would be those standing in the beam.

Immersion

The instruments of conditioning can be viewed as stultifications and distractions, chiefly of pleasure/flesh (alcohol, sex, music, food, drugs, entertainment) and of pride/mind (wealth, power, vanity), which divert focus from the wellbeing of the soul and are placed as a barrier between the individual and higher consciousness to mollify any desire to rise further. Each of these diversions can be observed as immersions.

Sensory Immersion is a common impediment to higher consciousness, through which consciousness is ‘hijacked’ by one or more of the five senses. Immersion heavily engages a sensory system (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, gustatory, and olfactory) such that the consciousness is drawn to the object of immersion at the expense of acute awareness.

Pervasive Immersion applies when the ‘hijacking’ is perpetrated by definitional, non-sensory engagements (wealth, status, ability, power), thereby drawing consciousness into a parallel awareness which can be either disjoined from reality, steeped in a different reality, or a warping of reality.

Tabulated below is a breakdown of the sensory and pervasive routes engaged by common immersions, with the final column denoting parallel awareness.

 

Immersion creates interference because our senses are not instruments of consciousness, rather instruments of transmission. They are the interface through which we have awareness of the world around us, absorbing different types of information/stimulus which are transmitted to the brain for interpretation.

When a sense is overwhelmed, a short-circuit occurs which results in distorted interpretation. Framing the senses as gauges of stimulus, immersion is the red line on the dial, after which point saturation occurs and objectivity is compromised, akin to pointing a camera at the sun and not being able to capture its true likeness because the optics are overwhelmed. For the auditory sense, this could be deafeningly music at a concert or club. Similar logic can be applied to the other senses – like all instruments, their capacity for measurement is compromised past certain limits.

Atmosphere plays a key role in the ‘elevation’ of a sense beyond baseline level; the analogy of being ‘immersed’ in water and the linkage to everything else being, quite literally ‘drowned out.’

I posit the immersion imperative revolves principally around the increasing need to separate from multifarious stimuli and become absorbed in a single signal; drawing on the example of Generation-Y, who seem to ‘cure’ or escape from temporally high living pressures by indulging and finding release in pastimes and activities that involve sensory immersion.

Does the release element of immersion stem from more the concentrated (as opposed to defrayed) attention relished upon the object of stimulus, or from the sensory preoccupation ‘crowding-out’ of mental capacity to engage in active cognition?

For the most part, people are inherently lazy, and seek to avoid thinking wherever possible. Given this inclination to minimise cognitive expenditure, it should come as no surprise that may of the largest and most profitable industries (gambling, music, film) are those that satiate desire for immersion. The business of assuaging existential angst through assorted routes of distraction is lucrative.

To the question of why immersion is an impediment to consciousness, we need only look to Maslow’s Hierarchy. Immersions act as a ceiling which stops time and energy getting through to the higher degrees of consciousness inherent in self-actualisation. When the individual believes immersion propels them effortlessly into nirvana, the pursuit of higher conscious states which require cognitive effort becomes unnecessary.

Psychic Regulation

One of the more disconcerting trends I’ve notice lately is artificial psychic regulation. At seven o’clock each morning on my way to work, I see numerous people wearing slightly forlorn expressions, whose semi-vacant, deadened eyes avoid my gaze. Often they hold a steaming cup of coffee, or a smouldering cigarette, sometimes both. At six o’clock any given Friday night on my way home from work, I see numerous people looking considerably cheerful, whose semi-vacant, enlivened eyes overlook my gaze. Often they hold a frosted schooner of beer, or a smouldering cigarette, sometimes both.

It appears we’ve lost the ability to internally regulate psychic volatility, instead relying on stimulants when we need a shot in the arm, and depressants when we need to calm back down:

  • Caffeine stimulation to alleviate tiredness
  • Alcoholic anaesthetisation to dull stress and numb pain
  • Nicotine sedation to stabilise and calm frayed nerves

These three products also possess the special features of being addictive, socially engrained and strongly price inelastic. If we consider a cup of tea versus a cup of coffee, the latter is typically priced at a premium of approximately 30%, a bottle of beer commands a premium of over 100% over soft drink, and I could make four kilograms of carrot sticks for what it costs to buy a pack of cigarettes.

In the absence of higher consciousness, artificial regulation is necessary to cope with, suppress and allay the anxiety and discord which issues from living pressures. In Brave New World, Soma, a mandated hallucinogen, performs the same function. The sustainability of a semi-conscious majority of drones, in no small part rests on the easy availability of psychic regulators to allow perceived escape.

Though it can’t be proven, the open availability of alcohol persists, in spite of its demonstrated negative health and social effects, to hold discord in check. Said discord, commonly encountered as “there’s something wrong with all this, but I can’t put my finger on it” is a manifestation of consciousness attempting to ascend. Unless this impulse is hastily quashed by a ‘quick-fix’ (immersions, alcohol, drugs etc) path of least resistance, people would have no alternative but to (a) despair, or (b) question, neither of which are particularly conducive to the structural integrity of the superstructure.

Evaluating Consciousness

A test of consciousness can be performed by simple observation of the amount of energy and time committed to each of the two standards, and equivalent states of passive and active existence. Standard of Living (hedonistic) versus Standard of Being (esoteric)

Attention to both standards is required to realise a dual objective: survive in this world, and maintain your soul.

The key variable which influences these two standards is time. Given enough time, we could eventually accumulate exceptionally high levels of prosperity and wisdom. But our time on this Earth is limited. The eighty-odd years with which our account is credited isn’t very long from the perspective of a planet that has lived four billion. It is the blink of an eyelid against a lifetime.

Seventeenth century mathematician Blaise Pascal is notorious for his battle with this very conundrum. Do we concentrate our efforts on our body, indulging every impulse, oscillating between the euphoria of pleasure and anguish of pain, or do we focus more upon illuminating wisdom and promoting the wellbeing of our soul? If one were absolutely certain that this existence was all there is, the logical course would be a life of unbridled hedonism. However, if there is a ‘soul’ that endures death and remains beyond it, it would make sense to concentrate our efforts on cultivating/nurturing the soul.

It isn’t quite as simple as trading off between the esoteric and the material for most of us. As Schopenhauer notes, there is an innate difference in the amount of raw intelligence possessed by each individual which, along with the issue of circumstance, will to an extent dictate the degree of consciousness reached by the individual, the rung on Maslow’s Hierarchy to which they climb.

Conclusion

So where does this leave us? Consciousness is a concept which can be taken to eye-watering levels of complexity, and numerous philosophers have done so with varying degrees of success.

For a civilisation, higher consciousness is favourable, this much is patently obvious – it would prevent wars, reduce wastage and direct real resources more toward improving the condition of humanity. For the individual however, I am unable to make a normative assessment because for some, as the adage goes, ‘ignorance is bliss,’ and increased consciousness only serves to create anxiety.

That one encounters a braying ass and construes ‘stupid donkey’ is in itself a conditioned perception, the very kind rebuked by higher consciousness. If the ass is content with his lot, and is not doing any harm, then to pass judgement on it would be absurd.

If however we validate normative assessment by saying the ass and his braying are causing harm, then it deserves, allegorically, to be taken to slaughter.

From a normative standpoint, consciousness has its antithesis in ignorance. To address the issue with a value judgement, we invoke the alternative and contrast a world under rule of consciousness to one under ignorance.

As history had taught us, ignorance is grievously damaging irrespective of how it is justified, and we have only ever seen examples of partial and localised ignorance.  When machines such as war are driven by visceral unconscious forces, the outcome is senseless death and destruction.

Though it appears the justification is by a particularly extreme instance, the insidiousness is readily observable in everyday life. Any time harm is committed and the excuse “I didn’t think” is raised, the harm is on occasion of ignorance, and could have been averted if its perpetrator were more conscious.

Degree of consciousness is what distinguishes human existence from that of the animal.

P. X. Waterstone

The Collector & The Inventor

On a winding path engulfed by darkness, a solitary lantern journeys warily through the forest. Trough a shroud of dense grey mist obscures our view, we can intimate the silhouette of a cloaked figure, moving toward what appears to be a small workshop in the distance. A flickering candle can be seen through its window, illuminating an old stilted workbench.

The intervallic crunches of hard leather grating on coarse earth pause as the lantern stops moving and the figure extends an arm. Three heavy knocks emanate from the iron clapper, puncturing the deafening silence. Shortly afterward, we hear the metallic thud of a deadbolt’s release, and the door swings open with a low groan.

We catch a fleeting glimpse of a heavy black cloak crossing the threshold before the door, seemingly of its own accord, closes behind.

A calm voice begins:

“Sorry to call unexpectedly, but I find myself in something of a quandary. You see, I have some specimens which need sorting. They’re kept in an orb of ether, swirling amidst clouds of conflicting energies. Upon closer inspection of each specimen, I find it mottled; good indistinguishable from bad. I cannot determine whether to discard it or add it to my collection.”

“You are the only one among my acquaintances whose expertise could render a solution to this problem. I need you to design for me a sorting machine, from which some specimens will emerge clean, and others irredeemably tarnished.”

“It is absolutely imperative that the sorting is faultless – I cannot afford even a single bad specimen in my collection.”

A long deliberative silence passes before a second voice issues a rhetorical response:

“They’re not just ordinary specimens are they? You’re talking about souls…”

“Very well, this will make your request considerably more difficult, but leave it with me; I shall see what I can do.”

Their brief exchange draws to a close as the mysterious visitor wishes the acquaintance well and departs.

*

Immediately, the inventor withdraws to his workshop and begins toiling away, meditative on the nature of the task. 

“Souls are perilously difficult to sort. This can be no simple machine. The design must ensure it contains as many distractions and untruths as possible. I must make them insidious and confusing. I must make them formless. It will test and toll the souls in every conceivable way to make certain the wheat is separated from the chaff.”

*

Over what seems an eternity, he applies every ounce of his creative ability to manufacture the machine; making innumerable calibrations until he is satisfied it will achieve his client’s aim.

By the time of the collector’s next visit, the machine is complete, and the inventor presents his work:

“I call it life. All you need do is release the souls into it. They progress through, and by the time their course is complete, you will be able to see at a glance which are good and which are bad. I cannot guarantee you won’t have to put some of them through again, but I am certain it will, at the very least, deliver you some unqualified results.”

His invention is met with scepticism; “are you aware of the gravity of the task this contraption needs to perform? It is absolutely crucial that only the cleanest make the grade, and that only those tainted incurably be discarded.”

“This machine, I assure you, is the greatest work I have ever accomplished. It will qualify every test. To meet your exacting specifications, I have been forced to introduce layers of complexity beyond the imaginable:

I have taken the positive and negative essences and placed them at the volition of the souls, giving them free reign over their use.

I have painted an objective world and given the souls subjective senses with which to interpret it.

I have created confusion and anxiety by vesting the souls with consciousness.

I have imbued each soul with capacities for reason, creativity, passion and aspiration.

I have designed emotions to complicate the way in which souls interact with each other.

I have formulated pleasure and pain to distract the souls.

I have allowed them possession.

I have instilled fear and greed.

I have shaped imperatives and untruths.

I have provoked faith and doubt to coerce them into fixed ideas.

I have summoned phantoms of illusion and delusion.

I have fabricated powerful and convincing deceptions to lead them astray.

I have instituted establishments and pursuits which lead nowhere.

As the masterstroke, I have given the souls the ability to control and change almost everything within life, except the ability to remain in the process indefinitely. They may add or subtract by their own volition, individually or collectively, thereby creating limitless possibility for them to make the attainment of cleanliness more difficult.

Before surrendering the device however, I would admonish you not to put too many souls into it at once. Although it will improve the machine’s efficiency, it will also cause an exponential increase in complexity. Please exercise caution as there are limitations to my architecture; if the structure is stressed beyond its capability, it will become unstable. I will not be held liable to any assurance should this eventuate.”

“You have done well. We will reconvene once I’ve had a chance to put a few batches through.”

“Thank you, your custom is appreciated. On a parting note, I should mention that within life, I have placed, in parallel instance, the divine virtues of wisdom, justice, temperance, and courage. Their existence is crucial to the device’s ability to function.”

*

An indeterminate passage of time later, the collector returns.

“It was a slow start – at the beginning, I had to put many of the souls through several times, but now the machine is functioning as intended. I’m quite impressed with how the artistic license you’ve given them has sharpened the sorting process. Though I have to put a great deal many souls through several times, the ones which emerge clean are fewer. See for yourself.”

The inventor peers into the device through a small looking glass.

“Ah, excellent timing; it appears a new day is just dawning”

The inventor observes intently as the first matutional rays ignite the landscape in a hue of gold.

“This is beyond what I anticipated. I could not have fathomed the degree of complexity they’d be able to conjure.”

“When building the device, I considered it ought to capture the observer’s curiosity. Rather than tedious uniformity, I furnished life with variety: seasons and alternating periods of darkness and light, a perpetual cycle of movement and respite.”

“They’ve discovered these arrangements and built a fascinating structure around them. They call it ‘time’ and divide it into seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months and years. The days number seven, and fifty-two of these cycles constitute a year. For five of the seven, many of the souls follow a strict regime, arising at a certain hour and spend the light hours ‘working.’ The remaining two days are comparatively unstructured, although they seem to also follow something of a routine. They call it ‘leisure.’”

“Another fascinating thing they’ve created is money, which they use to trade between themselves, and debt, which allows one to borrow from time.”

“But my how they are lazy! Very few concern themselves with finding the reason they are there, instead preferring to attach meaning to fixed dogmas created by their own imaginations.”

“They spend a great deal of their time alternating between pleasure and pain, using one as the antidote for the other.”

“They place a minority of their number on pedestals and worship them for all manner of strange reasons.”

“They confuse creativity with beauty.”

“They cry out for help from above, evading responsibility, and prefer to indulge blind hope than trust their internal voice.”

“I have given them everything they need to decide their own fate, and have assigned differences of opportunity in the favour of those who have progressed further. However, they are not able to reconcile the differences and attribute them to chance.”

*

The collector dwells thoughtfully for a moment, and from the leftmost chute on the device, procures a pearlescent orb. Admiring its brilliance, he congratulates the inventor on his fine work.

“Thank you. You will be duly rewarded for your efforts. Name your charge.”

From the rightmost chute, the inventor picks up a lump of a rough, bituminous substance resembling dirty coal.

“One small request. I’ve a small furnace which heats my workshop. It’s been quite cold lately, and fuel to stoke it has been hard to come by. The souls which emerge sullied are of no use to you, I’d be appreciative if you could spare them for kindling.”

P. X. Waterstone, Cape Town, 08/08/2010

Seven Degrees of Constraint

Some months ago, a friend and I were discussing the concept of morality in the context of moral dilemmas. Morality is a topic given frequent airplay, but seldom understood. Ask someone to define it, and you’ll often get a simple response containing little more than the dichotomy of right and wrong.

After laying waste to successive hours and cups of tea contemplating how best to approach the question of morality, it became apparent that I could not look at it in isolation. Morality is part of a larger structure which encompasses the dynamics constraining human behaviour from absolute freedom. This domain, spanning seven degrees, will be the subject of inquiry.

The Seven Degrees

To understand the different dynamics that constrain our behaviour, we need to fashion a hierarchy. In that regard, I default to the ubiquitous pyramid.

Perched atop the pyramid is the absolutely constraining dynamic of Natural Law. At the bottom resides the unconstrained dynamic we know as free will. Morality is sandwiched somewhere in between, and is one of the five intermediate dynamics which are human conceptualisations (human law, morality, ethics, convention and expectation). Altogether, the pyramid is composed of seven degrees, with diminution in constraining power at each subordinate level:

Degree Dynamic/Class Behavioural Constraint Limitor
Natural Law Absolute Physical impossibility
Human Law High Potential punishment
Morality Volatile Potential consequence
Ethics
Convention
Expectation
Free Will None Self-interest

Decisions we make and subsequent actions we take are subject to the continuum of seven degrees tabulated above. With each ascending degree, violability increases and constraint diminishes.

The first degree is universal/natural law which is inviolable by definition. The second to sixth degrees are domains of human construct which are violable with potential negative consequence, and the seventh degree, occupied by free-will, is characterised by freedom without adverse consequence. Under such a structure, we can explore how behavioural constraint operates on each of the levels.

The First Degree: Natural Law

Matters of natural law have two hard states: they are either possible or impossible within the framework of humanity’s understanding of the universe and associated laws of physics. For example, though I could probably make a person walk through a hula-hoop, if you were to ask me to make a camel walk through the eye of a needle, I would ask you for some of whatever it is you’re smoking. Natural law restricts behaviour by excluding anything that rests beyond the realm of physical possibility. There is little contention surrounding this domain because its classifications of what is possible versus impossible tend to be accepted truths.

The Interceding Degrees

It was unfortunate that I realised halfway through writing this analysis that I wouldn’t be able to escape defining good and bad, because everything within the second to sixth degrees hinges upon making this distinction. All the human degrees have an explicit reliance on a value judgement, which identifies a positive and a negative as a matter of course.

The problem with the good/bad dichotomy is one of context; and if I allow myself a concession, I will state that with respect to an object, good is anything which furthers/promotes it, and bad is anything which hinders it. We can thereby establish that (subject to moderation) exercise is good for the body, whilst illness is bad for it. Equally, that knowledge is good for the mind, and ignorance is bad for it.

Grafting this logic to the stem of human behaviour, we’ll first need to define an object so we can attribute good or bad in relation to something concrete. The object can’t be the individual, because behaviour has derivative effects beyond the individual that aren’t always consistent. Good to the individual may be far outweighed by bad to others whom the action affects, as embodied by the actions of a malevolent dictator. We need an object that covers a radius much broader than the individual.

‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ are opposing ontological types which belong to the realm of metaphysics; and it seems appropriate we draw the object from the same realm. Whether an action is good or bad can only be evaluated by its effect on the universe – a judgement far beyond the grasp of our limited comprehension. Therefore I will cast as understudy the united consciousness; being the combined ethereal energy constituted by all living organisms on the physical plane of this planet.

In using the united consciousness as the object to which good and bad apply, we’re creating the issue of subjective value judgement. Is an action good if it saves a life but destroys a thousand hectares of rainforest? Immediately we run aground on grey shores; to negate this, the test must be parametrically bounded.

Imagine a line with good on one end, and bad on the other. Now divide this line into four equal segments. Though I admonish against using it for anything fitting in the middle two segments, united consciousness is usable for the outer segments. Helping someone who’s stranded is ‘good.’ Discharging toxic waste into a river is ‘bad.’ In a simplified sense, the two are actions which promote and damage the energy of this world respectively.

To discriminate good from bad, we query whether a wise and reasonable person would view the action as adding to or subtracting from the united consciousness. It is a soft test of benefit and detriment, albeit redeemed by a measure of practicality. Plato, in his treatise Republic, uses unity itself as the object: identifying concord and harmony as good, and their antitheses, discord and chaos, as bad; a definition toward which I am inclined, but wary for its greater obscurity.

Owing to the sheer evasiveness of what lies within the middle two segments, we have developed weaker, subjective distinctions to assist our discernment of good from bad. These are the second to sixth degrees. Human law attempts to split the line down the middle, codifying what rests on one side by conceiving equivalence between ‘bad’ and ‘illegal.’ Morals and Ethics are held broadly as standards for right and wrong. Conventions and norms are weaker forms which affirm or deny social acceptability. Expectations in the personal sphere influence reputation and relationships.

The central tenet common across all these dynamics is their imposition of synthetic constraint on our behaviour. Because a civilised society requires suppression of animal instincts, which is contrary to nature, human behaviour needs to be regulated externally, either directly or indirectly. Law, morality, ethics, conventions and expectations are the institutions charged foremost with the governing role. Each interceding degree proscribes desirable and undesirable behaviour and ascribes consequences to them. Our cognisance of these consequences and the associated imperatives of desire and fear toward them are the riggings by which our behaviour is bound.

~

We speak of binding most often in a legal sense. Ostensibly, one is legally bound to ensure he or she fulfils a contract, thereby protecting the counterparty. Often, the law is perceived as a mechanism for maintaining order, but it exists more to protect us from each other.  Plato purveys that law was instituted upon the foundation of directional inequality or bias inherent in immoral action. Passage 359a ventures that law was established as an apparatus to prevent immoral behaviour, on the premise that we willingly forgo the gain from doing wrong in order to protect ourselves from being wronged.  I.e. avoid the harm from being on the receiving end of an immoral act. The benefit derived from lying is less than the harm suffered from being lied to.

Taken in this sense, law is simply an enshrined manifestation of a moral system whose contravention has enforceable consequences or penalties which are administered by the state. Behaviour is distinguished as being either lawful or illegal against some legislated standard.

Below the law lie progressively less prohibitive derivatives. Morality distinguishes behaviour as being either just or unjust. Ethics distinguishes good and bad. Convention distinguishes normal and deviant. Expectation distinguishes fulfilment and letdown. Each of these degrees have polar consequences, such as potential praise for an ethical action, or potential affliction of anxiety for failing to meet expectations.

~

Practical Applications

Having outlined the theoretical underpinnings, we can now migrate from academia into the real world; exploring how some of these dynamics operate.

In the absence of tasers, the control of human behaviour requires limit0rs in the form of negative consequences for ‘bad’ behaviour. Since control is more concerned with restraining undesirable behaviour than promoting good behaviour, it makes sense that each degree enforces itself primarily by penalising undesirable conduct.

Payoff is a concept critical to the practical analysis of human behaviour. Primates can be conditioned to act in a certain way via the reinforcement of reward and punishment. They instinctively seek pleasure and avoid pain.

Our minds work on the same premise; we seek pleasure and avoid paid, but do so with a heavier layer of cognition than the Chimpanzee. We tend to evaluate payoff before we act, and often make this evaluation with consideration to second and third order effects: How will this choice influence future choices? How will this choice affect other people? What are the immediate and long-term consequences?

For example, in most situations where a choice occurs, the consequential payoff is determined not only by the primary effect (i.e. the direct result) of that choice on the individual, but also by the reverberations of that choice. I make a decision whose effect is to benefit myself, but must consider if actioning that choice is legal, moral, ethical, conventional, and expected. From each of these five criteria, there will be further consequences which may either profit or harm me.

This notion of payoff is especially useful when studying ‘undesirable’ actions. The instance of unethical behaviour is often a call option with limited downside and escalated upside potential. Lying for example: whilst getting caught may result in some loss or an adverse outcome, the ‘benefit’ from getting away with it is frequently greater, which is why we do it.

Crime & Mathematical Expectation

When the individual is placed at a normative decision point, the penalty’s severity (moral scruples aside) is a key factor influencing their decision. What is left by the wayside is the probability of this negative outcome or penalty. Mathematical expectation accounts for both the severity of the outcomes and their probabilities.

I offer you a coin flip – heads you win $10, tails you win nothing. Irrespective of the outcome, you are no worse off. In fact, since you have a 50% chance of winning $10, and a 50% chance of winning nothing, you’d expect to win $5 on average if you were to play the game multiple times. Needless to say, you’d always take me up on my offer to play.

What if I changed the rules so that if the coin lands on tails, you lose $20? Now there’s a 50% chance of winning $10 and a 50% chance of losing $20, giving you an average expected loss of $10. Obviously, any rational person would decline my offer to play.

We can apply the mathematics of probability and expectation quite elegantly to ‘price’ and explain crime. To demonstrate, we’ll review examples of a petty crime (fare evasion) and a serious crime (murder).

Thievery is the transgression of property rights entailing taking what doesn’t belong to you, which we commonly recognise as obtaining a good or service ‘belonging’ to someone else without paying for it. Fairness is the relevant ethic here, and in the context of our first example, fare evasion is the thievery of a service from the operator. Public transport is provided for a cost; because I derive benefit from using the service, and it is not decreed free, I should contribute toward that cost by paying a fare. That sounds fair, so a law is designed to support the ethic. It says that to travel, I must purchase a ticket: I must provide the operator with legal tender as consideration for the benefit of using public transport.

Normally, Marvin is the epitome of an upstanding, law-abiding citizen; he never drives a shade above the speed limit, nor has he so much as returned a library book late. One day however, disillusioned with his tram being perennially late, Marvin decides to revolt and starts riding the tram to and from work without a ticket. The cost of a daily ticket to ride Melbourne’s public transport system is $6.80, and so evasion saves him $3.40 each one way tram trip. On the flipside, if Marvin is caught evading, he will be issued a $100 fine.

These two pieces of information give us all we need to calculate how lucky Marvin thinks he is. Roughly speaking, in thirty trips, Marvin needs to make twenty-nine clean getaways and can only afford to get caught once. His unpaid thirty trips save him $102, but his fine costs him $100. If he can achieve a 29/30 success rate, fare evasion still delivers him a small profit.

Mathematically, Marvin’s engagement in fare evasion tells us he expects to get caught, on average, one in thirty trips or less frequently. If he’s right, then it makes more sense to break the law by not buying tickets. Thirty rides are worth $102, and getting caught on the last one would cost him $100. On a net basis, he would be up $2. By dividing the saving per trip by the fine, we get 3.4%, which is the implied chance of getting caught. Subtract this from 100% and we find that Marvin needs to be 96.6% confident he won’t get caught to economically rationalise fare evasion.

It follows therefore that if Marvin were acting with economics as his sole consideration, he wouldn’t buy a ticket if he felt the probability of getting caught was less than 3.4%. Where we have an individual acting purely on expected outcome, we only need compare this probability with his own perceived probability of getting caught to determine whether or not he/she will commit the crime.

Extensions of payoff theory can be used for many other applications; the pricing of a contract kill for example.

Let’s assume the annual profit in the black market for gorgonzola is $200,000, profit margins are constant and the market is growing at 2% per year. Luigi’s share of the black market gorgonzola trade is 50%, meaning he makes $100,000 in profit per year out of his enterprise.

Taking a perpetuity value with a 32% discount rate (due to the high risk nature of organised crime) to approximate the present value of such an enterprise, Luigi’s market share is worth $340,000 today.

Mario has recently diversified into the gorgonzola market, and feels the best way to do gain share is by eliminating his competition. If Mario is certain he can avoid culpability by hiring a contract killer to ‘whack’ Luigi (i.e. all the risk of criminal conviction is transferred to the contract killer), and we assume he can capture half of Luigi’s market share, the economic maximum price for the hit would be $170,000.

Upholding Law & Morality

We live in a society, where by and large, crime pays. But what stops crime from running rampant? Most would contend punitive law checks criminal behaviour, but this is only the visible part of the iceberg. Beneath the waterline lie dense moral codes, which are responsible for the bulk of suppression.

In order for punitive law to meaningfully influence human behaviour, two things are needed. The first is punishment; the second is a policing system. The one cannot exist effectually without the other. It is no use having laws, no matter the severity of punishment for breaking them, if there is no way to seize violators and subject them to said punishment.

When a law is broken, there needs to be reasonable fear (perceived probability) of getting caught, otherwise, the law will not be effective. Often, countries are termed ‘lawless’ not for lack of laws or punishments, but for the lack of an adequate policing force to discourage the laws’ violation.

Crime is exceptionally interesting from this standpoint. The authorities have limited control over the probability of getting caught; they can perhaps allocate more resources to the policing system, but it is an expensive exercise, so they favour tweaking the punishments.

Criminal behaviour is discouraged by adjusting the magnitude of the negative payoff, such that the expected outcome becomes adverse to the extent most people conclude crime doesn’t pay and consequently adhere to the law. To paraphrase an article I read the other day, if the penalty for rape were castration, it would have a greater impact on the incidence of rape than doubling the size of the police force.

However, irrespective of how stringent a punitive law system is, it will always have deficiencies in that people cannot be policed everywhere and all the time, given issues of cost and civil liberty. This is where a moral code (often based on religious principles) can pick up the slack.

“All systems of morality are based on the idea that an action has consequences which legitimise or cancel it.” Camus, in The Plague, captures the essence of a moral code. It is like a piece of software that instructs the individual to act according to certain rules and operates on the distinction between ‘desirable’ and ‘undesirable’ with respect to those rules. The constraining institutions of law, religion and morality, can all be viewed as instances of moral code:

  • Law as previously discussed, is an external codified manifestation of a moral code which defines actions and tangible consequences.
  • Religion is an external inculcated manifestation of a moral code which defines actions and intangible consequences.
  • Morality is an internal manifestation of a moral code which relies on conscience. Its degree of secularity depends on the individual.

‘Morality’ (the general brand) is effectively a costless element of the policing system, acting internally upon conscience to discourage ‘undesired’ behaviour without generating a cost burden. Once established a moral system is relatively sticky and self-reinforcing because both social esteem and individual esteem are linked to adherence to it.

Religion also possesses the aspect of conscience, except it operates differently. The persistent theme among mainstream religions is the existence of a ledger. Entries are supposedly posted to this ledger every time we execute an action: good or bad, it is marked upon this ledger. Proponents of Karma believe in a force acting to balance this ledger in this life, whereas most religions prefer to effect this balancing though a ‘final judgement’ which determines what happens after death. If we recognise or entertain the existence of a ledger, our behaviour is constrained by the semi-conscious feeling there’s someone looking over our shoulder, watching what we do, and our fear for the consequences.

Though the consequences are real, bear in mind that each of the human degrees is an artificial construct conditioned, indoctrinated and perpetuated by religion and society. They are attempts to impose restrictions on behaviour which are subject to arbitrary conditions, and whose criterion are designed to manufacture certain outcomes, such as social stability and psychological security.

~

This expository was designed to collect fragments of thought on behavioural constraint together in a semi-cohesive framework to promote a better understanding of the sentinels and phantoms which limit our realisation of freedom, which is the seventh and final degree. Freedom is a popular buzzword, but a practical impossibility. We can however get closer to it by being cognisant of the degrees of constraint, by questioning them, and challenging them, and contravening them where appropriate. It is only the natural law which is absolute and inviolable. Everything else is synthetic and subjective.

Self Esteem

Waking up with a cavernous head wound at 4:41 on Saturday morning, subconscious bleeding out onto the pillow. The only cure for this type of hangover is picking up a pen.

The following analysis on self esteem commenced its life as a skeletal exploratory essay on Social Identity Theory during my brief stint studying Psychology in Philadelphia in the fall of 2006. It ended up relegated to the bottom drawer owing to poor content and inadequate understanding. Ligaments and flesh have gradually been appended over ensuing years, and a thought provoking conversation with a young lady I met recently has provided the current needed to animate this abomination.

An Evaluation of the Self

Complexity aside, a minimalist definition of self esteem is the value one places upon oneself, containing the elements of worthiness, entitlement, expectation and deservingness. Much to my dismay, this self value cannot be priced in economic terms because it can’t be tested methodically.

To expound further, when we examine the concept of value, we find it isn’t possible to attribute something a value independently; we need to compare it against something else.  A value must by definition be held to a standard, either in the form of a common currency, or by relative comparison. When we evaluate ourselves, what we’re essentially doing is making a relative judgement of all our defining aspects (physical traits, esoteric traits, relationships, experiences) against some standard of value or someone else.

Because this standard is not rigid (it can be ours, someone else’s, a group’s, society’s), esteem is not a hard value, but a perceived value, contingent upon whatever you’re comparing it with. If I set the bar low enough and judged my defining aspects against those of a Neanderthal, then it follows I’d have exceptionally high self esteem.

We can take this concept of perceived value a step further and demonstrate its individuality by applying it to the characteristics which underlie the standard. Which is to say, each person’s ‘standard’ is based on the specific characteristics they deem valuable.

Imagine you run a used car dealership and two customers bring in their vehicles for appraisal. The vehicles are of identical make and model, but one is showroom immaculate with low mileage, and the other is a damaged, high mileage rattletrap. Because these characteristics can be valued relatively, you will offer the customer with the better conditioned vehicle a higher price.

The following day, another two customers come in, and again, their vehicles are of identical make and model. This time however, everything about the two cars is the same, except for their colour – one is navy blue, one is sunflower yellow. There is no difference in intrinsic value between the two colours, but as a dealer, you know that colour impacts value due to idiosyncratic demand. Your customers would prefer navy blue if they were in the market for a German saloon, but shopping for an Italian sports car, they’d be more desirous of sunflower yellow. The colour matters to value because it matters to the customer.

Perceived value as it relates to self-esteem works in much the same way. A compassionate individual who views compassion as a virtuous characteristic will derive incremental esteem from their disposition. An unattractive person who views aesthetic beauty as a virtuous characteristic will have encroached esteem from their appearance. But the self-esteem of an unattractive person who does not place a value on aesthetic beauty should not be influenced by their physical appearance. Your self-esteem depends on what you value.  

  • If two differently coloured, but otherwise identical vehicles aren’t priced the same, then colour must have idiosyncratic perceived value.
  • If two differently characterised, but otherwise identical human beings aren’t valued the same, then characteristic must have idiosyncratic perceived value.

The universe doesn’t care about how tall I am, how much I know, how fast I can run, nor about the colour of my skin, my occupation, or my passions. None of these characteristics have an iota of relevance or importance in the cosmic order. Irrespective of characteristic, in a neutral universe, I am objectively worthless.

However, I live in a society underpinned by ideals and complex interaction in which interpersonal transactions are constantly occurring. Some characteristics, such as intelligence, rugged good looks, and vampirism will give me an advantage in transacting, whilst other characteristics will cause disadvantage.

Simplistically, those characteristics which create advantage are valued, wanted, and held in high esteem, because they help us to both cope with the world around us and to get ahead. Immediately, this gives me cause to value myself. The more of these characteristics I possess, the more capacity (supposedly) they give me to enjoy life, the more I am worth.

I’m going to make a bold statement: that self-esteem is the amount of benefit you think you’ll get out of life, which is dictated by situation and personal characteristics. Deadpan simple, but that’s all a value really is: a quantification of benefit. High self-esteem reflects a perception you’ll get a great deal out of life. Low self-esteem reflects a perception you won’t get much out of life. Negative self-esteem implies you will get nothing (or worse) from life, which is the rationale behind suicide.

Uses of Self Esteem

Having arrived at a crude definition of self-esteem as a substance, the next question concerns why it’s useful. Fundamental to our human existence, we all eat, breathe, sleep and eventually, die. If we were all to live as an unconscious flock of sheep, generic in every respect, there wouldn’t be much need for self esteem; for in an environment of absolute equality, comparison yields no relative differential, and therefore value is frustrated and irrelevant. In the absence of a differentiated and hierarchical society, self esteem is not functional.

Another way to think about it is through ‘importance.’ Importance of an individual rests upon there being something or someone to be important to. Picture yourself alone on an Earth devoid of all humanity – how can you feel important when nothing you do can have a material impact, when there’s no-one to be important to? To a person living in isolation, without human interaction, self esteem is largely irrelevant. The value of self-esteem is socially contingent because we live in a differentiated world which compares and judges.

Self esteem and its usefulness aren’t contained in the ability to cope with the world itself or the ability to get ahead in life. Rather, self esteem is useful because it shields from the psychological battery inflicted by others and allows us to withstand judgement. It defends against anxiety and is a tool of the personality which prevents it from being crushed.

Without an internal quantification of value, the default is to put yourself at the mercy of society and to subsume and accept society’s appraisal of you as truth. A pacifist in Ancient Sparta would appreciate the significance of possessing self esteem, because if he didn’t have it, he wouldn’t deem himself worthy of living. We need self esteem to prevent this ‘crushing.’ Living in an Occidental culture that venerates wealth and beauty, and being a penniless Quasimodo, I would have no course save suicide if I hadn’t self esteem or belief I’d at some point attain those venerated ‘virtues.’

Facilitators & Detractors

Esteem is a dynamic variable, it may either grow (strengthen) or contract (weaken). The modifiers responsible for change in esteem are facilitators which strengthen it, and detractors which weaken it.

Facilitators and Detractors issue from two sources:

Outside – which we associate with praise and attack, the positive and negative interpersonal catalysts for self esteem. Our self esteem may expand or contract based on our interactions with other people, for example, a receiving a complement, or being put on a guilt trip.

Inside – which we associate with success and failure (actual and perceived) in the different circles of competence. There are three dominant circles of competence: Social, Sexual and Occupational. The first and second are fairly straightforward; the esteem is influenced by prowess in the relevant type of intercourse. The third, Occupational Competence, can relate to success and failure in structured and unstructured tasks, from solving a crossword, to running a marathon, to learning a language. The type of task which is most important to self-esteem is often determined by how the individual earns a living:

  • Manual/Practical Craft (Carpenter)
  • Creative Craft (Artist)
  • Humanistic Professional (Teacher)
  • Applied Professional (Physicist)

Collectively, our successes and others’ praise tend to increase our esteem, whilst our failures and others’ attacks tend to decrease it.

Dimensions of Esteem

Self esteem possesses an array of dimensions, each with a corresponding dichotomy of extremes. Though they often overlap, I’ve allocated each dimension a section of the analysis in the hope of arriving at a more complete understanding of the whole by peering through the eyeglass of its component parts.

Dimension Positive Extreme Negative Extreme
Level High Low
Designation Core Ancillary
Strength Resilient/Strong Fragile/Weak
Source Internal External

 Level of Self Esteem

Level of self esteem is the quantitative dimension; measuring how much of the ‘substance’ is possessed by the individual. Insofar as an individual’s level of self-esteem is able to influence through mindset disposition, the level bears upon both action and outcome.  An individual with high self-esteem will tend to carry a ‘winner’ mindset, whereas an individual with low self-esteem will carry a ‘loser’ mindset, corresponding with two polar utterances of the internal voice:

  • High: “I can do this, I will persevere.”
  • Low: “It’s too hard, I give up.”

Though I am unable to prove it through empirical evidence, there appears to be a chain relationship between self-esteem, mindset and outcome. What I mean to say is: if I have high self esteem, this will more often place me in a ‘winner’ frame of mind, which drives me with more fervour to achieve a favourable outcome. Should this difference between high and low self esteem improve the likelihood of a favourable outcome by even one percent, the relationship has been illustrated.

Designation of Self Esteem

Distinguishing self esteem on level alone is highly misrepresentative; it is not enough to say an individual has either high or low self esteem. Level measures quantity. The quality aspect of substance is determined by Designation; which makes a specific distinction between Core (high quality) and Ancillary (low quality).

Core Esteem is grounded in the fundamental nature of self, after stripping away and discounting all measures of external rank. Ancillary esteem is value attributed from a measurable or discernible outside quantity, such as beauty, wealth, competence or intelligence.

Conceptually, core esteem is quite difficult to grasp, so imagine you awoke one morning to find your every worldly advantage (skills, wealth, looks, intelligence, et cetera) had been taken from you. What do you have left? How would you feel about yourself? Would you glide around with a spring in your step or saunter, staring at the pavement?

In an ideal world, we’d all glide around on the wings of incorrigible Core Esteem, but this is idealistic and impractical for a number of salient reasons. Firstly because it is near impossible to completely divorce our self worth from the aforementioned quantities. Secondly because we are not perfect – there is always a difference between the real self and the ideal self. This second basis warrants further explanation – we all have some ideal conceptualisation of the person we’d like to be, and our ideal self may be better looking, more intelligent, more socially skilful, et cetera. As we would expect, the ideal self is often quite removed from the real self, and the distance between the two is representative of how far an individual is from peak self esteem. Hypothetically, if you were everything you wanted to be, then your core self worth would be bulletproof. But this is an acute rarity. For the vast majority of us, Core Esteem doesn’t quite get us all the way there, and needs to be supplemented.

We are left in a position where part of our self worth is derived from Ancillary Esteem, and the more Core Esteem is lacking, the more Ancillary Esteem will be substituted in its place.

By chance, as I sit here writing, a Peacock has just leapt onto my table to investigate what I’m doing, his bright blue-green plumage glittering like Lapis Lazuli in the afternoon sun. Being a simpler creature, I doubt the Peacock’s conception of esteem would be as complex as our species’, but there is a pertinent connection here. The prancing peacock parading its plumage pontificates Ancillary Esteem.

Ever notice how some writers base their self esteem on alliterative ability? How the physically attractive person often bases their self-esteem on their looks, or how an intelligent person often bases their self-esteem on their smarts, or how a practitioner often bases their self esteem on their skills? This is not coincidental. This is Ancillary Esteem. Generally, the aspect (whether it be beauty, intelligence or flair of some variety) for which the ‘real’ is closest to the ‘ideal’ is the aspect to which we will anchor self-esteem. As such, education will tend to increase the esteem of an intelligent person, whereas ageing will tend to decrease the esteem of a beautiful person. Tangentially, this logical sequence partially underwrites the existence of the cosmetics industry.

So, Ancillary Esteem can be viewed as self-worth arising from any specific perceived advantage which you feel sets you apart from the ‘average’ person. This could be anything from your exceptional fashion sense to your ability to perform differential calculus in your head. The only conditions are that (a) you think better of yourself for having it, and (b) it gives you a sense of relative advantage over the norm.

Strength of Self Esteem

Given self esteem is a desirable substance not unlike an illicit drug, it makes sense that we want as much of it as we can get out hands on (Level), and for it to be of the highest quality (Designation). Now we examine strength, or the ability of self esteem to maintain its potency when it comes into contact with challenges. Resilient esteem is resistant to attack whereas Fragile esteem is vulnerable to it.

Resilient (strong) to Fragile (weak) is a continuum of susceptibility to (negative) influence. A novel way to illustrate the strength of esteem is to employ Moh’s Scale of Hardness, a scale native to Geology, which is used to rate the strength of minerals.

It would have been first grade that I begun watching documentaries on plate tectonics and mineral metamorphosis. Around the same time, I started to amass a collection of minerals and gemstones. One of the first things I acquired was a small plastic case, no larger than a palm, containing a three-by-three grid. Within each square, numbered one to nine, in graduating levels of hardness, was a specimen of the corresponding mineral on Moh’s Scale, beginning with Talc at 1, and ending in Corundum (Sapphire) at 9. Crystal (Quartz) is number 7 on Moh’s scale, which means that it can scratch anything numbered below 7, and it can be scratched by anything above 7.

Oddly, two commonly used allotropes of the element Carbon appear at opposite ends of the scale. Graphite (1), the soft mineral used in pencil lead, and Diamond (10), the hardest substance known to man. Both are made of exactly the same element, but the molecules are arranged differently. Graphite is structured as lattice sheets of molecules stacked together, and crumbles when you press it to paper, whereas Diamond is tetrahedrally bonded, the formation able to withstand immense amounts of pressure.

In the context of esteem, we’d equate the Diamond to self esteem that can’t be scratched or damaged, i.e. perfectly resilient. Anything lower can be damaged or negatively impacted by an agitator. We can use Moh’s scale to compare the susceptibility of esteem to negative influence. Weak/fragile esteem (rating perhaps 2 on the scale) could be undermined by an insulting comment from a co-worker. It would take something significantly more forceful, such as rejection by a long-term partner to undermine Strong/resilient esteem rated 8 on the scale.

Resilience is an important quality of esteem because high self esteem isn’t very practical if it’s easily undermined. This is particularly manifest in Narcissists, an example we’ll return to later in the analysis.

It is worthwhile further exploring Resilience, and how it can be built. From my discussions thus far, it appears the primary route to strengthening self esteem is cold rationality. Oftentimes, the agitator which seeks to undermine our self esteem is external, i.e. someone else, through something they say to us directly, or a rumour they circulate. Cold rationality takes whatever is said and passes it through an emotion filter:

  • Has the comment made me worth less in my own eyes?
  • Why does the comment hurt my sense of worth?
  • Should the comment hurt my sense of worth?
  • Does this negative comment reflect a fact or merely their opinion?
  • Do I care what they think?
  • Am I going to let it get to me?

The vast majority of words or actions of others that typically undermine our self esteem shouldn’t. The only reason they should is if they awaken us to some objective shortcoming we have that actually does make feel worth less in our own eyes. My esteem would be impacted if numerous people I respect gravely told me I had some major character flaw, but not were I to be insulted for making a mistake.

Cold rationality has merit insofar as it allows us to separate what truly affects our value of self from the rancid emotional vegetables that humans tend to like throwing around.

An alternate route to developing resilience was relayed to me in charged conversation some weeks ago.  Ivy is anything but conventional and during our thread of discussion on esteem, Ivy told me about one of her ‘experiments’. She would stand in front of the mirror and hurl the most callous and destructive insults at herself until the point she broke down. Her logic was (1) if her worst enemy is herself, and that if (2) she overcame self-criticality by forcibly inflicting a breakdown, then the outcome would be (3) a stronger character, more resilient to emotional damage from most negative projectiles deployed by an external party. Like a born-again Phoenix, the reincarnation which rises from the burnt ashes is stronger than its predecessor. When esteem is shattered by a great force and rebuilt to withstand that level of shock, it will be resilient against any lesser force. If you survive the deep wound of a sword, then you’d be not much perturbed were someone to come at you with a penknife.

Narcissism & Vanity

Returning now to Narcissism, which can be viewed as a special, often fragile corruption of high self esteem. The term ‘Narcissism’ has its origins in the character of Narcissus of Greek Mythology. As the tale goes, Narcissus was an exceptionally handsome young man, who in his boundless vanity, coldly spurned all who admired him. For his vanity and obsessive self-love, he was punished by Nemesis, the Goddess of Retribution, such that upon seeing himself reflected in a pond, unbeknownst that he was looking at himself, he fell in love with his own likeness. In Ovid’s account, unable to pull himself away from his reflection, Narcissus remained there transfixed and slowly perished. The more dramatic Hellenic version depicts Narcissus so distraught and remorseful over the unrequited love that he takes his sword and kills himself.

Though I do not necessarily agree with the Diagnostic Standard Manual’s requirement for five of the nine symptoms to satisfy a diagnosis, below are the criterion defining a Narcissist (clinical case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder) as identified by the American Psychiatric Association:

  1. Grandiose sense of self-importance (exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognised as superior without commensurate achievements) 
  2. Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love 
  3. Believes they are ‘special’ and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other ‘special’ or high-status people or institutions
  4. Requires excessive admiration 
  5. Sense of entitlement, i.e., has unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with their expectations 
  6. Interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends 
  7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others 
  8. Often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her 
  9. Displays arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes

It takes considerable effort to restrain myself from having lexical altercations with narcissists. Having spent a disproportionate number of years living with one, I make two observations. The first is that Sigmund Freud would have a field day analysing how this has warped my psychological development. The second is that narcissists have warped self esteem.

My speculation is that narcissists often have a disconnect between their subconscious esteem and their conscious esteem, which is to say they convince themselves of a (delusional) self worth much higher than it really is. The clues lie within (1) expectation of recognition, (3) prejudicial association, and (4) admiration requirement. Taken collectively, these three symptoms amount to a need for external validation of the esteem. A narcissist’s self esteem typically relies heavily upon support from a relevant circle, whether that be close family and friends (inner circle), or a broader section of the public (outer circle) in the case of a sports star or celebrity. This leads me to speculate further that a Narcissist’s self esteem is fragile because it is externally sourced: contingent upon the changeable goodwill or adulation of other people which the Narcissist has limited control over.

Sources of Esteem

Distinguishing between the two sources of esteem value, internal and external, presents a simpler proposition. External esteem is the self-respect we have that results from other people respecting us. Internal esteem is our innate self-respect that does not depend on anyone else.

It is useful to consider this distinction as a comparison between mammals, who are warm-blooded creatures, and their cold-blooded reptilian cousins. Whereas the exothermic reptile requires radiant warmth from the outside to sustain its existence, the endothermic mammal generates warmth internally.

Somewhat nebulous, the term ‘warmth’ is open to interpretation, but for the purposes of this analysis, it can be viewed as the psychological contentedness we experience with respect to our lives as thinking, feeling beings.

At one end of the continuum, an individual who generates all their ‘warmth’ internally; and toward the other extreme, one who relies wholly upon radiant warmth from other people. In practice, these extremes are unrealistic as humans are social creatures, and on the other hand have a degree of innate psychological autonomy.

More moderately, the domain is not absolute, but differing shades of grey. Castor and Pollux are identical twins who’ve had uncharacteristically divergent upbringings and formative life experiences as a result of being separated at birth, such that Castor has a two-third warm-blooded (endothermic) dominance, and Pollux, a two-third cold-blooded (exothermic) dominance:

Invoking the assumption the two brothers have similar relationships (i.e. partner, family, friends) which underwrite the ‘warm’ component of their derivation profile, it logically follows that there will be an uneven impact wherever there is a change in any of the key relationships.

For whatever reason, where there is adverse shock to the ‘warm’ component (for example, death, or certain types of separation), that shock will leave a hole or gap. To maintain the prior affective state, that gap must be filled, and this is where the composition of the profile becomes pertinent.

Pollux has an advantage in that the absolute size of the gap is smaller than Castor’s by virtue of external accounting for only one third (as opposed to two thirds) of his profile. The direct implications (ceteris paribus), are that (i) the initial damage he endures will be less, and (ii) the gap will be easier to fill, Further, there may be an inherent bias toward filling the gap with the existing dominance (i.e. Pollux seeks to source internally rather than externally). Therein lies the disadvantage increasing ‘warm’ dominance inevitably leads to antisocial tendencies. In the first order, this is reflective of a trade-off of socialisation capacity against affective stability.

Digressing briefly to Greek mythology, Castor and Pollux were the twin sons born to Leda, Queen of Sparta, but to different fathers. Castor was fathered by Tyndareus, King of Sparta and was born mortal, whereas the immortal Pollux was the offspring of Zeus, King of the Gods. In modern times, we know Castor and Pollux as the twins symbolising the Zodiac sign and constellation Gemini.

Self Esteem & Social Identity

As an adjunct to external esteem, there is the linked notion of social identity. Where an individual has weak self esteem, and it is primarily an outcome of negative social identity (exclusion, rejection, isolation), the individual will typically move to somehow assuage that negative social identity. Psychological literature identifies three such routs to achieve this end:

  1. Pass (fake): presenting a façade and moving into a more desirable group without changing internal identity
  2. Exit (change): assuming a new internal identity, appearing and feeling as if they’ve changed
  3. Voice (rebel): elevating the negatively identified group

Illustratively, I’m a dork and have low self esteem because I see the shiny people who have it all. Pass would have me pretend, behaving like a shiny person to get into their group. Exit would involve me shedding the dork elements of my identity and assuming the shiny elements. Voice would require me to change my belief, such that I viewed dorks as superior to shiny people. Any one of these actions can have the effect of increasing my self esteem.

Group Influence on Self Esteem

Voice, or the elevation of a group is responsible for a not insignificant portion of most people’s external esteem; the part which is derived through identification with groups. Our species are notorious categorisers – heuristic reductionism plays a vital role in hacking a path through the dense jungle that is life. If we didn’t generalise and stereotype into groups and categories, living would become intolerably complicated.

Groups are most often defined by common internal characteristic, for example, the propensity for Goths to drape themselves in black, a tribe whose natives speak the same tongue, or a denomination which follows a unique doctrine. We form groups by ethnicity, age, social class, hobby, occupation, opinion, gender, locality, the list goes on.

Groups form for the benefit of their members. Formal groups tend to be based around an activity and have an explicitly stated objective, goal or purpose, the engagement in this activity and/or furthering/realisation of the objective yielding the major benefit to members. Then there are informal or social groups which exist primarily for their members feeling a sense of belonging. Sometimes, groups form as a result of individuals who’ve been ostracised from society for whatever reason joining together. If self-esteem is your internal perception of worth, ostracisation is a denunciation of that worth by society. Seeking out a group of some similar characteristic which elevates itself is an increasingly popular way to restore esteem lost through ostracisation.

*

Conclusion

My understanding sees self esteem as something with the fragility of porcelain, and volatility of glycerine. I would also say that self esteem is becoming increasingly unstable with each passing generation. In the greater scheme of things, today we are a planet of some 6.8 billion people, which is eighteen times what it was in 1400. Each of us is still one fish, but in a pond which is growing exponentially, we become statistically less significant. That is the mathematical argument. The sociological argument is premised on two things: (1) the industrial revolution multiplying the extremes of disparity in wealth and status, which is detrimental to esteem due to (2) humanity’s obsession with wealth and status making these two things the currency of the world.

Backtracking to the very beginning of this analysis, we established that self esteem was the value you placed on yourself, which reflects how much benefit you’ll get out of life. It is not surprising that self esteem is a casualty in a competitive and judgemental world driven by money, status and appearances. The world judges value on these quantities, and since these criteria largely dictate how much (hedonistic) benefit we get out of life, we reconcile by judging our value on these same criteria.

In conclusion, the fundamental difficulty is when a person believes they are worth less than someone who’s wealthier, has more prestige and is more attractive. As a philosopher, I’d argue the only valid valuation criteria is some universal standard of ‘goodness’ (if it exists), but even that is not strictly correct. One’s self esteem should not be held to another’s ransom. The true worth of any individual is intimately personal. The self knows itself better than anyone, and insofar as we are masters of our own destiny, so too are we masters of our esteem.

Love

 love montage

Haddaway asked the question back in 1992. Being all of six years old at the time, I was too preoccupied determining the Easter Bunny’s authenticity to give the topic due consideration. It wasn’t until 2004 that my fixation with left-hemisphere pursuits loosened its grip enough as to allow an earnest foray into the furthest reaches of the foreign domain: love.

What initially began as a simple curiosity to which I stupidly thought there was an answer, spawned into something of an exodus, consuming excess of 1,200 hours and 5,000 pages of written communication over the course of five years – and counting. I have been on an eye-watering number of first dates and am only marginally the wiser than my naïve seventeen year old self.

Attempting to demarcate the essence of love is on par with trying to catch the falling rain with a butterfly net – love doesn’t lend itself to my usual mode of analysis in the slightest. As such, I preface the following invective with an acknowledgement it will be speculation whose basis is semi-empirical evidence at best, and pure subjective opinion at worst.

My ambivalence toward the subject made it necessary to utilise two distinct frames: nostalgic romantic and detached rationalist. It has been written as dialogue between two minds, each possessing a degree of insight into the other. A narrator mediates intermittently and colours the milieu where appropriate.

~

Early one autumn afternoon, Sol sits slouched lazily on a park bench by an artificial lake, feeding ducks with crumbs from an old loaf of bread – pausing intermittently to append a random thought or observations to his ageing leather notebook, the grain chaffed and worn from its travels.

What is love? One can go through a mind-numbing number of iterations and permutations. It is an emotion, a concept, a force, an action. The more one tries to understand it, the more evasive it becomes.

His mind draws a blank: the pen isn’t out of ink, but the hand holding it is gauche. Looking toward the clouds for inspiration, thoughts cast adrift like the ashen wisps above.

Minutes pass, a tap on the shoulder brings him back to reality. ‘How long have you been sitting there like that?’ Her melodic, incisive tone had an air of familiarity about it. It takes a couple of seconds for the face to register – much older and wiser than when he’d last seen it in Introductory Psychology at university some dozen years ago. He can’t help but smile ‘I’ve…it’s been a while, Luna’

Though they’d only been classmates for one semester prior to his transfer, there was an unusual acquaintance between them that somehow survived despite the passage of all those years. They’d been assigned as unlikely partners on a research project and would constantly debate the finer points of theory and practice; hers was a highly clinical leaning, his angle more abstruse.

Their paths diverged with their degrees. Studying the mind, even for a few months, imbues insight into the self incomparable to that afforded by other domains. Luna was fascinated by its machinations, her voracious appetite for knowledge and passion to understand saw her blaze a trail, graduating top of the class. Her rise through the profession was meteoric, she completed a PhD in record time, and was running her own practice by the age of twenty-eight.

Sol wasn’t blessed with Luna’s academic faculty, and though he enjoyed learning, was often bewildered by the density of textbooks and found it difficult to grasp much of psychology’s clinical complexity. In spite of this, he managed to pass the unit on the grace of his uncanny insight into people, their motives and interaction. Aware this learning disposition would hinder his ambition of becoming a practitioner, he decided to turn the limitation into an advantage, and transferred overseas to pursue studies in Sociology and Anthropology. Sol’s motive power didn’t come from thermally bound knowledge, and no sooner than he’d begrudgingly completed his degree, he packed his life into a backpack and ventured out to explore foreign lands. His knowledge of living became the sum product of chance conversations over the years spent travelling.

Whilst Luna commanded the earnings of an eminent specialist, Sol made a comfortable living between his day job as a taxi driver and the royalties accruing from photographs taken on his travels, which were exhibited and often published for their raw depiction of culture.

~

Frame I: Objects of Love

The interaction between Luna and Sol had never followed provisions of social contract. Though over a decade had passed since their paths last crossed, there would be time for pleasantries later. For the moment; she had an intellectual curiosity that needed satiating.

LUNA  I know that pensive look – what’s on your mind?

SOL     How different the world be if everyone had your candour Luna. Don’t ask me why, but my mind has been dwelling on the matter of love lately. I feel it is something very much misunderstood and simplified; to the peril of its realisation. I’ve made a project of better understanding its intricacies, if for no other reason than to help me know when and if I find it.

Intuiting where the conversation was going, Sol pre-emptively moves his bag aside. With a solitary fluid movement, the vacated space is at once assumed.

LUNA  Ok, I’m in. What’ve you come up with so far?

SOL     My thoughts are somewhat scattered. Aside from this illegible scrawl on various tangents, I’ve made a modest start.  

Flipping to the antecedent section of his notebook, reserved for lucid writings, he begins to read the product of the last two hours aloud.

SOL     Classically, love has been dissected along the line of its object. Where the object, the beloved, is inanimate, conceptual or otherwise, it is termed impersonal love, and where the object is another human being, it is deemed interpersonal love. Further, interpersonal love can be either romantic or platonic in nature.

However, it ought to be recognised that the classical division is intrinsically unsound on grounds of internal paradox. Conflict arises when attraction is given a strong-form definition. Employing a scientific equivalent, the force of magnetism is like-for-like: the phenomenon exists exclusively between two magnetic objects. I can’t say a magnetised steel nail is attracted to, nor repelled by for that matter, a piece of wood. Between a magnetic object and a neutral object, magnetism cannot exist. Applying this rule, we conclude that love, attraction specifically, can only exist on condition of like substance. Perhaps not all of humanity actually loves per se, but the presence of capacity to love is adequate to validate the conjecture. A person cannot love an animal any more than a bottle of Vodka can love Planned Socialism.

LUNA  So you’re contending that love must necessarily be shared between people?

SOL     That is the gist of it.

Her irises flare almost imperceptibly.

LUNA  Let me play Devil’s Advocate for a moment. I’ve counselled patients who’ve loved their cars more than their partners, their jobs more than their families, and their pets more than their friends. What makes you so certain a person’s highest degree of love can only be directed toward another person? How does your argument stand up against religion? All the devout believers who hold their deity above everything else – are you saying they’re wrong?

SOL     As I understand it, yes. Love is for the most part reciprocal. There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking, without objective reciprocity, then what you have isn’t love, it is either worship or drudgery. I can share my deepest emotional anxieties with my pet Iguana, but the Iguana can’t be receptive or understanding like another person, no more than it can express its feelings to me. It is the same with everything else – I can pray, but I need to have faith that there’s someone or something listening, and that he, she or it actually cares.

People lie, yet in spite of this, I know that if there is one singularity I can communicate with, it is another human being. As long as this existence is reality, and reality is our only handle on truth; then you and I sitting here engaging in conversation proves the point. Love needs to be defined in terms of equitability, or at least potential equitability. I maintain that the only objective capacity for love which can be matched against an individual, is that of another individual.

Show me something with a heart, mind and consciousness that isn’t human and I will retract my premise in its entirety.

LUNA  You’re amusing when you get defensive. I agree insofar as your supposition that love needs to flow both ways, though I prefer look at it in a different light.

Five years ago, when I was studying for my PhD, I composed a loose theory on the exchange of energy for one of my theses, which fits your hypothesis quite well if you invoke love as a currency.

What you’re essentially saying is that love is an energy exchange or transaction, and you’re imposing a hurdle on the ‘fairness’ of the transaction, which can be modelled using a recourse coefficient. All other things being equal, if I bought you lunch; the recourse coefficient to me would be zero. But if you bought me lunch the next time, it would equalise to one.

Love engages in the same way, and I agree that to call it ‘love,’ there has to be some adequate level of reciprocity, ideally as close to one as possible.

SOL     Not so – I can think of at least one instance of love where that coefficient could be zero.

Consider the relationship between a mother and newborn. The mother loves the infant, directing enormous amounts of physical and emotional energy toward the child, in many cases prioritising the baby ahead of herself. On the flipside, the baby, being incapable of complex cognition, cannot reciprocate any measure of love; much less comprehend it, even in the most rudimentary sense.

Evidently we’re being too broad in our enquiry. Perhaps we should constrain our analysis. Let’s concentrate on romantic love.

LUNA  Seconded, otherwise we’d be liable to spend weeks splitting hairs.

So, we’ve established that love is, in principle a human phenomenon, that a unitary recourse coefficient demands an equal reciprocal flow of love, that romantic love requires reciprocity, and further that romantic love is stronger the closer this coefficient is to one. The reversal is that as the coefficient approaches zero, the relationship regresses and deteriorates.

Frame II: An Exploration of Romantic Love

LUNA  Seeing as we’ve now addressed context, how do you propose we delineate romantic love?

SOL     Allow me to preface by saying the definition is frustrated. Because love is very much individual, there is no universally agreed designation of what love is, thus rendering all analysis subjective. Without an anchor, it can float in any direction.

Personally, I am quite fond of Ayn Rand’s definition of love: the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one for the joy received from the virtues of another.

He pauses, staring up at the leaden sky momentarily, before returning his gaze to Luna.

SOL     Unfortunately, her definition isn’t specific to romantic love, which has sent me back to my drawing board.

Luna drums her fingers on the park bench as her mind searches for something.

LUNA  Love is the expansion of two natures in such fashion that each include the other, each is enriched by the other. Felix Adler.

I’m good – you can say it.

Reaching into the bag, Sol proffers a piece of the stale bread, and offers it to Luna teasingly.

SOL     Oh I know you’re good, would you like a reward?

She snatches the bread and casts it melodramatically over her shoulder.

LUNA  The way I see it, romantic love is characterised by two rudiments: the force of attraction, and the energy of affection. Attraction is what draws two people together, and affection is the shared warmth between them. Romantic affection amplifies the sentiments of caring, and goodwill, but more importantly, it infuses communication and interaction with a unique sensuality which isn’t replicated in any other class of relationship.

SOL     Attraction and Affection. I picked up a fare earlier this week, and we got to discussing how those elements materialise in different guises. Her last two relationships embodied one such timeless difference.  The first relationship was characterised by feelings of craziness: intense enjoyment and blithe freedom. Her partner initiated this craziness at a ten on the scale, and she was able to respond with an eight. I suggested this was an example of ‘passionate’ love dominating. The second was more an affair of ‘intimate’ love. Whilst she didn’t feel trusting toward her ‘passionate’ partner, she trusted her ‘intimate’ partner implicitly. On the flipside, where it came to that ingredient of craziness or ‘magic,’ she was left wanting. Not being a natural instigator, she could only initiate craziness at eight on the scale, and her partner would reciprocate with a six.

It is open to debate as to whether the degree of ‘magic’ experienced is the average or the lower of the two, but it stands to reason this measure has clear implications for the intensity of passion in a relationship.

Were we to divide the elements of love into the child and the adult, the reckless/crazy juvenile who lives for the moment and does not care for consequences is more indulged where the two individuals are strongly attuned to or aligned with their child. ‘Magic’ is the upshot to the extent the child is better able to disengage from reason and reality.

By contrast, the companionate aspect of love engages deeper adult emotive forces, namely trust and sincerity – it has a long term focus. I cautiously posit that with age and maturity, the companionate aspect gradually becomes more important for reasons of stability and psychological comfort. Whilst a relationship should never lose its ‘fire,’ the magic and excitement brought by the child; one must nevertheless remain cognisant of the fact a fire will not burn for long without fuel to sustain it. In a roundabout way, this encapsulates commitment.

There’s a strong semblance to various hypotheses on ‘New Relationship Energy,’ describing the initial honeymoon phase as the essence of an induced high, which quickly withdraws or burns out as the accelerated rate of consumption exhausts fuel faster than it is able to regenerate. From the grains of truth I have collected on my travels, this is one of few tried and tested empirically.

LUNA  You’re traversing a path similar to the one that led Robert Sternberg toward his Triangular Theory of Love, which stipulates passion, intimacy and commitment as the three basic elements. When combined in various ways, these elements constitute seven types of love. Under his model, passion and intimacy together form the basis for ‘romantic love,’ but compassionate love, the ‘holy grail,’ requires the third element: commitment.

I think we’re approaching clarity of definition, but we need to invoke commitment. Temporality is the missing link. Romantic love can be either transitory or enduring. Passionate love is transitory, but merged with commitment; it becomes enduring compassionate love. Semantics is a strange route to get there, but the logic supports a conclusion that commitment governs between transitory and enduring.

SOL     Despite all we’ve said about dividing love into its elements, I’m still inclined to view it more simplistically: as an adventure.

I’m speaking of love in the same breath as adventure because the two concepts are inextricably linked. Neither know boundaries, both are indelibly exciting and dangerous, neither follow logic, and both are impulsive and unpredictable. One cannot plan an adventure anymore than one can force love. There is only the heat of the moment and enduring momentum. Life is an adventure that gets progressively more interesting, and love is an irrational but integral part of that adventure. Life would be at a great loss without love, and dare I say it, living and loving are not too dissimilar in form and meaning.

LUNA  Brilliantly poetic – have you ever considered a career as a writer?

SOL     Career is such a dirty word – it is a pastime. Money should never motivate a creative pursuit; such a betrayal pollutes the sincerity of expression.

Speaking of motivations, I’ve a question to ask of you Luna; why do you love?

Frame III: Motivation to Love

The loaded question provokes a flashback. Luna recalls the story of a Professor setting an open essay with the question ‘Why?’ One word. His students wrote extensive, complex responses: ten, twenty pages. Only one submission received full marks. It was a blank sheet, save for two words: ‘Why not?’

LUNA  Why do I love? There are a few reasons, and I am tempted to launch into lecture, but sometimes the answer is surreptitiously simple. I love because it makes me feel good, and to be loved back.

SOL     Interesting that you should mention both – most people I ask only identify the one, but they often don’t recognise that the two motivations are intimately associated. Would it still make you feel good if you weren’t loved back?

LUNA  Dispassionately, it wouldn’t, and I wish I’d learnt as much earlier. Loving for the sake of being loved back appears a selfish motivation on face value, but it is no different from any other motivation, they’re all selfish.

At least in a romantic context, there is no such thing as selfless love, it does not appear love can be justifiably separated from pleasure. All routes of justification lead to some form of psychological satisfaction. The raison d’être for romantic love is intrinsically possessed of a selfish element.

Granted what we get in return may not always be love, we still get something.

SOL     My thoughts exactly. It concerns me when I cross paths with self-styled martyrs who believe loving is selfless and noble, because it truly isn’t. Self-serving behaviour is dominant, anything contrary is regressive and eventually becomes extinct. Love’s prevalence attests to its selfish nature.

Which isn’t to say selfishness is a bad thing; more often than not, the fruits of our endeavour toward happiness are shared.

LUNA  Shared happiness – that opens up another door: love and marriage. Notions of shared happiness are common to both, and there are parallels between what motivates each.

SOL     Despite love and marriage sharing common premises, marriage needs to be kept divorced from love, if you’ll excuse the pun. Conceptually the two are far from interchangeable and their overlap is chronically overestimated. Marriage is the social institutionalisation of love.

But you’re right, in terms of motivation, there are many parallels between love and marriage.

I attended a talk given by Alain de Botton some months ago, during which he made quite a salient point in that prior to the eighteenth century; you married someone not for love, but because their family’s farm adjoined yours.

It got me thinking about convenience. Alain was pointing out that historically, the ‘marriage of convenience’ was not only socially acceptable, but quite normal. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I look around, and can’t help but notice the contemporary notion of love is moving in the same direction: convenience.

Where do we draw the line?

LUNA  No, you’re onto something there. Now that I think about it, a common theme I often note about many of my Generation Y patients is their pursuit of instant gratification. It manifests primarily in a material sense, but also in the metaphysical. They spend now rather than save for a rainy day, their thoughts seldom dwell beyond the upcoming weekend, and their attitude toward relationships leans heavily toward utilitarianism.

Clearly, utilitarianism is a harbinger to a reweighting of perspective such that the significance of long term stability and profundity yields to short term convenience benefits encompassing physical contact, intimacy, time structuring, social conformity and comfort. As this attitude becomes more ingrained, we get a self-reinforcing decay in the definition and esteem of love.

I’ve always held that a relationship whose predominant component is convenience is not love, rather a repetitive commercial transaction involving inferior currency.

SOL     I sense there’s a conflict between what you think and what you feel. Why is finding love so significant in your life?

LUNA  I’m thirty-two, run my own practice, I’ve travelled the world, and am at the stage where the only thing missing is a relationship. If I could find that final piece of the jigsaw, I’d be a very happy woman indeed.

Sol sighs, fumbles for a piece of bread and casts it out onto the water. A nearby flock of ducks scramble toward it, but are outfoxed by a sly seagull that had been eyeing the bag of bread intently for some time. He smiles, amused by the apt reminder of patience.

SOL     Would I be accurate in saying you’ve had a string of intense relationships, but at some point in each, you suddenly realised it wouldn’t work out long term? 

LUNA  The generalisation you’ve just made would apply to most people. Fortunately for you, I am one of them. Tell me why I’m conflicted.          

SOL     You’re conflicted because your mind rails against love being a convenience, yet you’re subconsciously pursuing it for similar reasons: the missing piece to your puzzle. I have known people who’ve pursued love to fill a gap, a partner who completes them. Each time, their endeavour has ultimately come to grief.

Pausing to remove a bottle of water from his bag, he finds a metaphor.

SOL     Say I had an open wine bottle – it makes sense for me to find a cork that fits snugly to ensure the wine keeps. This mindset is too often prevalent in the perception of love. You find a cork to plug the bottle. You’d be familiar with this thought pattern from your patients.

Under assumption of homeostasis, there is nothing logically wrong with trying to find a fit. However, reality is not homeostatic – the aperture of the bottle and cork are both dynamic: they grow. If a close correspondence between size of the aperture and the cork is not maintained, one of two things must eventually happen. Either the cork will fall and drown in the wine, contaminating it in the process, or the bottle will shatter under excessive pressure caused by the cork. Relationships respect this rule when they exist as ‘plugs’ for holes in either or both partner’s lives.

The first equivalent outcome is that the bottle, a proxy for individual’s emotional/psychological needs, outgrows the cork, which is a proxy for partner’s capacity to fulfil them, and the cork is no longer enough to ensure the wine keeps.  If you like, the cork feels inadequate, the bottle resentful, and either initiates a dissolution.

The second equivalent outcome is that the cork, or the partner’s emotional maturity, outgrows the bottle, in this case the emotionally immature individual, and the bottle is shattered. The cork awakens, and initiates dissolution, causing the bottle to suffer damage.

This feeds directly into causes for dissolution. When we look at life as a jigsaw, something we all do, we often neglect dynamism, the tendency for the picture to change. We concentrate on finding the piece which fits the best now, but don’t think much about how the picture will look ten or twenty years from today.

From what you’ve revealed, your relationships have always been fulfilling in the moment, but have corroded because you’ve been on different tracks, one growing faster, the other slower. At some point the distance becomes so great you can’t see them anymore. Further, it seems you’re looking for a missing piece.

Frame IV: Love, Despondency and Indifference

LUNA  Perhaps I should be the one sitting on the chaise lounge? You’ve made a fair assessment, but your logic has committed an error of omission. I’ll concur there may be some merit in saying love should not be a prosthetic that completes, but you can’t escape the fact it is a band-aid.

Rather than make a rash generalisation, take a step back. Love is also one of few socially acceptable mystic coping mechanisms for living anxiety, arguably more prevailing than the likes of religion.

You cannot therefore deny ‘filling a gap’ as a valid motivation. To the extent love assuages anxiety, it is by definition compensatory. To elucidate, I used to debate internally the question ‘does love miss?’ or, rather, ‘should love miss?’ Conventionally, when one is in love, and there is an unforeseen and prolonged separation, such as a lengthy and unexpected overseas trip, feelings of loss, withdrawal and anxiety are typically borne by both individuals. The evidence that we don’t reconcile with and accept separation without ill feeling, rather allow it to persist as a thorn in our side illustrates that love fills a gap; otherwise, we wouldn’t miss.

To validate the compensatory aspect of love, consider the misalignment of society itself. Having even one person ‘understand’ you goes some way in mitigating the crippling loneliness most people would feel if we were to strip away all other psychological distractions. The world is a very false and apathetic place, thus the value of finding truth and love to assuage this piercing feeling of loneliness is profound.

SOL     We’ve a lexical misunderstanding. I’ll need to backtrack and refine my logic.

If we take ‘filling a gap’ as being finding that person that fits with your life, someone to accompany you on the rollercoaster ride, to fill the empty seat next to you, I have no issue with that and can identify with needing to find that missing piece.

What you’re articulating isn’t so much filling a gap as plugging a hole. Metaphorically, one fills a gap for the sake of structural or aesthetic completeness, but one plugs a hole to prevent a ship from sinking.

Using love to plug a hole is effectively unidirectional stabilisation, whereby one partner becomes the emotional crutch preventing the other from falling over. 

I take issue here because unidirectional stabilisation can be viewed as an emotional power differential that persists to one side, and is therefore a charge/custodian relationship, as opposed to an equitable union.

LUNA  If you’re invoking equitability, then it implies two people who are similarly damaged by the world, two people who do not ‘love’ themselves; can form a relationship of bidirectional stabilisation. They would still have an equitable union.

SOL     In all honesty, I haven’t considered that angle. Can we invoke the mathematical reasoning that if love is a pairing of like charges, then the two charges could be negative, as well as positive? I’m afraid I don’t have an answer to that question.

LUNA  It’s beside the point in any case. Back to our thread of discussion, there are a lot of sinking ships out there. I’ve an inkling the vast majority feel there is something fundamentally wrong with the world, but find the fact so painful to confront they subconsciously structure their lives to avoid an encounter with the question. Perhaps it shouldn’t be, but love is an elegant solution to this problem.

SOL     I’ll give you that. Your interpretation is realistic, because the feeling of which you speak is insidious, though you’re neglecting the comorbidity. The world’s ‘fundamental wrongness’ is borne of two deficiencies, thus can only be resolved by correcting both.

Love and justice are the two wings upon which humanity is carried. In the absence of either, we will fall. One of those wings is broken, and the other, even beating in double time, cannot compensate.

Soothsayers preach ‘love is all you need,’ but there is a reason this mindset fails. Indeed, love is a lever that can move the world, but justice is its fulcrum – and insofar as corruption and subversion of justice persist, love’s exertion will forever be in vain.

For love to be an omnipotent solution, sufficient unawareness is required. To those who live without cognisance, love can surmount most anxieties, death being the only exception. Once we reach a point of critical awareness, we realise love is only part of the solution, and that the world righting itself isn’t quite as simple as the ‘good’ that is love triumphing over the evil of hate.

Whilst dark is the absence of light, the truism does not hold when the poles are replaced with love and hate. Love’s opposite is indifference, hate is its inverse. Indifference is the absence of feeling. Love and hate are the two extreme states of projected feeling. The universe is neutral, indifference is its natural state, but we as humans have the capacity to go either way. So the battle is one in which the active forces of love and justice are pitted against indifference, their common enemy.

Luna, engrossed in the philosophical foray, but not wanting to appear as such, removes a tube of aubergine lipstick from her handbag and begins to apply it, feigning disinterest.

LUNA  Sol, that was a digression of biblical proportion. At no point in that diatribe did you speak to the topic we are engaging.

Frame V: The Ignition of Love

Forcing a faux cough, Sol returns fire.

SOL     Lipstick isn’t necessary if you’re trying to seduce me. You had me at hello.

Believe it or not, I was leading into the ignition of romantic love before I was so discourteously interrupted. Specifically, any move away from that base state of neutrality, directed toward another, engenders the development of an affective relationship. Love is one of the positive routes diverging from the neutral state.

LUNA  See, it is that divergence which interests me. I’ve lost track of the anecdotes I’ve heard about instantaneous divergence to the positive extreme, more commonly known as love at first sight. Can love be ignited by eyes locking across a train carriage? Is there such thing as an instant connection?

They are rhetorical questions. Instant connections are feasible, but love at first sight is fictitious and ignorant of certain prerequisites. A pertinent example is communication involving cognitive exchange. Whenever I hear a story about falling in love after a five minute conversation, or worse still upon seeing someone for the first time, it disconcerts me. It is beyond my understanding how any person can develop the necessary conviction to appellate love given such inadequate information.

The gravity of such a decision warrants much more consideration than many give it. As far as investments go, your biggest investment decision in life won’t be buying a home, but whether you’ll have a life partner, and who that person will be. No other venture compares in terms of outlay: time, energy, even your ‘soul’ to an extent. It is not something to be taken lightly, which is why love at first sight is altogether foolish.

Further, I believe there is a kinaesthetic prerequisite, which stipulates communicative exchange must occur in person. I am increasingly sceptical about ‘love’ via such conveyances as telephone and internet. Energy of this nature cannot possibly be conducted via copper wires. As the sparks fly, love bridges physical space like a bolt from a Van de Graff generator, it cannot be instigated in any other medium.

SOL     Talking prerequisites, considerations of exchange are important I’d agree, but the imperative criterion that qualifies one to love is self-worth. To say “I love you,” one must first be able to say the “I.”

Rand’s quote, not mine, but a slam dunk nevertheless. I don’t believe it possible to truly love someone else if you do not love yourself. It is a prerequisite to love that the heart must first beat on its own accord, and so must pump blood to itself. Love cannot be projected from a comatose heart.

LUNA  If an unconscious heart can’t love, how would you define consciousness? One could argue being in love, under a spell, is itself a lapse of consciousness. When people fall in love, they often become less conscious.

SOL     On the first point, you’ve got to question whether we have control over the emotion, or whether we are spellbound into it. My conceptual understanding is that love, indeed falling in love can resemble a loss of consciousness because it involves a degree of surrender. Perhaps this is why the operative verb is ‘falling.’

Personally though, I’ve always had trouble with the imagery. Is the pit bottomless? Do we ever hit the bottom, or are we constantly ‘falling’ in love? I’ve found love more of a climb. One falls, or rather plummets haphazardly into infatuation, not love. Love is more methodical than we care to admit to ourselves.

I have stupidly ‘fallen’ into infatuation before, obstinately assuming an overconfident understanding, only to be proven wrong. I thought I had a handle on love – many times, but it has taken me the better part of a decade to recognise love for what it is.

It is like being given a seed. You don’t know what kind, but you look for a good patch of soil, plant it, water it, and watch what develops. The planting phase can be methodical if we so desire. Often the seed doesn’t sprout at all, other times what does grow withers and dies. But every now and again, one of those seeds will develop into an enduring tree of friendship. Sometimes we are treated to a surprise even rarer: as the exquisite flower of love blossoms and flourishes.

Without realising it, we are all planting seeds. If life were a garden, we’d desire a few sturdy oaks to lean against, elms to provide cover from the elements, and perhaps varieties of maple and cherry for colour. At the heart of the garden, the centrepiece, is a flower: a scarlet rose, a pallid orchid, a vivid yellow daffodil; a pleasure to behold. Its image is the quintessence of mystical beauty to the eye of its beholder, and its scent, that of an enthralling opiate.

Unconsciously betraying her awkwardness with Sol’s quixotic allegory, Luna shifts posture.

LUNA  Let’s go for a walk, I need a change of scenery. Besides (glancing down at the empty bread bag), you’re out of ammo.

SOL     So I am.

As the two abandon the park bench, sheets of light drizzle begin to fall. Luna produces a scarlet cylinder from her handbag, which she deftly transforms into a surprisingly broad canopy.  

LUNA  I know a hideout nearby, fancy a coffee?

He gestures to link arms.

SOL     Given you’re the one with the umbrella, I don’t believe I have a choice.

Frame VI: The Growth of Love

Twenty minutes’ reflective silence underlines the route to Luna’s café.  By the time they arrive, the drizzle has intensified to a lashing downpour. The wall of warmth and chatter that hits them crossing the threshold into the café is a welcome contrast to the cold sterility outside: two extremes separated by a windowpane.

Typifying gender roles, Sol commandeers a table whilst Luna saunters toward the counter to inspect the sweets.

Surveying from his post at a corner table, Sol can observe the whole cafe. Bluestone walls, dark floorboards of perhaps teak or jarrah; distressed tables made from old polished railway sleepers, and chairs upholstered in weathered chocolate leather. It is busy, but quiet. A gentleman in his fifties wearing a driver’s hat sits alone at the far end, immersed in The Art of War. At the table adjacent, a posse of young bohemians gossip in hushed undertones. They are stealing glances toward the counter, where a tall, rugged-looking barista operates the vintage fire-engine red Gaggia.

Luna returns skilfully carrying two cappuccinos and a plate, atop which sits a rather large blueberry Danish. Sol draws her chair and raises an eyebrow.

 LUNA Don’t worry, I’ll share.

Apologies for switching off while we were walking; it’s been a while since I’ve last had an intense conversation on such a perplexing topic. Where were we?

SOL     I believe I was waxing lyrical about flora, at which point you became slightly disconcerted.

LUNA  It wasn’t the metaphor that bothered me, only the way you said it. It was idealistic but accurate, and there are some truths that I’d rather not confront.

Thinking about it whilst we were walking, I actually quite like your metaphor. Extending it further, if we’re in the business of planting seeds, the topic becomes the growth of love. To borrow from your imagery, one can’t just cast a seed and expect it spring up, it needs time and the right conditions.

SOL     Curious. We appreciate the importance of the right conditions, but often ignore the role of adverse conditions.

LUNA  In what sense?

SOL     Adversity could mean fights, shocks, external threats, anything that potentially undermines love really. It was explained to me using the immune system as an allegory.

Introduce a virus to the body and one of two things will happen. A weak immune system will succumb to the virus. A strong immune system will fight and emerge stronger. Introduce a shock to love, the story is the same. Weak love will surrender. Strong love will prevail. How you feel about a person in the days after an argument should give you a fairly good idea of the strength of the bond between you.

LUNA  I see what you’re saying, the power to resist damaging forces and shocks being a litmus test for a relationship, but through adversity isn’t the model way love should grow.

Generally speaking, love grows or becomes stronger in two distinct ways. The first, which you alluded to, is cyclic growth whereby resolving or ‘moving through’ conflicts results in a stronger bond being forged. A similar biological process, known as microtrauma is the basis of Hypertrophy or muscle growth. When placed under stress, strands of muscle fibre tear, which the body then replaces, overcompensating with additional muscle tissue to prevent recurrence of damage.

When people refer to the proverbial rollercoaster, that’s cyclic growth. Ideally, love’s growth should be non-cyclic, occurring as two individuals become more involved, their connection becoming deeper.

SOL     From experience, I’m familiar with the ‘creative destruction’ of cyclic growth, but admittedly I’m intrigued by your ‘non-cyclic’ growth.

When you describe a deepening connection, how do you demonstrate it? Is it the two personalities becoming more entwined? Is it the sharing of experiences? Is it simply through interaction? If a deepening connection is growth, what feeds it?

Their conversation is interrupted by a loud ringtone from the adjacent table. A metallic rendition of Empire of The Sun’s Walking on a Dream issues from the phone’s small speaker.

“Is it real now? Two people become one”

“I can feel it, two people become one”

One of the young bohemians smiles, grabs her still ringing handset, and scurries toward an empty corner.

Luna lowers her voice.

LUNA  I’ll stake you the bill it’s the latest crush.

SOL     Won’t make any difference, I was going to pay anyway.

LUNA  Ha.

Two become one. Well that definitely isn’t the answer to your question. I don’t believe the whole entwining mantra. Lyrical sounding, but surely among the most common and dangerous fallacies applied to love. Love is not a fusing of identities. In fact, deductive reversal of this logic implies that a love dissolved results in two half-people.

I can’t think of many things more painful, from an observational perspective, than couples who conduct themselves as a single entity. Living in each other’s pockets, so to speak, gives rise to considerable problems. Without adequately autonomous lives outside the relationship, which include hobbies, pursuits, friends, and without sufficient time apart, staleness develops.

I wouldn’t have eaten that Danish if it were stale.

Which leads me to your question of what feeds love: interaction, shared experience, getting to know one another better, pursuit of shared goals – they’re the obvious. It is the obscure which interests me. So long as we’re feeding love, its regime should have some variety, and this is the Achilles’ heel of enmeshed couples: lack of differential experience.

If you believe as I do that part of a relationship’s energy comes from differential experience, then the capacity to learn from each other through sharing diminishes the more the circles of experience overlap. Imagine a relationship with a co-worker who had a job role identical to your own, sat next to you, attended all the same meetings, and worked on the same projects: monotony would be an understatement.

Differential experience can be derived in two ways: actual distinct experience, for example the clients encountered by a waitress versus a criminal lawyer, and distinct interpretations of the same experience; for example two people on the same rollercoaster, one may feel exhilaration, the other fear. In a concentric relationship, the latter may still provide some fuel, but it is the element of separation in pastimes that creates energy by ensuring there is always something new to share or discuss.

Luna glances wistfully toward the display counter.

LUNA  Well it looks like you’ve covered the diet side of things covered with experience. Experience provides sustenance for growth, although there’s more to it. If experience is a food, then expression is an exercise. After all, we want love to grow, but also to maintain strength. Hold that thought.

Before Luna can excuse herself, Sol darts from the table.

He returns a minute later with a fudge brownie.

SOL     I hope I intuited correctly. You were craving chocolate, right?

LUNA  You’re scary.

Luna continues her discourse between mouthfuls.

LUNA  Of my many grievances with moral decay into something of a materialistic wasteland is the mutilation of expression. Since when was there a correlation between the expression of love and the size of a diamond, the frequency of outings, and degree of risqué hazarded making out in public? What constitutes an expression of love?

Sol pauses for effect.

SOL     There are expressions and then there are indicators. Indicators are physical manifestations of lust, which betray interest. Expressions carry a much deeper meaning. Often the gestures are the same, except they elicit heightened sensory sensation – visual, auditory, olfactory, kinaesthetic impacts on an elevated, almost mesmerising level.

To converse in a noisy café and feel like you’re the only two people in the room?

He fixes an intense gaze upon her.

SOL     Looking so deeply into someone’s eyes that you are in the moment, out of focus?

He accosts her hand.

SOL     Holding hands and feeling as if the connection is more than one of flesh?

He stands, leaning across the table toward her, their faces almost touch.

SOL     A whisper in your ear that sends shivers down your spine?

He sits back down.

LUNA  To be honest, you sound like a bleeding heart.

SOL     We have intellectualised and sacrificed so much to appearances, surrendering those expressions which move. Frozen hearts don’t bleed, I’m just an animal looking for a home.

Frame VII: Love’s Inherent Uncertainty

LUNA  That’s a nice thought, but you know better. Animals find homes. People inhabit and then move on to greener pastures. It is our nature.

Realising the plaintiveness of his remark, and knowing she’s caught him out, he doesn’t seek to defend himself.

SOL     Apologies, that was careless of me. You’re right, we are maximising creatures. Our entire way of life responds to a maximisation problem. We work to maximise our living standards. We socialise to maximise the amount of external energy we receive. We seek maximum efficiency, longevity, quality, power, satisfaction.  Insofar as the two states of contentedness and desire are concerned, the former is elusive, and the latter is boundless. As long as we want after something more, we are never truly content.

Love is no stranger to the maximisation dilemma. The question “could there be something more out there?” is a salient one. If happiness hinges on being ‘content,’ and love is a core pursuit in life, it stands to reason that being in a state of uncertain love inevitably precludes fulfilment. The niggling question of ‘what if’ is an especially pervasive issue with love. Ignorance overcomes this to a large degree, because the ‘what if’ isn’t posed and present reality is not questioned. Some people will spend the rest of their lives with the first person they date.

There is an inverse correlation between experiential breadth and ‘what if’ dystonic. Logically, if you are presented with a tasting plate of everything on a restaurant’s menu before making a selection, you’re never going to leave with the feeling you could’ve ordered better.

LUNA  I’d hesitate in practically applying that analogy to love, because one wouldn’t live long enough to go on a million dates. In any case, we’re dealing with a different kettle of fish: we don’t need the absolute certainty that comes from trying all the dishes; rather, we just need enough – enough to identify and understand what we want and what we don’t. Each incremental ‘date’ or interaction with a different potential partner confers higher understanding of love, and reduces the ‘what if’ issue. It isn’t possible to eliminate it completely, but you eventually arrive at a critical point where you’re satisfied.

As with most spheres of human endeavour, such repetitive action adheres to the Learning Attenuation Hypothesis, or the law of diminishing marginal experience. Let’s assume 1024 is the magic number of points you need to perfectly understand love. Learning attenuation goes something like this: you gain 512 points from your first relationship, 256 from your second, 128 from your third, and so on. With each additional or successive relationship, you gain experience, but the amount diminishes. An imperative feature of this model is that reaching 1024 (perfect understanding) is statistically impossible. After ten relationships, you will be at 99.9% (1023/1024), yet irrespective of how many relationships you have, you’ll never quite get there. The other aspect is the number of points you need to have to quash ‘what if.’ You might only need 700 points, in which case you’ll know love after your second relationship. Someone else may require 1,000 – the threshold will vary for each individual.

Sol casts his eyes downward, momentarily crestfallen, before abruptly turning toward Luna, enlivened with audacity, as a wry grin spreads across his face.

SOL     How is it that you always manage to find a way to sterilise perfectly good allegories with mathematics? You’re such a geek – but I won’t oppose your Learning Attenuation Hypothesis, because by that measure, with over a thousand points, I must surely be winning.

Positioning to leave, her countenance darkens, placing a distance between them.

LUNA  Asshat– we’re supposed to be having an intellectual discussion. Stop being so immature and grow up.

Taken aback, Sol opens his mouth in defence, but is besieged for words. Unable to maintain a straight face, she bursts into laughter and playfully nudges him.

LUNA  I really had you going there.

A wry grin betrays his defeat.

SOL     Cheap shot.

LUNA  Cheap…

… Sometimes I feel we’ve made love cheap.

~

Frame VIII: The Valuation of Love

Heavy with the weight of reflection, a minute’s silence passes before it is broken by five peals of a bell resonating from a Cathedral nearby. She hesitates before speaking.

LUNA  I’m sorry, I don’t know where that came from.

SOL     Whyever for? You’re right, we have made it cheap, although we probably feel so for different reasons. Care to expound on yours?

LUNA  For me, it is the way people throw the term around; their willingness to ascribe or employ the ubiquitous L word where it does not belong. Further, the degree of delusion when it comes to love is enormous. If I had a dollar for every clueless couple I’ve seen who’ve purported to be madly in love without appreciating the half of what love entails, I would be sipping a Paraiso in Bora Bora right now.

SOL     I think you’re being too clinical about it Luna, whilst we can agree on love being evasive, there is no neat little formula that can explain it. Who’s to say you need a PhD in Philosophy in order to attain love?

LUNA  Clinical? Are you trying to patronise me?

I know there’s no formula and that people impose different standards on love. For some, the object of love is simply something they like; for others, the object must necessarily capture their soul. I am not seeking to deny the massive variability in quantum and requirement. What I am alluding to is the fact there is a higher degree of love, the understanding of which appears lost on most people.

If you believe Dr. Eric Berne, we are all supposedly engaged in a perpetual struggle for enveloping physical intimacy, and in lieu of its attainment, compromise by substituting other pillars of psychological support that are often linked to recognition and social intercourse.

When I say ‘cheapened,’ it goes much deeper than just what we choose to slap the ‘love’ label on. It goes right down to the core of what unadulterated love is. Either people have forgotten the meaning, or else become so lazy as to accept a contemptible substitute. I am referring here to settling for less and erroneous substitution; the mechanisms by which love has been devalued.

Love is an inexorable need, and where anxiety exists over such a need being unfulfilled, we have three options. We can either continue pursuing it, redoubling our efforts until we get what we want, we can reduce our standards and expectations, or, we can engage in substitution.

You’d agree that among the more critical considerations with regard to life itself is the sheer amount of energy focussed, directly or indirectly, toward the attainment of ‘love’ in some form. Look around you: a cursory glance reveals an overwhelming tendency to substitute ‘love from the world,’ which may take the form of fame, attention, and recognition, for the ‘true’ love characterised by broadly commensurate exchange of energy. Energy which carries higher charge than energy issuing from anything lesser: the only kind strong enough to stop your heart.

Suddenly self-conscious of nearing the threshold of becoming emotional, she restrains herself.

LUNA  ‘True’ love and ‘enveloping physical intimacy’ are soubriquets for unadulterated love, which is not magnificently definable, but at the very least has no artificial surrogate, is devoid from contaminations of deception, and utilises one’s full affective capacity.

Her turmoil is perceptible to Sol, yet despite the temptation to capitalise on it, he acquiesces. His next card continues the detached suit being played.

SOL     Therein lies the hook. We can inductively reason the centrality of finding untainted love is premised on living in a tainted world. Love has value because it is a genuine among counterfeits, a truth among lies, and a whole among remnants.

Frame IX: Impediments and Illusions

SOL     Absolutely, unadulterated love is fundamental. We have an innate need to feel we’ve found it. But its realisation is challenging because we often sabotage it.

The first way we sabotage, as you mentioned, is through skewing understanding. When something doesn’t fit, we try to make it fit. When we don’t feel unadulterated love, we delude ourselves that we do.

Such confusion on a large scale primes the trap of argumentum ad populum or bandwagon fallacy that contends something is validated a truth because it is believed by the vast majority.

This is precisely why scores of pollutants contaminate the contemporary understanding of love. We attach to love delusional social proofs. Romanticised notions of love which bombard us daily are not realistic and exacerbate the already pervasive unawareness.

Behaviour, the second sabotage, follows directly from the first. If the understanding is incorrect, any actions based on that understanding will also be incorrect.

Which brings us back on topic. Absurd though it may seem for a humble taxi driver, I have read Berne, but found his analysis focuses too narrowly upon psychological game theory itself. Relevant to our discussion no doubt, except that a link is missing. Evidently the romantic relationship is an auditorium in which games, particularly those involving power and manipulation, resonate most vociferously.

It would seem what we’re dealing with here is the mutual exclusivity of love and power.

“Where love rules, there is no will to power; and where power predominates, there love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.”

Jung’s platitude is the missing link yielding vital implications for romantic love. Insofar as they are viewed as opposing forces, power and love are inversely correlated. This is precisely why ‘games’ are an impediment to unadulterated love; because games work on perceived and actual differentials in power that follow from manipulation.

The two most common power differentials are sexual in favour of the female, and emotional in favour of the male. Where a relationship is established and one partner seeks to manipulate the other, there is a power differential.

It is idealistic to set the bar so high, but unadulterated love, in the absolute sense, is characterised by a zero power differential in perpetuity. Humanity, for its instability and imperfection, may subscribe to a less strenuous standard: a power differential which oscillates between the two individuals such that it is roughly equal in the long run. Where it is consistently in favour of one individual, the relationship is not one of love, but of appropriation.

Unless the ‘games’ such as flirting, evasion and the like, are fully understood by both participants and acknowledged for what they are, then they are obstructive. Game theory, strictly defined, implies there must be a winner and a loser. Love is (or rather should be) an equilibrium concept where both parties win. Therefore games and love are diametrically opposed.

The storm clouds have painted the sky outside a sinister shade of gunmetal. Dressed in black, a petite waitress with a short bob of auburn hair traverses the café, stopping to illuminate the tea-light candles which sit atop each table. Sol winks at her, she blushes a subtly embarrassed shade of rose, and pretends not to have noticed.

LUNA  Could you be any more insufferable?

SOL     What? Things were getting too serious, I needed to break the spell.

LUNA  I’m going to put you under a spell if you don’t start being a bit more decorous.

Come to think of it, there’s something to be said for spells and sabotage. Gaming and manipulation are apprentice’s enchantments. Their powerful iterations of obsession and possession are the hexes of hazard.

These two inflict a great deal of damage, though it seldom appears so at the time. Oftentimes post-relationship dynamic is telling of whether what existed prior to the dissolution was in fact love. In the cases of obsession and possession, better clarity comes retrospectively, after the sabotage has occurred.

For example, conveyance of emotional energy in context of love draws a line in the sand between devotion and obsession. The difference between devotion and obsession is most clear post mortem, evidenced by the absence or presence of toxicity. Whilst fractured devotion will often be followed to acceptance rather than resentment, obsessive love will most always result in spiteful feeling or conduct by one or both parties following a dissolution or breakup.

In the moment, devotion is characterised by loyalty and constancy, whereas obsession is asphyxiating and envious. Such envy, along with insecurity, is also a defining trait of possessive love. From what I’ve seen, possessive relationships frequently involve the male exercising emotional property rights over the female, equivalent to assuming ownership.

SOL     Whoa – hold on Germaine, do my ears deceive me? Is that a feminism bias I sense?  Do you have any idea how many guys I know who are whipped better than spray-can cream?

Overhearing Sol’s quip, the man in the driver’s cap grins knowingly from behind his book. The outlandish metaphor causes Luna to involuntarily visualise a domestically subservient husband and completely lose her train of thought. She shakes her head and takes some moments to find it again.

LUNA  Whichever foot the shoe is on, the fact remains: a person is not a material possession. Emotional possession has no more a place in modern society than slavery. Though some may argue two parents ‘own’ a child up to some arbitrary age; in this relationship, the parents are not owners, they are custodians. Love is liberating, ownership takes captive.

SOL     Insightful observation. We’ve conversed at length, but the ultimate question demands lucidity.

Is love an illusion, and if not, what makes it real?   

Frame X: A Treatise on Love

They sit in silence for several minutes. The calm is shattered by an explosion of violent eloquence.

LUNA  If love is an illusion, this reality is hollow, we might as well be automatons. What makes love between two people real is when they do not hold it to any definition or standard other than their own, and where that mutual understanding is in accord with a deep connection, based on more than appearances and worldly considerations; when it cannot be severed by sharp edges of adversity, undermined by attempts to sabotage, nor corrupted by influence of society; when it endures by the focussed will of the two partners alone, not for convenience, manipulation, appearances, nor drudgery. That is what makes love real.

Love does not keep secrets, no matter how painful the truth

Love is obliging; it does not belong with competitive games

Love follows no choreography, it makes itself up as it goes along

Love is the energy of chaos, harnessed fruitfully

Love sees with the vividness of the entire spectrum, never in monotone

Love is not a means to any other end, it is the end

Engrossed, they have yet to realise the café is now empty.

They are the only people there.

~

Afterword

My single largest obstacle in writing this entry was the vicious nature of enquiry yielding more questions than it answered. Each person with whom I engaged the topic presented different angles and experiences which both refined and reduced my understanding simultaneously. It has consumed the better part of three months, colliding against the inadequacy of my understanding, and trying in vain to find an alternative route. Of course, all attempts were preordained futile given my topic affords reason no sympathy.

Love will forever be subject to the context in which it exists. Normative judgements, as reflected in this dialogue are the only assertions one can make in a desert whose aridity desiccates objectivity.

The working brief I imposed on this entry was to render the most abstract of phenomena into something that marginally resembled a coherent framework. Clearly I have failed abysmally.

True to love’s form, with each degree of clarity I gain, each time my focus of sight sharpens, my vision becomes that much more a blur. Climbing a mountain and every time I perceive its peak, another wall of stone rises. It is everything and it is nothing. Everything if and when I find it, and when I choose to acknowledge it. Nothing when I can convince myself it doesn’t matter.

In preceding years, I have been fortunate enough to cross paths with people who have shared insights, challenged my perceptions and taught me. In this regard I would like to convey gratitude to those who have lent their essence to my understanding. Pia, Abbigail, April, Sera, Karen, Clare, Nicole, Johanna, Emelye, Bethany, Stephanie, Maya, Jane, Kaye, Nina, Dixie, Alexandra, Elena, Elizabeth, Genevieve, Sophie, Alicia, Nina, Pip, Ellen, and Tamara.

An entry of this nature can only be issued from a quill drawn with poison. I am blessed and haunted by such an inkwell. A state of idyllic love should preclude and incapacitate such diagnostic analysis. I cast aside my pen unconcerned by whatever judgement may befall me for these words. I am unashamedly a hunter of knowledge and accept with the eternal pursuit all its occupational hazards. Projection, however ill-informed or biased it may be, is a necessary implement which I have at my disposal and will use without diplomacy, indiscriminately, wherever it works toward my ends.

It isn’t so much the answer that concerns me, as not posing the question.

 Paul Xavier Waterstone, July 13 2009

Smackdown / GFC

I told you so.

Some eighteen months ago, in September 2007, I wrote of the danger inherent in escalating imbalances:

“The power and inevitability with which corrective force strikes never seems to register with the average person.”

smackdown composite

Given my aversion to the overused cliché of GFC (Global Financial Crisis) and other variations and iterations of the recession thematic, I am simply going to be blunt, referring to it as ‘Smackdown;’ having fashioned a suitable working definition that goes something like this:

Smackdown (n.): ‘punishment’ of epic proportion inflicted upon an oblivious/unwary mark.

Unlike the average economist, I won’t pretend to have exceptional insight through which I can neatly explain and rationalise the Smackdown to cause and effect. Instead, this ‘analysis’ (I use the term lightly) will be an exercise in interdisciplinary synthesis between economics and social psychology – hopefully ending up with an Iron Chef Michiba (86.5% win ratio from 38 battles) style dish by the end of it.

We will commence by delineating the economics, so as to provide grounding for the analysis.

State of Play

In very simple terms, the present debacle originated from cheap debt coupled with aggressive risk-taking, greed and stupidity. Speculation and optimism created a bubble in asset markets, which supported growth in spending, financed by increasing asset values.

Imagine purchasing a house for $100,000 with a loan, and a few years later, the house is worth $200,000. Given interest rates are so low, you draw another $50,000 against the house to buy a Hummer and holiday in Cancun. This simplistically encapsulates the original perpetrator of this crisis – a consumer who finances overconsumption by way of debt.

So long as rates remain low, mortgage-holders retain their jobs, and property values don’t reverse significantly, everything remains fine.

Any self-respecting banker would see how lucrative this picture is: low interest rates and an economy humming along. Naturally, they took advantage by tapping the demand for money – lending out aggressively, and to high-risk customers. They were then able to ingeniously ‘securitise’ (pool together) all these loans and sell them off in tranches with different levels of risk and return.

Here’s the premise: if I lend $1,000 to one person, there’s a disproportionate risk they won’t be able to pay me back. But, if I lend $1 to 1,000 different people, there is much less of a chance I’ll lose my $1,000. By packaging a thousand loans together, risk is diversified, and the pool can be sliced and diced in such a way as to create investments with different levels of risk/return. For example, let’s say we take 1,000 loans, package them together and create a few different securities:

  1. Low risk; having first rights (i.e. low risk) to loan cash flows, carrying a low return
  2. Medium risk; having rights to cash flows after the ‘low’ securityholders are paid, carrying a higher return
  3. High risk; having rights to cash flows after ‘low’ and ‘medium’ securityholders are paid, carrying a very high return

Banks created these products, called ‘mortgage-backed securities’ and on-sold them to investment funds, absolving themselves from carrying risky loans on their balance sheets, and taking a healthy profit margin along the way.

The popularity of these mortgage-backed securities and their derivatives spread like wildfire, hundreds of billions of dollars of spore caught in the winds of a global system, finding their way to balance sheets of financial and investment institutions worldwide. For quite some time, the ploy worked. Investors received the promised returns from their securities, and securitisation would’ve appeared a compelling proposition for all parties involved.

Then, the spores started spawning rather unsightly toadstools.  The low ‘teaser’ rates on these loans began to revert to much higher levels. Suddenly, a lot of people couldn’t afford their loan repayments and defaulted. Banks repossessed mortgaged houses and large volumes of foreclosure sales began to hit the market. As the logic of supply and demand dictates, when supply increases without a commensurate increase in demand to absorb the surplus, prices must fall, and that is exactly what happened.

A vicious cycle began as the value of the assets pledged as security for these loans fell, resulting in negative equity and loans being called in. Financial institutions ended up with skyrocketing levels of bad loans, which resulted in reduced capacity to lend (capital adequacy is put under pressure by bad loans) and higher spreads where they did choose to lend. With the cost of debt blowing out, companies were forced to curtail investment and cut costs, meaning ‘restructuring’ and lay-offs. Higher unemployment means less people with income to spend, which lowers consumption, reducing company revenues squeezing profits, thus providing further impetus for companies to lay-off staff, and the cycle begins again.

We can thank globalisation for the worldwide diffusion of the crisis. Though the core subprime problem was isolated to the United States, because of the interconnectivity of the global financial system and the fact the infection occurred at the centre, transmission was almost inevitable.

Since late 2007, the global economy has deteriorated markedly, we have seen asset markets crash, multi-billion-dollar bankruptcies, banks nationalised, the collapse of Latvia, escalating geopolitical tension, and perhaps most significantly, a wholesale destruction of confidence.

Books have been written on the topic, but in a rudimentary nutshell, that is the anatomy of the present mess.

~

The Social Consciousness

Whilst an economic system may have its foundations in rationality (efficient allocation of resources, maximisation of output et cetera), its participants are emotive. Confidence, ergo, impels the economic system. It is a nebulous concept of affective state and expectations, the sentiment heralding action.

Though the very concept of a social consciousness may seem far-fetched and somewhat frivolous, I maintain it does exist. The social consciousness is what elects governments, sets trends, defines issues and determines the developmental path of humanity. It is emotionally driven, ruled by sentiment and characterised by myopia, suggestibility, narrow-mindedness and a propensity to herd.

History has proven it is the single most influential force on this planet, more powerful than any army, and capable of inflicting destruction greater than that of a nuclear bomb. Effectively, if you control the social consciousness, you are God, and this is precisely why the institution of The Vatican wields such awesome power. As a financial enterprise, the Catholic Church is worth more than General Electric.

The aforementioned wholesale destruction of confidence is akin to a disease afflicting the social consciousness: escalating depression on a societal level. A normal session with a Psychologist for clinical depression would involve an exploration which attempts to find and address its underlying causes. Action taken on the ‘financial crisis’ to date however, amounts to prescribing antidepressants, without endeavour to interrogate and assail the root cause of this crisis.

To the underlying problem, money (be it fiscal stimulus or bailout packages) is not an enduring solution. Humanity’s inherent selfish and comorbid materialistic nature is only validated further.

Extrapolated Optimism

Fundamentally, greed is the underlying problem, and greed has driven the risk-taking, morally hazardous behaviour which led to the Smackdown’s opening act, the Sub-prime crisis. Recall that one of the philosophical pillars supporting securitisation was reliance upon the continued increase in house prices – an example of what I term ‘Extrapolated Optimism.’ A lot of smart people got sucked into this, and one could argue greedy, spivvy Wall Street bankers are to blame.

Could it be so simple an explanation as a few ‘smart’ people doing dumb, morally hazardous things? That being the case, I’d be able to put on my latex Jim Cramer mask and lament that we wouldn’t be in quite such a predicament if the people behind the wheel had their fingers on the pulse as opposed to up their arses.

Alas, it is not that simple. Blame is more appropriately apportioned across broader society.

Under economic prosperity, today is bright, and we project this brightness into the future, to tomorrow. We thank and act under the misguided assumption we’re on an ever-increasing tangent, spending like there’s no tomorrow, and financing hedonistic lifestyles which (supposedly) won’t be a problem repaying due to the perceived perpetually escalating uptrend. In short, the mindset is that we can live for the moment because the future will take care of itself. Contingency for a rainy day isn’t given so much as a cursory thought when all we can see are clear blue skies. People don’t seem to consider “oh hell, not even Che Guevara can save us now” type outcomes.

As useful as optimism is, it should never be favoured at the expense of realism. Much of my theory concerns the ability to project thinking forward, look around the upcoming corner rather than the short span of road immediately in front. Optimistic extrapolation is myopic, and as mentioned in a prior piece entitled ‘Perspective,’ myopia is incredibly dangerous.

Planning as a natural phenomenon is nothing new. Squirrels have hoarded acorns for the winter ever since…well…ever since there were squirrels. Self sufficiency is an imperative survival trait unless you intend on living at home with your parents for the rest of your life.

To the extent people believe things will take care of themselves and do not consider, plan, and make contingencies for worst case scenarios, then there is a calamitous accident waiting to happen, the likes of which we are now seeing transpire, and the pain is real. People are losing their jobs, their homes, and the flow-on social consequences are nothing short of disturbing.

Admittedly, there is an element of Schadenfreude on my part for a sense of poetic justice in seeing essentially dumb people who made obscene amounts of money on the back of unskilled momentum investing getting hit with margin calls. Kind of like not feeling any pity or sympathy for the little rich kid who wraps his parentally-funded Porsche around an electricity pole whilst speeding around showing off.

On the rare occasions I watch the news; I witness stories of both genuine hardship and consequences of ignorance. Whilst I feel empathy toward the former, I laugh derisively at the latter.

The Media

Whilst on the topic of the media, it is important to draw a linkage to their role in the social consciousness. Having long held the mantle as the institution most capable of and active in influencing the social consciousness, the media wield incomprehensible latent power, latent because it is currently underutilised.

Paradoxically, we elect governments, yet are suspicious of politicians. Any smart politician knows they can overcome this suspicion by manipulating the media. Judging from the extent and efficacy of the Nazi Propaganda (literally advertising in Spanish) campaign, Hitler (or at least his marketing machine) would have understood this quite well.

At this juncture I repeat: if you control the social consciousness, you are God. The media possesses this power to a degree through pervasive reach and persuasive influence.  It can bring any government or corporation to its knees because it has the means to push information to billions of people through a path of minimal resistance. Forget Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – these days, people hear the Gospel as taken from the book of Oprah.

~

The Australian media have personified the recession, and one evening whilst channel flicking I encounter a ‘special presentation’ on Channel 7 entitled ‘Beating The Recession.’ Perhaps if I wasn’t so concentrated on fervently flipping through the yellow pages for a reasonably-priced contract killer, I’d see the value in David Koch telling me that I could save $10 a day by bringing a packed lunch to work, which is $50 a week, $200 a month, and $2,400 a year. Whoever knew basic arithmetic could give us such explosive insights? Or are people really that dumb?

The Solution

Personally, I was intrigued by the programme in that a recession is not an enemy that can be fought, being both formless and polymorphic, and yet the media chose to personify it as a corporeal opponent we could spar with. Second to that, the futility of ‘fighting’ a recession lies with the fact that the action of fighting actually strengthens the recession, and ensnares us deeper in the more, in much the way struggling in quicksand makes one sink faster. In terms of a solution to a house on fire, their suggestion was more accelerant than retardant.

Real Gross Domestic Product, interchangeable with aggregate demand is a function of consumer spending, governments spending, and net exports. If a consumer believes he can fight the recession by reducing his spending, then he is sorely mistaken. By saving, he is actually contributing to economic contraction. An increasing in savings is commensurate with a decrease in spending. Due to the linkage between output, income and spending, when one plane of this triangle is affected, all are.

Keynesian economics suggests the role of government is to act in a countercyclical manner, that is to say, when the economy is flourishing, the government runs surpluses and is a net saver, taking money out of the system. By contrast, when times are difficult and the economy is contracting, the government spends more, running deficits, pumps more money into the system and becomes a net borrower. The underlying logic here is that the government can manage its spending such that it ‘flattens’ out the economic cycle, smoothing out the peaks and troughs.

Digressing to a small aside on the varieties of government spending, I will now explain why cash handouts are bad. They encourage spending, but they are not an efficient way of stimulating aggregate demand because a proportion of the handouts are saved by consumers, diluting the effect. Contrast this with the government undertaking capital expenditure on infrastructure projects, which is direct demand. It mobilises labour and creates longer term structural benefits (logistics) for an economy. If you’re going to spend money, you should logically spend it where you’re going to get the most bang for your buck.

~

In the context of the Smackdown, we were faced with a binary decision: either spend to prop the system up or allow it to collapse. In previous recessions of lower severity, Governments could have sat on their hands and the economies would have eventually corrected (though the recoveries would have been considerably protracted).

This time, there is no choice because the financial system itself is being called into question and social stability depends on the solvency of banking institutions. The moment fear takes hold that a bank may become insolvent, all its depositors seek to withdraw their funds; concerned the bank may not be able to honour them. Banks work be lending money out long term (think 25 year home loans and 3 year corporate facilities) and financing these using short term borrowings (term deposits and on-demand savings accounts). A bank holds a certain amount of capital in reserve to ensure it always has enough liquid cash to meet depositors withdrawals, without having to liquidate its assets (i.e. call in loans). If a critical mass of people withdrawal substantial amounts of money at the same time, this ‘safety buffer’ of capital quickly disappears and the bank has no way of meeting withdrawal requests because it runs out of money. Either the government must step in to provide liquidity or the bank must freeze deposits. The latter option creates civil unrest, which can quickly descend to social instability and anarchy if it occurs on a wholesale level. What do you do if you can’t get money out of the bank to buy food? Exactly.

So, whilst it makes little sense that cowboy Investment Banks on Wall Street should be rescued, after years of making supernormal profits on what is essentially gambling with financial derivatives, realistically, there was no choice in the matter. Running the printing presses and pumping liquidity into the system is dangerous for reasons I will later touch upon, but allowing the gears of the credit system to grind to a halt is terminal.

Prognosis

To its credit, humanity is amazingly flexible in that it tends toward finding a solution for every crisis. Whilst these solutions may create problems of their own, in general, they do break the crisis. The present crisis will be solved, but it will only delay the inevitable.

This may well be the point where capitalism collapses upon itself. Printing more money doesn’t really solve the problem – reflationary policy merely sets the stage for the mother of all crashes. Money is chasing limited resources. Money has value because it is scarce. More money in the system comes at the expense of the existing stock of money. If there are ten dollars in the economy, one incremental dollar devalues an existing dollar by 9.1%. The total value of money, in aggregate, does not change. Prices merely adjust upward (inflation) to reflect the reduced purchasing power of money.

What we are seeing now are the beginnings of a massive intergenerational burden transfer which is criminal in nature. To save current generations from their own mistakes, future generations will bear the cost by way of higher taxes and interest rates for years to come. The system should have been purged properly. I pay enough tax already and do not see why I should have to finance an economic bailout. Were I to personify with brutal cold reason, I would liken it to expending resources on a sick murderer in hospital. It can’t be justified unless you believe murderers don’t deserve to die. But the value judgement on who deserves to be saved is not the key issue here; economic policy is a pacifying band-aid solution that does not involve revolutionary ideological change.

The integral matter are the premises upon which the social consciousness, or ‘ether’ rests. They are by and large material in nature. Insofar as the world’s present ‘situation’ goes, I can gauge the ether, every morning on the train, walking the city streets, and through the course of interaction. What I see is a society faced with material uncertainty. Is my job safe? When will the market turn? Will I get the government handout?

How I read the ‘ether’ is that adversity, instability and uncertainty necessitate an increase in the general level of anxiety, which has first order manifestation, and incites second order effects such as heavier need and hence inclination toward escapism, alcohol and entertainment being the two chief outlets.

Our world would work very differently if the ether were premised on spiritual rather than material considerations, if people resorted to the pursuit of understanding rather than escapism when adversity transpired, if perspective were broad rather than narrow, if the mindset were co-operative rather than competitive.

We are presented with a unique opportunity, the old illusion is weakening perceptibly and the fairytale is disintegrating. Society finds itself at a turning point where the inertia and momentum of consumerism have taken a considerable hit. From this point there can only be two outcomes, a reversion or a revolution.

Do we rise to the challenge? Will we learn from our mistakes? Or will we come out of this none the wiser and go back to our old ways? The opportunity involves rebasing the entire superstructure and replacing the maximisation imperative with an adequacy one, and redrawing lines such that ‘fulfilment’ is anchored to something more meaningful than wealth and status. ‘Awakening’ and ‘Enlightenment’ are the functional elements of such a revolution.

Granted it is still early days, I will nevertheless stick my neck out and speculate that we will see the ultimate or penultimate round of band-aid solutions, as key participants scramble to plug the holes and keep the ship afloat. There will be a period where concern for the hull’s integrity cause people to sail more prudently, and this will last so long as the balance of power persists in fear’s favour. Eventually, a point will come where the reckless activities of greed will again ensue, although in a way which does not seem reckless at the time. Imbalances will return, and their correction will be heralded by a catastrophe of unfathomable proportions. When all the band-aid options have been exhausted, the only way out will be an actual purging of bad blood; and it will be some bloodletting. What I do not care to speculate over is whether the blood loss will be survivable.

The shock magnitude of the Smackdown would suggest people will learn, but the level of delusion advocates otherwise: learning may not occur in earnest unless the consequences of this crisis are allowed unmitigated impact, the full force of which will shatter the delusion and pave the way for a clearer understanding to develop.

Under fatalistic rationale, I do not hold out in the hope of this happening in the course of my lifetime. Adversity is a more competent teacher than prosperity, and when you reduce adversity, the cost is complacency. People must learn the hard way, it is an inescapable reality. Prior to the Smackdown, we were beginning to make progress – emissions trading and what appeared to be a fledgling genuine interest in social issues. The moment the economy turned sour, these things became a distant sideshow. If you need proof of what matters to people, look no further.

The sun sets, but will a new day dawn?

I don’t know.