In Freud’s seminal paper, “The Ego and the Id,” published in 1923, he distinguished between two instincts: the death instinct, “the task of which is to lead organic matter back to the inorganic state,” and Eros which “aims at more far-reaching coalescence of the particles into which living matter has been dispersed.” Earlier, Wilhelm Stekel had called the “death wish” by the name Thanatos. Freud never used this term for the death instinct because of his dislike of Stekel. Freud continued to develop his conception of this duality between Eros and the death instinct, to the point where he wrote in Civilization and Its Discontents in 1930:

The fateful question of the human species seems to me to be whether and to what extent the cultural process developed in it will succeeded in mastering the derangements of communal life by the human instinct of aggression and self-destruction… Men have brought their powers of subduing the forces of nature to such a pitch that by using them they could now very easily exterminate one another to the last man.

Freud here suggests that the combination of the death instinct and human ingenuity could lead to the extermination of the human species. This was before the possibility of nuclear extermination and before any apprehension about the ability of the planet to sustain human life given man’s destructive effect on the environment and other life forms.

This raises a question. It is clear that the “return to inorganic matter,” is the fate of each one of us individually. This is a biological given and each of us must come to terms with our life’s end in our own way. But can it be that the species itself harbors a “death wish” for the species as a whole? Would that be the final Ragnarök? This idea has more “explanatory” power than we might wish to acknowledge.

Freud concludes his essay with this extraordinary statement:

And now it may be expected that the other of the two heavenly forces, eternal Eros, will put forth his strength so as to maintain itself alongside of his equally immortal adversary.

It is fascinating that Freud here raises Eros and Thanatos—previously referred to as human instincts—to heavenly forces (Freud’s emphasis). Freud here is speaking of Eros as an immortal force beyond the human which will be putting forth his strength so as to “maintain itself” against Thanatos, its immortal adversary.

What is it that led Freud to expect Eros to exert itself in this way? Whatever it was, something else happened to Freud which led him two years later to write in his New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis:

“…our best hope for the future is that the intellect—the scientific spirit, reason—should in time establish a dictatorship over the human mind. Whatever…opposes such a development is a danger for the future of mankind.”

I wrote in Psyche Speaks, some 34 years ago, when first commenting on Freud’s conclusions:

Here Freud seems to forget his call to Eros and falls into the typical stance of siding with reason against the soul. I feel that Freud’s earlier stance was more correct, that the battle is not between Eros and Logos, but between Eros and Thanatos. Thanatos seems ever present in today’s world. But where is Eros?

If anything, the world has grown darker since I wrote those words, and Eros seems even less visible and present. Psyche Speaks was my effort to point to Eros as what the world needs. In his 1960 letter to Herbert Read, Jung called what was needed, was a “great dream.” Jung said that such a great dream has always spoken through the artist as “mouthpiece” proclaiming the arrival of the coming guest. It is the artist’s love and passion (the human eros) that needs to be listened to in order to proclaim and welcome the coming guest (the heavenly Eros). In my view, it was the artist in each of us that would be the source of what was necessary to welcome the coming guest. But we seem far from such a realization and manifestation.

The earlier Freud expects the arrival of the heavenly Eros. The later Jung expects the arrival of the coming guest. I think both great men are talking about the same thing.

Thus, in the face of the final Ragnarök, which seems ever more certain, one may either give up in despair, entertain oneself to death, or manifest ever more fully the human Eros that is love and passion and generative creativity. One must perhaps, celebrate both the final Ragnarök and welcome Eros, the coming guest.

How this might be done I’ll turn to in the next post.

As a brief interlude from my dour posts of late, I will post, “Jung In China,” as a kind of Easter egg. There is growing interest in Jung in China as evidenced by the recent launching of a new journal and an ambitious plan for translating Jung’s work into Chinese. The editor of the new journal asked Rob Henderson to interview a Jungian analyst in the United States to talk about introducing Jung to a Chinese audience. Rob asked me if I was interested in doing an interview and I said yes. At the time, I was working on an etymological approach to the I Ching that would enable English readers to become more aware of the images embedded in the I Ching’s pictographs which were derived from ancient oracle bone script. So, I eagerly accepted Rob’s invitation. My work on the etymology of the I Ching had since gone a bit fallow, but I have just now returned to it. With Rob’s kind permission, I am posting the interview in English. It is published in China in Chinese.

Jung in China

RH. Russell Lockhart is a Jungian analyst living in in the northwest corner of the United States, in Everett, Washington. He has been immersed in Jungian psychology for more than 50 years, coming to his own understanding of what Jung was about and what he tried to contribute to the world and to life. People in China, who have never heard of Jung, will be reading this journal. Russell, in your own words, distilled from your years of experience, I would like to invite you to share what you know of Jung that would be essential for people in a far different culture interested in learning about Jung’s work.

RL. Thank you, Rob, for inviting me to address a most daunting question. Strangely enough, your question might also be how to introduce Jung’s work to the Western world, for in spite of more than a hundred years of historical development, Jung and his contribution remains known only to a minuscule number in the West. With psychology being overtaken by neuroscience, therapy and analysis being overwhelmed by cognitive-behavioral methods, and by the ubiquity of pharmaceutical prescription for an ever-increasing panoply of conditions, the long, deep, arduous work of “know thyself” that characterizes Jungian work, is ever more off-limits to insurance, ethical, and legal mandates. It is against this glum background, that I find interest in Jung in “foreign” cultures to be of great interest. Yet with the increasing inter-connectedness of world cultures, the very idea of “foreign” is becoming obsolete. Designations like “East” and “West” will eventually fall away. But for now, these concepts are still meaningful currency. For China, the best possible introduction to Jung is already a part of the long history of Chinese culture. I am referring to Yin-Yang, the ancient concept of the complementarity of opposites; to the I Ching (Book of Changes), embodying the autonomy of the intention of the “other” as a source of wisdom, and The Secret of the Golden Flower, portraying and personifying a yoga of meditation, breathing, and imagination. In the West, these concepts and texts are generally taken up only after considerable immersion in Jung’s psychology. I feel that immersion in these texts prior to immersion in Jung is a more generative foundation for the study of Jung if for no other reason than these sources emphasize the imperative of experience. Trying to understand Jung only conceptually without grounding in personal experience will prove of little benefit and value. Each of these sources from the East, from China, were crucially important to Jung, primarily because of their grounding in experience.

RH. What does it mean to experience Jungian psychology?

RL. Your question covers a lot of ground so I’ll make some differentiations, sign posts, as it were, in the geography of your question. The secondary literature of Jungian psychology consists of hundreds of books and thousands of journal articles. This includes biographies of Jung, textbooks and surveys of Jung’s work, applications of Jung’s work in many areas, and a prolific quantity of ancillary studies ranging from clinical applications to the explication of Jung’s ideas on a great range of topics. I mention this way of experiencing Jung’s psychology first, because it is generally in the secondary literature where one first encounters Jungian thought. The primary literature of Jung’s psychology consists of Jung’s work itself, which is published in the Collected Works, the seminars and miscellaneous writings as well as several volumes of Jung’s correspondence, and Jung’s Memories, Dreams, Reflections. The experience of Jung’s psychology is quite different in the primary and secondary sources. Many will find reading Jung too difficult and will take up the secondary sources with a certain relief. In general, I believe this is a mistake. What I have always recommended to serious students is to begin with Memories, Dreams, Reflections and then to take up Jung’s direct work in chronological order while following along synchronously with the correspondence. This is a long and arduous journey and not to be taken lightly if for no other reason than that Jung’s work is often psychoactive. This means that one’s own psyche will begin to stir in ways that are unexpected and startling. Jung’s work itself stirs not only the intellect, but resounds throughout the body and the depths of one’s experience. This is often something that goes missing, when Jung’s work is being “translated” into the “about” mode. With the publication of Jung’s Red Book and the coming publication of his “Black Books,” we enter a third mode of experiencing Jungian psychology. This mode is something I call the rhizome level of direct experience. This is the mode where Jung encountered the deeper regions of his psyche, the depth below the personal, the depths that he came later to call the “collective unconscious.” Jung’s experiences in these unfathomable depths were recorded in conversations and images that constitute the material of the Black Books and The Red Book. Jung’s work here is not “about,” but reveals his direct expression of his embroilment with the living psyche. This is crucial to realize because, as Jung said, all his later work came from these experiences. It has been my experience in spending time with The Red Book that this is the closest one can get to experiencing the essence of Jungian psychology. It must be said, however, that what one encounters in this material is not for mimetic purposes. Each one of us has a rhizomic layer, each one has their own ways of access, and what one experiences there is not to “reproduce” The Red Book, but indeed to engage in those depths and to bring to fruition what wants to spring from there for each individual. That is the deep secret of what Jung’s psychology points to. It is in that place where one can most deeply experience Jungian psychology and is the most important part of the answer to your question.

RH. What would be one way that you feel Jungian psychology would help a person with their life?

RL. Jung’s psychology is often pictured as so esoteric that it has no practical implications at all. Yet, there are many aspects of Jung’s psychology that have profound implications for human development, social interaction, and the meaning and purpose of one’s life. Becoming aware of one’s shadow, and integrating it in a genuine way, leads to a more complete ego development. The ego’s awareness of its typology and where it needs development of its inferior function, will pay off handsomely in one’s awareness of oneself, and better social relations when one knows how to navigate typological differences, as well as better intimate relationships when one knows how typology impacts eros, empathy and compassion. But these practical implications pale in relation to the ultimate “meaning” of one’s life. Here, Jungian psychology makes a profound contribution because the meaning of life is not found in the ego’s aspirations and collective achievements, but in the degree to which the ego serves the realization of the Self. This cannot be done in ways that are quick, surfacy, or faddish. This is unique to each person. So much of our development in the family and then in school and then as we take up our place in the culture is so over-determined by collective values, the power of others’ images of what we are to become, that it is a wonder at all that one can achieve any connection with the Self, let alone serve its uniqueness. That uniqueness is what underlies the value and importance of dreams and visions, that is, as providing the portal and the hints necessary for ego to finally take up its task of individuality.

RH. Do you feel it is important for people to try to remember their dreams?

RL. Not just "try" Rob, but to make every effort. Think about how people are so much in thrall to celebrity, fame, fortune, and all manner of collectivity. I think this is true for the East as much as the West, as true for China as for the US. The dream is a primary source of the "subversive" in the service of the individual against the power of the collective.

The dream is the surest ground that forces us to look at who we truly are. Yes, we experience how much more desirable it is to be "like" someone we see in films, or on TV, or on the Internet, or in the news. But for the most part, this is the effluence of the "malignant narcissism" about which Walter Wink writes so persuasively.

Much of psychoanalytic psychology and therapy is in the service of adapting to the collective demands of the day. Jung's psychology works differently by seeking "something else." That something else is the individuality I spoke of above. Paying attention to dreams—which begins in remembering them—is a major way to develop this individuality. Scanning the behemoth of collectivity, you will scarcely find dreaming on the radar. This is true the world over. To me, it is terribly sad.

RH. When we visited China a few years ago, I heard some of the elders who were critical of the younger generations and their efforts to dress in individual ways instead of wearing the Mao coat which they felt contained the important cultural symbols that would help carry on the Chinese culture. A battle between the individual and the collective. Why is individuality important?

RL. The typical bias is that the East is highly regimented by authority and tradition (as personified by the Mao coat), while the West is free and creatively chaotic. I call this a bias because deeper analysis reveals the west to be as regimented as the East—only in different ways and by different institutions of power. One need only look at the degree to which advertisement leads to mimetic and cloning “self-regimentation” under the influence and control of corporate powers in the West to see this in plain view. To the degree that the young in the East begin to follow the West’s lead in this regard, they would simply be substituting one form of regimentation for another, with the illusion of freedom. This brings us to why individuality is important. It is only via a true individual spirit that one can escape the regimentation of the state, military, industrial, corporate, educational, political or any other forms of powers that control. Walt Disney, that Western icon of “healthy” entertainment, argued that it was through entertainment that the masses could be controlled more effectively than through any other means—a distinctly unhealthy idea. Yet it is precisely this idea that has overwhelmed current culture with ever increasing depth and breadth, that is, the Internet. Everyone is becoming tethered to it. The dark side of this is the high degree of regimentation embodied in this no matter the degree of good or value that it enables on a large scale. Over time, this fact alone will work against genuine individuality whether in the East or the West. As I have made clear above, I think that it is the dream that is most subversive to this leviathan of collectivity. It is the dream that carries the seeds of true individuality.

In Part Two of Wandlungen und Symbole der Libido (1912),[1] Jung observed that “Every psychological extreme secretly contains its own opposite or stands in some sort of intimate and essential relation to it.” Later in this same paragraph (¶581), he defines enantiodromia[2] as “a conversion of something into its opposite.” He cites the Chinese Yin/Yang as an example. While the general idea of “opposites” is understood, the phenomenology of enantiodromic change is complex. The first level of complexity is that enantiodromia is a process, not just a change from one state to another. For example, when a puer psychology reaches extremity, there is no sudden change to a senex psychology. There is, first of all, a period of breakdown of the puer structure which leads to its collapse. This is followed by a period of chaos, which in turn is followed by a period of the tentative and gradual emergence of senex “seeds” which in turn grow into senex structures. This sequence of extremity—breakdown, collapse, chaos, emergence, structure— is characteristic of all enantiodromic change. The second level of complexity is that changes resulting from extremity are not always best conceptualized as “opposites.” The quality of difference, for example, is not always an “opposite.” The quality of “something else,” is not necessarily an opposite. The quality of “otherness,” may be something else other than an opposite. All of these qualities may be thought of as “changing course” when extremity begins the breakdown cycle. For this reason, I use a more comprehensive, though invented word, ???????????? (allagiporeia), meaning “to change course.”

Jung also observed that the libido “wills its own descent, its own involution” and in a broader sense, its own demise (¶681). To illustrate this, Jung referred to Reubens’ Last Judgment, and pointed to the foregrounded image of a man being castrated by the serpent. He says of this image, “This motif illustrates the meaning of the end of the world.” Here Jung is thinking far beyond the psychology of the individual and speaking of mythology’s crystallization of the phenomenon of extremity. This highlights the third level of complexity regarding enantiodromia: “The grand plan on which the unconscious life of the psyche is constructed is so inaccessible to our understanding that we can never know what evil may not be necessary in order to produce good by enantiodromia, and what good may very possibly lead to evil.”[3] Thus, what develops following any change of course, any enantiodromia resulting from the breakdown caused by extremity, cannot be known in advance to be for good or ill, no matter how one might regard it. For example, excessive greed invariably leads to breakdown. The financial crisis of 2008, led to the near collapse of the global financial system. What has emerged is not something “better,” but something that is worse by far, though “masked” by the recovery of markets that most everyone feels is wonderful.[4]

The prospect of enantiodromia at any given time, the urge for a change of course, will always appear in dreams, visions, synchronicities, art and other manifestations of the unconscious. This is true both for individuals as well as groups and nations. The contents of these “irrational” messengers, will always be different from what is found laid out in conscious intentions, plans, and programs. If change does not come about through conscious intention, then as conditions become ever more extreme, change will come about through intentions birthed and growing in the unconscious of individuals and the collective, changes that no one is prepared for, and no one knows how to control.

The Google entry for “enantiodromia” refers to the German film, The Lives of Others, as a good example of the meaning of enantiodromia. This is one of my favorite films and I’d suggest you watch it. The film portrays an absolute state police power (the East German Stasi) intent on suppressing art. Even though we “know” the East German state fell 16 years before the film, the film dissolves this knowing and we are “there.” Such is the art of the film itself.

What does one “do,” then, in the face of an oppressive state (terror), or a looming catastrophe (climate change), or replacement by computer (machine intelligence)? We each must answer in our own way. My own answer lies first in trying to discern the wisdom of dreams. Second, I take the dream not as something to be interpreted, explained, or understood, but as an occasion for involving the deep imagination. When one is “exposed” to the deep imagination (and not just ego fantasies), one begins to engender the creative potential of the objective psyche. This is likewise, the ground from which true art is generated and, as I have noted before, it is art that Jung says will serve as the welcoming eros for the Coming Guest.

So, the dream pictures me and others celebrating a final Ragnarok with a toast of black vodka. In the next post, I’ll describe what engaging this compelling image in deep imagination has given birth to.

[1] Literally, “Transformations and Symbols of the Libido,” but published in English as Symbols of Transformation (CW Vol. 5)

[2] The Greek word was coined by Stobaeus in the 5^th century CE. There are numerous observations by Heraclitus of the same idea.

[3] C. G. Jung. "The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales." (CW Vol. 9, ¶397)

[4] The world’s central banks have created money out of thin air (called “quantitative easing,” a kind of alchemy) that has inflated the world’s markets from equities to housing. These bubbles are built on a mountain of debt never before seen. Such bubbles are always “attractive” in the short-run, but cannot be sustained and the subsequent enantiodromia comes as a shock to those who thought they were in control and a disastrous loss of wealth to most everyone.

Human Capacity for Self-Extinction. Humans have always been good at extinguishing one another whether accidentally or intentionally. The general extent and efficiency of this process has increased over time, and the range of objects (other life forms) of this process have increased as well. Now included in this process is the potential extinction of humanity itself, a kind of self-inflicted process of destroying our nest. Our efforts have led to positive feedback loops which are irreversible in ever-increasing number. We are destroying our own habitat and the habitat of many non-human life forms at an accelerating pace. The political and financial will in the face of denial is weakening. Aside from slogans, pink-cloud optimism, and passive hope, little is being accomplished in reality to "do" anything about the unrelenting destructive processes humans have set in motion. What is in progress, undergirded and nourished by the greed dynamics of money, can at this point be "changed" only by an enantiadormia of major degree. There is increasing potential for financial, political and cultural collapse. Only something on this level would have the capacity to curb and transform the hubris of the present conditions.

Catastrophic Changes in Global Environments. "Present bias" is thought to be "hard-wired" in the human brain. This was largely developed as an evolutionary necessity. It takes both cognitive and emotional forms. The "future" plays little role in present bias. Thus, present profit outweighs consideration of what longer term harm may ensue from activities that produce present profit. Present political necessity far outweighs any consideration of the future. "Personal bias" likewise outweighs personal gain in relation to gain for the many. The contemporary world has seen these processes escalate to degrees never before witnessed and, unless changed, will continue to amass fortune and power only for a very few at the expense of the many. This is the natural outcome of what Bernays understood and projected. The major problem is that little if any of the immense global wealth and political power is being directed toward the catastrophic changes in global environments. Present bias keeps most everyone focused on the here and now, the seeming crucial news of the day, current elections, entertainments, and new gadgets. It is hard to look squarely into the face of what we have done to ourselves and to other life forms. Not only is denial a problem, but it is also not clear whether, in fact, anything can be done to change what is now in progress. Again, only an enantiodromia of major degree will change the course of how we relate to this process.

When Computers Become Persons, or Something Else. The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are persons. When human persons commit crimes, they go to prison. When corporations commit crimes, they pay fines. When computers become persons, and commit crimes, what will their punishment be? When computers operated only on rules-based instructions from humans, humans were still the “masters” of the computer, and the computers were “slaves.” The human structure for this master-slave connection had a long precedent as well as a still-functioning characteristic of many social structures around the world. But when programs were set up to “learn,” and essentially program themselves, this master-slave relationship began a reversal that will be ever more consequential. Most importantly, computers will not “need” connections to humans at all. Most people like to ignore this idea and it is in fact buried within the phenomenon of more and more humans being “tethered” to computer devices. Meanwhile, this tethering makes possible what is called “big data,” which is now the way in which computers are becoming “smarter” than humans. The Turing test says that if humans cannot distinguish between a computer and a person, then the computer is “essentially” a person. But the Turing test may not be the most important question. That may be: Why should a computer limit itself to human intelligence? Its own newly created intelligent forms may be, from the computer’s perspective, far better in many dimensions. Perhaps the Alpha-Go computer, after beating the best human Go player 4 games to 1, would prefer to play other computers, or even itself, rather than unchallenging humans. These developments, and far more, are already in progress and the exponential development of machines (aided by the machines themselves) is already beyond the comprehension of most humans to imagine. Here too, we humans are consumed by present bias in terms of our time and energy and as a result have far too little awareness of what is happening. Again, only an enantiodromia of unprecedented degree will have the capacity to change the ultimate direction of this “replacement” by machines.

A Dream Poem

In 1950, while Alan Turing was developing his test, I began writing dark and brooding poems about the advent of the Korean War. My teacher was concerned about my state of mind and requested a meeting with my parents and the principle. The teacher said I was a “brown study.”

Even at that age, I knew what a brown study was. I corrected her. With the best glower I could muster, I said: “No, I’m a black study.”

My ancestry is Scot. So a dour mood is natural territory, though I am optimistic by nature. Sun in Sagittarius! How could I be otherwise. Still, my sun is in the twelfth house. So it’s more like a flashlight in the night, than the brightness of the day. But as I look out over the world today, I find little to be optimistic about as my recent posts suggest. Still, I am quite taken with Jung’s idea of the Coming Guest that will be welcomed by the work of artists. But Jung’s last dreams pointed to some very dark times before we might see the arrival of “something else.”

Sometime ago, while brooding on these things, I had a dream. Whenever possible, I like to write out dreams in the form of poems, a little gesture as it were to art as a welcoming factor. This dream has stayed with me. It is ever present and conditions how I relate to things now.

Welcome and toast, $5.99 a cup

The setting:

An anywhere, everywhere

living room middle crust

at best or no crust at all

The characters:

Strangers all, but known

to me; everyone friendly

not a party, but festal still

The hostess:

Black-gowned but all

eyes on the black earthen

cups, squatting on her tray

The drink:

Black too, Blavod it is

libation for night’s time

black clay holding black

The toast

She says it costs $5.99

a cup for this final toast

just drink up and welcome

Ragnarok

From Dreampoems - Ragnarok dream, March 1, 2015

Consciously, I did not know there was such a thing as black vodka, nor could I remember ever hearing the brand name, Blavod. I knew a lot about Ragnarok, the end of the world by drowning the globe in water, and ultimately the re-emergence of a new fertile land and a human couple. It is one of the great death and rebirth mythologies. But the dream sense and the most emotionally affecting part of the dream, was the emphasis on finality and that it was this that was being celebrated. A final end.

A Note. My work on the "Trump" pieces has followed from an overflow of inchoate intimations concerning the present state of the world and its future. At all levels I see the regressive pull of the past, from wanting to return to some prior glory to trying to understand the present situation through the vehicles of past understanding. We cannot go back and we cannot understand the future while looking backward. We can only open ourselves to witnessing the full horror that is happening in and to the world, in and to human beings, in and to the rest of creation. There is an enormous fear of and loathing for the strange, for otherness, for difference, for incongruity, for disparity, for doubt—all those qualities that Keats pointed to as characterizing "negative capability." If we don't welcome these things, as Baucis and Philemon welcomed the "strangers who were gods," then will we experience the fate of the villagers who locked the doors, who sent the strangers away, who did not welcome the divine visitors? Their fate was to die in a great flood, leaving only the generous-hearted Baucis and Philemon alive. And, yes, I am aware of the irony of referring "back" to Baucis and Philemon. It's like the "hope" left in Pandora's box. My deeper intuition, however, is that hope is gone as well. "Something else" is in store. Of this, I am convinced.

I've been brooding. When I brood, I write, I doodle. Brooding provides room for negative intuitions, dark intuitions. Making such stuff public, even in a small way is risky, risky because of the possibility that what seems so obvious in the brooded world is, in reality, only a mirror reflecting one's own world. Still, even the strongest projections cannot obscure what is present, what is looming, what is coming.

On a lighter note, my grandson Ben Lockhart, and one of the best non-Asian Go players in the world, was just interviewed by the New Yorker on the current match between Lee Se-dol and Google's Deep Mind Alpha-Go computer. The computer has won the best of five match, but all five games will be played. Lee won the fourth game. For the first time, Alpha-Go made a mistake and recognized its error too late. Here's the link:

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/in-the-age-of-google-deepmind-do-the-young-go-prodigies-of-asia-have-a-future

The Meaning of Not-Human

One of the major conclusions in my book (in progress) The Commodification of Desire, is that the value of humans is being replaced by the value of money. For example, climate change denial is driven by valuing short-term profit over long-term human existence. This process is ubiquitous and is continuing to escalate its profound consequences at all levels of human function. Unintended consequences—coupled with ignored consequences—are quickening the ascendancy of the not-human replacement of the human.

The not-human takes varied forms. A catastrophic hurricane is not-human, though humans now play a role in increasing the likelihood of catastrophic forces never seen before. For the first time, the global life-extinction process currently underway is aided and abetted by humans. At present, humans—at least those in control—seem incapable of changing course. Such extremity is necessary to bring about the conditions of "something else," conditions that might form the generative eros for welcoming what Jung called the "Coming Guest." I think it safe to say the Coming Guest will be shocking and will inaugurate a new age for humans, unlike anything humans have experienced before. But not yet. The old dominant is breaking down, but not fully so. The new dominant is emerging and not fully recognizable. It takes time.

As the old dominant breaks down there is a tendency to escalate holding onto old patterns. This grasping often appears as a renewed "vitality of the familiar" as well as extreme attempts to "bring back" patterns of previous times. This is misleading, but can be very compelling in the short-term. As the new dominant emerges, it comes with elements that threaten complete destruction of what has gone before. Such destruction is not inevitable, but it is as if there needs to be a "clearing away of the rubble” of prior structures and dynamics before the "new" emerges in forms that are experienced as new. Some areas of human activity will be witness to and carriers of the new before others will. Look to non-mainstream art to reveal the first signs.

The not-human has both absolute and relative aspects. An asteroid smashing into earth, a binary black hole entering the solar system, an enormous electromagnetic emission from the sun—all these would have life-destructive consequences for humans. Of course, these have always been possible and so are not exactly "new" possibilities—though they would be new to humans. These are examples of absolute not-human forces. There are many such forces on the earth as well. It is here where humans may be engaging in behavior that escalates the negative potential for these factors to replace the human with the not-human. Climate change, ecological poisoning, and biosphere destruction are prime examples. Other examples are organisms such as viruses and bacteria that may be escalating in their not-human potential to eliminate humans as a result of what humans are doing. In any event, all these types of absolute not-human forces, are increasing in potential for destructive impacts on humans. Humans seem unable or unwilling to deal with such realities.

What do I mean by not-human in a relative sense?

We know that conscious integration of the shadow is essential for individuation— never-ending process. We know that the extent of shadow integration is quite small and that the population of those humans engaged in individuation is smaller yet. In Commodification of Desire, I propose that it is largely the human shadow elements that will be most rapidly and readily "computerized" by artificial intelligence. Psychopathic greed is already computerized via computer algorithms that played such a part on the financial collapse of 2008, and this process has accelerated since and points to a new collapse not far off. With the advent of immersion in virtual worlds coupled with “somesthetic” computerization, it is now possible to satisfy "lust" in high degree. The addictive potential of this bodes poorly for enhancing real-world relational dimensions of love. The more "positive" human qualities will not readily nor rapidly fall victim to this accelerating process of computer replacement of humans. It is this potential of human characteristics to be computerized that, in a relative sense, can be described as becoming "not-human." In addition, the more humans are tethered to their computer devices, the more insensitive to and unaware of they will become to this process of replacement.

We know that humans are capable of great atrocities and when this happens we call such humans brutes, animals, sub-human creatures, monsters, and all manner of evil incarnate. It is all of these qualities which together are going to be readily and most easily computerized and in this sense this becomes as example of the human replacement process.

So what has this to do with Mr. Trump?

Robert Paxton, the pre-eminent historian of fascism, has warned against using this analogy in relation to Mr. Trump because historical analogies distort the understanding of the present. Comparing Mt. Trump to Hitler or Mussolini is an example of "read made" analysis I described earlier. If, in Mr. Trump's campaign, you sense an absence of higher level values and a strong presence of identifiable shadow elements, as I do, then what we are witnessing is a powerful replacement process. It is perhaps more important than we realize what the synchrony of Mr. Trump's ascendency and the defeat of the best human by the Alpha-Go computer is pointing to. It is perhaps more important than we realize that a salesman may become president, an iconic personification of the overwhelming success of what Bernays unleashed: that the purpose of humans is to consume according to the dictates and to the benefit of those controlling the wires. This process can only be enhanced by the extremity of artificial intelligence particularly as the resources of the puppet masters will be in position to make early and full use of it. Whether we know it or not, we are tethered herd-like to this process. It is the commodification of desire made visible.

How this will develop is anyone's guess, but develop it will, and to great extent before we will see the Coming Guest.

Every technology amputates the function it extends. Marshall McLuhan

I never imagined I could lose. Alpha-Go made a winning move that no human would make. –Lee Sedol

In 1997, an IBM computer beat the world champion chess player, Gary Kasparov. The world of Go, the Asian game that far exceeds chess in complexity, was undaunted. Go masters did not believe it possible for a computer to beat a high level Go player. The number of combinations in Go is said to exceed the number of atoms in the universe. For this reason, Go tests the limits of human thought far beyond chess. But what is more crucial, is that Go masters have observed that it is the human intuition that extends the reach of Go far beyond chess. In the first of five matches (for a prize of one million dollars), the best Go player in the world for the past decade. Lee Sedol, lost to Google’s Deep Mind Alpha-Go computer program. Sedol was shocked, as was everyone else. Those working on artificial intelligence and trying to develop machines that exceed human capacities in every dimension were overjoyed. March 9, the date of the first match, has become an historic moment. Everyone is eager to see the outcome of the remaining four matches.

Humans are in a fast-paced race to seemingly replace themselves, whether this is understood as a positive development (as in artificial intelligence circles) or understood as a negative development (as in human activities that insure ecological disaster). I expect the term “artificial” to disappear soon from the phrase
“artificial intelligence” as exponential advances render the term artificial meaningless. For most humans, the Turing test results are already in.

If McLuhan’s conclusion is true, on many different levels we are “amputating” ourselves. I refer to this process as the “ascendency of the not-human.” I believe this is one factor in the emerging dominant. Jung emphasized the “organizational” character of dominants, that is, the organizing of the archetypal processes within the structure of the dominant. Given Jung’s conception of the “psychoid,” referring to the inherent relationship of psyche and matter, there is a basis for expecting the “not-human” to manifest. The emergence of new dominants is tied to the collapse of older dominants, and these dominant structures have different intensities, extensions, and time scales. Altogether, these complex considerations are difficult to grasp

As I mentioned in earlier posts, collapse tends to be empirically visible in various conditions of extremity. Look around you, in your own life, in groups, in countries, in the world order, in the global conditions. You will not have to look far to witness extremity and the increasing pace and spread of extremity. As collapse gathers steam in many directions, it may be possible to witness hints of the emerging dominant. As Jung determined, it will be in dreams, and visions, fantasies, delusions, and other manifestations of the raw psyche, as well as in non-commodified art and literature, that we can see these hints and prefigurations of the emerging dominant.

If it is correct to see the fractal nature of both archetypal processes, as well as the dominants that organize the archetypal matrix at any period of time, then it is also the case that our own individual experience will be a source of “seeing into” the nature of what is coming. Each of us is a laboratory.

Now, what has all this got to do with the “Trump phenomenon”?

There is no doubt that Mr. Trump has become a “carrier” of archetypal energy. It must be noted that this is quite different from what is usually discussed under such categories as fame, fortune, celebrity, charisma, reputation, etc. All these aspects tend to be “personalistic” characteristics that come and go fairly quickly in the nature of “fads,” that is, the “herd” phenomena of the moment.

It should also be noted that carrying archetypal energy is not something one “decides” to do consciously or unconsciously. It is an autonomous process. Nor is it something “others” decide to make happen in some sense. The proper sense of it is conveyed by Jung’s assertion that, “We would do well, therefore,

to think of the creative process as a living thing implanted in the human psyche.” We may not relish the idea of human replacement as “creative,” but the logic of what Jung says dictates that we take this seriously. Keep in mind that there are many “living things” that are “not-human,” no doubt far more than we know.

So, if Mr. Trump is infused with archetypal energy (which makes him impervious to the typical personalistic processes of politics), then he is likely carrying something of the “replacement” dynamic described above. The replacement of human with not-human is likely to occur in stages and at different rates in different places. We have seen the instance above in relation to chess and Go. It is now estimated that one-third to one-half of the US workforce could be replaced within two years as robotic automation takes hold at an exponential rate. Approval of machines that will replace surgeons will be available later this year. Cars are being developed that will replace drivers. These are fragments—tiny fragments— of a large-scale replacement process underway.

In the next post, I’ll describe more fully how this dominant will be at work in the coming election in the US.

Most everyone has heard of George Santayana's famous aphorism, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." But there is a corollary observation: "Those who remember best, are condemned to repeat their memories." This causes the most difficulty when something new is presenting itself and one calls upon the past, the sure knowledge of the past, to explain, interpret and understand the new. With apologies to Marcel Duchamp, I call this using "ready-mades," as if understanding the new was a matter of taking something “off the shelf of understood things." The quickness and certainty with which this happens results in a dangerous cascade of self-similar memes that provide those accepting this with a strong sense of agreeable understanding of what we are witnessing when the new and unfamiliar presents itself. This ready agreeable quality is seductive and inhibits any tendency toward “testability” such as might follow from using Karl Popper’s falsification requirements. What is it that would falsify our ready-made understanding? That question is rarely asked.

We are all complicit in such ready-made understanding. Complicit too is the failure of ready-mades to engage in the more difficult work of "seeing into" the new, for what it is bringing in its wake. This happens at every level of human understanding, from everyday life to the most complex theories of cosmology. We are like the learned church fathers who refused to look through Galileo's lens. Cognitive and emotional bias, both learned and hard-wired underlie or favor ready-mades.

As an example, consider the popular explanation of the Trump phenomenon as the re-emergence of fascism and seeing the presidential candidate as a Hitler. There are many versions of this meme at present; it is widespread, and gaining momentum. This is an example of the "extremity" I described in the last post. The use of this ready-made affects even the most astute cultural critics. For example, Chris Hedges writes about "the revenge of the lower classes and the rise of American fascism." To be sure, he is not using fascism as a simple equivalent of Hitler's and Mussolini’s fascism as many are doing, but helpfully points out how the symbols of the new American fascism will use stars and stripes and crosses. I don't want to argue that these identifications are false or even not useful. But the whole idea of “fascism” is such a ready-made that it potentially blinds us to the "something else" that may be afoot in the new.

It is common to treat archetypal structures and processes as fixed. I prefer to see them as undergoing change, often quite disjunctive change, and evolving. Though we cannot see this in any direct way, the observable phenomena may be used to gain a sense of this. One clue of something "new" emerging is the appearance of things that cannot be predicted from what has been. For example, the generation of the work of Picasso, Matisse and Duchamp, cannot be derived from what occurred in art in previous periods. Teddy Roosevelt, when he saw Duchamp's 1912 Nude Descending a Staircase at the 1913 Armory Show in NYC, declared that the only thing he knew for certain was that this was "not art." This "new" art was so "scandalous," that it caused riots in Chicago. We can see that these artists were energized by what Jung referred to as a new dominant, which also energized Jung's inner experiences (and painting thereof) and led to the formulation of the collective unconscious. Jung attended the Armory show and his paintings would have fit well alongside those on exhibit. Such new dominants do not remain “local” but begin an ever-increasing spread in all directions. Only later do they become identifiable enough to be called “paradigms,” or “movements,” or “ages.”

I said in my last post, that “something unexpected, unpredicted, unknown, and likely uncontrollable has entered into the present campaign," and that “there is some unknown archetypal energy being carried by Mr. Trump more than by any other figure.” If this is true to any degree, then it is time to work on what this might be without reaching so quickly for ready-mades.

I will turn to that task in the next post.

Political images are shaped and managed with the utmost precision and at great expense. Everything is "spun" (like yarns, tales, and fictions) to achieve whatever qualities are thought to be of desire to the target audience. The psychology and style of this long-standing approach was developed by Edward Bernays, Freud's nephew. To get a sense of the relevance of Bernays' work one need be aware of just this snippet from his 1947 paper, "The Engineering of Consent."

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society ... Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country ... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons ... who understand the mental processes and social pattern of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

Here Bernays lays bare the importance of the psychological understanding of mental processes and social patterns as a means to manipulate the masses. He brought into the awareness of the small number of persons in control, the central principles of Freud's psychology. Bernays is no fringe figure, but almost invisible to public awareness. He is the father of public relations, the progenitor of seductive and subliminal advertising, the figure most influential in forming the CIA, and many other such "mechanisms" of "those who pull the wires." Puppets do not see their puppeteers.

Keep in mind Bernays' emphasis on "an invisible government as the true ruling power of this country."

There is no reason to doubt that what "Bernays-as-insider" wrote, remains in place and fully operational. Couple this with Walt Disney's influential conviction that the only way to control the masses was through "entertainment" in all its dimensions. Couple this with the necessity to "distract" the masses from "the truth," and you begin to see what is at work on the present "stage."

While I may seem to have wandered away from my topic, what I have described above is essential to understanding my topic in any “deep way.” So, I ask again: What is it we are witnessing?

At the depth of the financial crisis in 2008, Goldman Sachs warned its wealthiest clients that the major threat to their wealth was from the one man/one vote rule. The message was a barely disguised action plan to use wealth to eliminate the threat. In January 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are individuals and that money is speech. Money thus falls under the provisions of the First Amendment and cannot be abridged and therefore corporations are free, without limit, to contribute (not to candidate's campaigns) but to entities that could contribute to candidate's campaigns directly (subsequently referred to as political action committees, PACs, and "super" PACs.) The tortured logic of this decision has shaped politics ever since. Elections can be bought and those elected can be bought and wealth then becomes free to increase itself without being limited by political power.

One might ask, isn't this "business as usual." And the answer, of course, is yes. Yet, it is also the case that "something" is different. What is it we are witnessing?

Previous campaigns for the presidency of the US have been pale affairs compared with the current campaign. I believe this is because prior campaigns have been consciously orchestrated by the various power brokers and for this reason are all "typical." I believe that something unexpected, unpredicted, unknown, and likely uncontrollable has entered into the present campaign.

To put this into context, I must go again in what seems to be far afield, but is not. I need to examine collapse and extremity. There have been several periods in the earth's history in which collapse has reached what is called an extinction event. There have been five previous extinction periods in which the great bulk of all life on earth became extinct. All scientific evidence now points to the sixth extinction that has begun and is progressing rapidly. More and more of the earth's bio-systems are undergoing collapse. A general feature of collapse in any system is the resulting extremity. In extremity, the usual boundaries are broken and the subsequent events become unpredictable. What is so astonishing at the present time is how little humans are dealing with the consequences of systemic collapse. All humans should be working together to deal with this. One form of extremity in this case is the extremity of denial.

Collapse of large systems is not instantaneous. The undeniable symptoms are slow to emerge but then expand exponentially. The slow progression of collapse makes denial possible, but ultimately pointless. As collapse progresses, extremity begins to appear in many dimensions.

I think it is obvious that world order is in a process of collapse, whether one looks at nation states, economies, cultural traditions and institutions, social relations, and every other department of the human enterprise. Extremity is beginning to appear everywhere. Denial is beginning to break up.

Now I don't think for a minute that all of this collapse is the work of "those who pull the wires." Indeed, I see evidence that the wires themselves are becoming frayed, not so easily manipulated, and in many cases, breaking down altogether. The usual systems of power, control and money themselves are subject to the process of collapse.

The connection of Freud's psychology via Bernays to the operation of power structures is based on a personalistic view of the unconscious: the fears, desires, and darkness hidden away in the personal unconscious, but made so much use of by those pulling the wires. But what Freud's psychology has no grasp of whatever is the impersonal collective unconscious. And those pulling the wires have no understanding of this at all. I believe that collapse is bringing forth something "other" from the collective unconscious that humans are unprepared for. Jung called it the Coming Guest, but I think before the Coming Guest arrives, we will see collapse and extremity in major degree.

It is clear that in complex systems being "energized" by archetypal processes (and not just the typical human power processes), attractors are formed. These attractors draw energies to themselves and when the "density" of this energy increases to a certain degree, it will be triggered in such a way as to transform the whole system into something that could not be predicted from what was known about the system before collapse.

What also needs to be kept in mind is that archetypal processes are fractal. This means that the process is "self-similar" at all scales. Thus, what we might see in the consulting room in dealing with an archetypal process on an individual level in one human being, can also be seen at work on a group basis, large social segment basis, nation basis, world basis and cosmic basis. This is not easy to comprehend but it is nonetheless one of the major insights of Jung's psychological work with the collective unconscious.

To return now to our topic of "Trump."

There is some unknown archetypal energy afoot and it is being carried by Mr. Trump more so than by any other figure. He has become an attractor of energies in a way that no one else has. It does not matter whether the energy is positive or negative, sensible or senseless, true or false. This is an attractor within a larger process of collapse and for this reason extremity, more than any other quality, is characterizing the events as they unfold. Attractors when moving toward their triggering expressions will begin to exert qualities of "inevitability" as well as a plethora of “unintended consequences.”

In my next post, I'll be looking into this more deeply.

The earliest use in English of the word "trump" is in reference to one who blows the trumpet, and "calls forth" (circa 1297). The use of "trump" in card games, in the sense of the most powerful card, is recorded from 1529. It is a coined word , developed from the word triumph, by leaving out the i, and the h. It is the trump card that triumphs. There are many expressions using the word "trump," with most of these now obsolete and unheard.  For example, to refer to an obstruction in one's way, there is the old expression, "to cast a trump in one's way." As the word developed it became a common form of commendation as in synonymic phrases such as "a first-rate person,"  "a person of surpassing excellence," "a person of undoubted authority." But as early as 1552, as the words started to take on it's quality of opposite inherent in the original meanings (often the fate of words), it was used as a term for "breaking wind," as in the rhyme "She who doth Trump/Through defect in her rump." As reference to deceiving and cheating, this antonymic quality was common from the sixteenth century and in the sense of "to trump up" (by deception, fraud, untruth) from the seventeenth century. In the modern period, the word's more positive meanings prevail.  [Note. The word "trumpery," which has become a social media meme in relation to Mr. Trump, has a different word origin. The negative meanings of the word are being applied to the candidate.]

But in the current political climate, the word's full history seems to characterize the atmosphere surrounding presidential candidate Donald Trump. [Mr. Romney just called Trump a “phony” and a “fraud,” with both meanings adhering to the word “trump.” In addition, Mr. Romney says that things Mr. Trump says are “…a twisted example of evil trumping good.” This is fascinating.]

I have been aware of presidential elections since 1948. I have never experienced any of these elections coming anywhere close to the present political scene. Power brokers are beside themselves, usually insightful political commentators can't figure it out, the candidates themselves are wringing out the last vestiges of utility from the "politics as usual" power plays--except for one: Donald Trump. What most seem to agree on is that "The Donald" is not "playing by the book." The more he is attacked, the more he advances. The more he expresses political incorrectness, the more he advances. The GOP elite are said to be scared to death and their fright is now calling upon extremity. The Democratic party is publicly gloating, but privately is frightened as well.

What is it we are witnessing?

In my book in progress entitled, The Commodification of Desire, I argue that the structure and dynamics of "money" have become the primary engine driving the culture in all areas: economics, politics, social relations, region, art, and everyday life, that is, in all departments of the human enterprise. Further, I argue that in all areas, there are serious and fatal deficiencies of awareness of what is at risk when "one-sidedness" becomes ubiquitous. For example, consider something "simple." Current economic theory has achieved near-complete hegemony. The three pillars of this economic world view are that economics in all its aspects (production, consumption, finance, and markets) are a function of rational expectation, efficient markets, and rational behavior. In spite of mountains of contrary data, this view holds sway at all levels of economic "understanding." Those holding to this view, constantly fail to predict with any reliability any functions of the economy; constantly fail to develop adequate policy, constantly fail to anticipate dysfunctions, inequities, and wealth destructive crashes.

Something is "missing."  Although there are precursors, it was John Maynard Keynes, in 1936, who coined the phrase "animal spirits," to refer to the "instincts, proclivities, and emotions that influence and guide human behavior." In their provocative book, Animals Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism, George Akerlof and Robert Shiller use a quadrate method to illustrate the problem. By quadrate, I mean the opposing of two polarities. In this example the polarities are rational/irrational and economic/non-economic. This sets up a "box" with four cells. It is clear from this that current economic theory is constrained to only one of the four boxes and therefore cannot account for much of human behavior that effects economic realities. Similarly, the current state of politics cannot be understood without factoring in the many aspects of "animal spirits." Thus, psychology must be factored into an understanding of economics and politics (and much more) and their interconnections.

Tomorrow, after the GOP debate tonight, I'll approach the question of "What is it we are witnessing," from a depth psychological perspective.

ART FROM THE STREETS

Yesterday, I watched Layton Blaylock's documentary Art from the Streets. This award winning film, released in 2006, by Inferno Films, documents the work of the Arts From The Streets (AFTS) organization in Austin, Texas. Part of the larger ongoing effort in Austin to provide opportunities for the homeless, the AFTS project, which began in 1991, provides open studio space and supplies twice a week for homeless people to express themselves in art. Once a year, an art show and sale occur, where the homeless display and sell their art, with all proceeds going to the homeless artists.

In Jung's 1960 letter to Sir Herbert Read, Jung overcame his negativity toward art--particularly "modern" art--and proclaimed that the "Coming Guest" speaks through the artist as mouthpiece. [See my Dreams as Angels for further discussion: http://ralockhart.com/WP/dreamsasangels.pdf ]We know that much of the contemporary art world has been "captured" by the ubiquitous dynamics of money. All the "news" iin the art world is about money and essentially an avoidance of "content." Can we "read" art for the content relating to the "Coming Guest"? [See my Fictive Purpose of Dreams for further discussion:
http://ralockhart.com/WP/fictivepurposeofdreams.pdf ] Even in the documentary, there was little focus on the content of the art. The focus was on how the sale of the art was helping the homeless to better themselves. There is no gainsaying the obvious value and benefits of this. Nonetheless, the content becomes "invisible."

As you may know, for many years I have made it a habit to encounter "street" people: the homeless, the crazies, the drugged and all the other unpeople we see ever more present in larger numbers. I have taken to using the expression "unpeople" after reflecting on how street people are treated very much the same as the unconscious and its manifestations. [Paco and I are talking about this in Dreams, Bones, & the Future: Queries & Provocations. Watch for occassional excerpts from this here.] In my encounters, when I am asked for money, I ask for dreams. I always try and offer back not only money but some comment. In my work with this very rich material I will record these encounters in diminutive vignettes or poems. Always I am trying to "hear" the message of the Coming Guest in these encounters.

Here is an example from my book in progress, Dreams from the Street. What do you think the Coming Guest is saying here via the dream?

Buffalo Bill and the Slithering Sidewalk

Sporting a Buffalo Bill mustache, a goatee, cascading hair
topped by a weathered leather hat of much the same breed,
one expects a handsome vest and matching chaps with fancy
boots to complete the ensemble, not a tattered blue sweatshirt
over a frayed red tee, old patched corduroys hugging ground,
broken tennies that weren’t a match; a left leg limping to boot.
But this was not a fashion ramp; it’s a newly surfaced market
parking lot and he was asking me, with hand out, and pleading
eyes, and rasping voice, if I could spare a couple of bucks.

He was new to the lot and didn’t know what I do when asked.
No, I say, I cannot spare, but I am in the market for dreams.
You have a dream you can tell me, sell me for a couple of bucks?
Taking a step back, he says, You serious? Dead serious, I answer.
OK, then. I’ll tell you the dream I remember when Jango shook
me awake this morning. Jango? Yeah, I slept with her last night
and woke her up moaning and groaning something awful, she
said. That’s her over there in the black tights. Did you tell her?
Yep. What did she say? She said I better get off all the junk.

You sure you’re gonna give me?Yes, I interrupt. OK, then.
What I saw in my dream was the sidewalk, and it was moving
like something was under the sidewalk, long like a snake or
something, something slithering along, but still under and not
coming out nowhere’s I could see. The sidewalk was moving
as far as I could see. It was creepy and I guess it got me scared
or something to make me moan and  groan and waking up Jango
and all. That’s all there was. Pretty silly dream, I’d say. You think
it’s worth two dollars? Not silly at all. I handed him two dollars.

He stood there looking at me, standing perfectly still, staring.
Jango’s man asked, almost whispering, What’s it mean?

Ah, now that, I charge for. But for free I’ll tell you that’s not
the question. The question is:

What are you going to do now, now that the snake is moving?