Ego Consciousness and “the Mind-Forg’d Manacles”

“Since Copernicus, man has been rolling from the centre towards X” — Nietzsche

I want to continue to “hover” over the first part of the Seth quote we have been exploring, unfolding its layer after layer of significance, which is probably inexhaustible — the question of the ego consciousness and its relation to “unconscious” knowledge, the challenge of ego restructuration or “self-overcoming” as the only path through the deep dark forest of the current crisis, and how this plays out sociologically or culturally, which is my chief interest. Seth is direct and blunt about this: the ego consciousness will change, it is only a question of how, and if it does not change, the human race will perish and probably, like Hitler’s own Götterdämmerung, take the rest of the planet down with it in a fit of nihilism.

Let’s recapitulate the essential problem once more as Seth gives it,

“Ego consciousness must now be familiarized with its roots, or it will turn into something else. You are in a position where your private experience of yourself does not correlate with what you are told by your societies, churches, sciences, archaeologies, or other disciplines. Man’s “unconscious” knowledge is becoming more and more consciously apparent. This will be done under and with the direction of an enlightened and expanding egotistical awareness, that can organize the hereto neglected knowledge–or it will be done at the expense of the reasoning intellect, leading to a rebirth of superstition, chaos, and the unnecessary war between reason and intuitive knowledge.”

“Ego consciousness must now be familiarized with its roots, or it will turn into something else.” This loss of roots or “vital centre” (they are the same, as per Nietzsche’s quote above about “X”) is the problem of narcissism and of what is presently called “the culture of narcissism”. It is a continuously recurring problem of the human condition, and is probably the inevitable challenge of any creature that attains to self-consciousness. What is called “narcissism” presently is what was called “idolatry” in an older, religious idiom. It is the same psychology — the displacement of identity and vitality into externals, into objects and images, which then acquire power, authority, dominion over the ego consciousness. It is a narrowing and limiting of identity and the possibilities of perception. This is “slave mentality”, for it is also a condition of unfreedom. William Blake calls it “the mind-forg’d manacles” from his poem “London

In every cry of every Man,
In every Infants cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forg’d manacles I hear

(Blake’s “London”, by the way, is not the city of London. It is a symbol of the City of Man — the spiritual condition of humanity as contrasted to, say, Augustine’s “City of God”. However, not “City of God” but his “Golgonooza” — City of the Imagination — is Blake’s contrast to this “London”, which is the City of Ego. “Golgonooza” (or “New Jerusalem” also) stands, therefore, for the “roots” or intuitive knowledge which Seth is referring to — the richness of “unconscious” knowledge).

There are plenty of books around these days highlighting the problem of narcissism, and I’ve probably read most of them. Apart from A.H. Almaas’s brilliant and exceptional book The Point of Existence: Transformations of Narcissism in Self-Realization, they are all uniformly in error about the meaning of narcissism because they fail to see that the psycho-dynamics of narcissism are identical to those of idolatry and is the loss of self in objectifications or the projections, or what Seth elsewhere called our psychic entanglement with the “camouflage universe”.

What fascinates about Seth’s warnings is that Seth’s voice is the same prophetic voice of the iconoclastic prophets of old, calling a forgetful people back to remembrance of the true source of their lives. It is, to me, most uncanny how the myth of Narcissus and Echo plays against the parable of the Prodigal Son. The solution to the puzzle and riddle of what is called “religion” is revealed in the parable and the myth. One can unravel the entire meaning of “religion” through insight into just these two stories. The word “religion” — re-ligare — means to re-connect or return to the source. The reflexive prefix “re-” signals return or turning back, not in the sense of “backwards” in time, but as coming to remembrance of oneself, of one’s roots or origin in an abiding presence that has been neglected or forgotten — those roots lie in the here and now which Jean Gebser calls “the ever-present origin”.

The error and distortion of almost all institutional religion and belief systems is to have confused “origin” with “beginning”. To “come to remembrance of oneself” — in this, Narcissus fails where the Prodigal Son succeeds. Narcissus does not awaken from his dream of time, and so perishes from his dream of time. The Prodigal Son could easily have shared Narcissus’ fate, too, as he also was trapped in the dream of time — the dream of Samsara — the suffering world of beginnings and endings, of births and deaths. But unlike Narcissus, he awakened to remembrance of himself and his origin — his roots. He broke the spell — the fascinum — of time and samsara. This kind of “remembrance” is not memory, but awakening, for in this context “remembrance” and “awakening” have the same meaning. This kind of “re-collection” is not memory but a re-collection or re-integration of oneself from a condition of dis-memberment. True “re-membrance” is not memory but re-membership or re-collection of the whole of oneself, an overcoming of a condition of dis-memberment or dis-integration, which is the ego consciousness estranged or alienated from its roots — a “stranger in a strange land”.

Once you know this, you have the golden key to understanding William Blake, (as well as Jean Gebser). “Eternity in the hour”, “Heaven in a Wild Flower” or “the universe in a grain of sand”. The “origin” does not lie in time, in terms of beginnings and endings, birth and death, and so is not finite or bounded in that sense. It is the eternal-infinite present, and it has no bookends. The ancient “World Tree”, the axis of the world, is not a structure with its roots in a remote past or “beginning” and its crown in a distant future, ending, or “final destiny”. This is what Jean Gebser means by “ever-present origin” — “It is the whole that is present in origin and originative in the present”. All “past” and all “future” are co-present, as either latent or manifest probability. The “Fall of Man” is a dis-memberment, a fall of the ego consciousness from knowledge of origin into the dream of time and forgetfulness, into the bookend dualisms of birth and death, beginnings and endings, past and future.

The origin of religion is the return to origin, not beginnings. Return is awakening from the dream of time, which is the narcissistic condition of the ego consciousness that has forgotten its roots. Awakening is re-membrance, and re-membrance is overcoming the condition of dis-memberment, which is loss of the whole. “Time” is intimately connected with the psycho-dynamics of “ego consciousness” and the “unconscious”, which is why Augustine wrote “time is of the soul”.

To understand what “religion” originally was, it is necessary to understand what is meant by “the kingdom of heaven is within you” and “the body is the temple of the living God”, and how these relate to the problem of narcissism, and then to the awakening of the Prodigal Son from narcissism as his dream of time and samsara, which is the “far country” of the parable into which he traveled — ego consciousness grown remote from origin or roots or “the vital centre” or home. This “vital centre” is the symbolism of the World Tree as axis.

All this, and far more besides, is implicit in the first sentence of Seth’s quote: “Ego consciousness must now be familiarized with its roots, or it will turn into something else.” In psycho-dynamic terms, the ego-consciousness, having become “progressively” remote from consciousness of its roots, sources, “vital centre”, it has become a “dungeon in the air”, a dungeon of the “mind-forg’d manacles”, in Blake’s terms,

“If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern.”

Compare that quote from Blake with Nietzsche,

“Woe to the portentous curiosity that could manage to look out of and down from the chamber of consciousness through a slit and that now began to realize that man rests on the heartless, the greedy, the insatiable, and the murderous in the indifference of his ignorance, hanging in dreams, as it were, on the back of a tiger. In this constellation, where in the world does the urge for truth originate?”

The similarity of imagery is interesting, although Nietzsche has probably over-exaggerated the darker elements of the Dionysian, although the ferocity of the primordial energies (or what Seth calls “the ancient force”) is undeniable. Even Blake’s world of the Zoas is a Dionysian realm of ferocious energies, which is probably why man locked himself up behind within his “castle in the air” (become dungeon) in the first place. The ferocious nature of the Dionysian realm is equivalently the dragon of Rumi’s great poem “The Snake-Catcher’s Tale“. We’ll return to this subject in the context of discussing what Seth means by “the ancient force” and the positive and creative handling of the Dionysian energies. Suffice it to mention for now, that “Moses” in Rumi’s poem is the Apollonian principle we encounter in Nietzsche, and which corresponds to the “enlightened and expanding egotistical awareness” which Seth states must be a precondition for handling the unconscious energies currently being aroused. Do not doubt, however, that this “dragon” power is stirring. The whole of the last century proves the point. Nietzsche was, in some sense, the herald of its arising.

“Man’s “unconscious” knowledge is becoming more and more consciously apparent.” And that will now be the subject of the next few posts. It is the process that Jean Gebser has called “diaphaneity” or translucency — “to render transparent our own origin”. But it is also the “unconscious” now becoming “consciously apparent” to which we need to turn our attention.

It might be asked, justifiably, if the Dionysian energies of this “ancient force” are so frightful, dreadful, terrifying, why on earth would we want to become familiar with our roots? The answer is, we now have no choice. We are in the thick of it now, and there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle. There is a prevailing sense that we are all in the grips of a semi-autonomous force that is sweeping us along before it, irresistibly driving us along like dry leaves in a strong wind. Nietzsche, Freud, Jung and others poked it with a stick. The minute they shone the light of ego consciousness into its depths they aroused it. Precisely here, the old saying that “fools go where angels fear to tread” is probably most appropriate. But, the sleeping beauty is the other side of the sleeping dragon, just as the goddess of reason, bright Athena, has her alter ego in the Gorgon’s head, just as Dionysus is a morph or transform of Hades.

This is what Seth is saying — the energies of the ancient force or “unconscious” are bestirring themselves and we’ll have to deal with them. How the ego consciousness responds to this bestirring of the ancient force becomes the decisive question whether the human race will survive or not. Those familiar with the fascist period, particularly the Nazi period — with its strange ancient symbols, mystical doctrines, magical rituals, and the rule of unreason — will recognise the signs of this “ancient force” and its potential to overwhelm the ego consciousness completely and take it captive. And I’m not speaking metaphorically. We are somewhat in the position of the apprentice in Goethe’s profound tale of “the Sorcerer’s Apprentice”, which has been trivialised as being a children’s fairy tale. It isn’t a fairy tale. Goethe was a master, and he knew what he was doing. The “sorcerer’s apprentice” is the ego consciousness which is not experienced or enlightened sufficiently to handle the powers it has summoned or unleashed.

The ego consciousness is sometimes portrayed, in relation to the “unconscious”, as being like a small cork bobbing on a vast ocean of energy, carried along by its currents and waves. Sounds like fun, until you reflect on what is actually in the ocean. As an old scuba diver, I’ve seen both great beauty, and great terrors beneath the waves, as well as the enormous power which it is. It makes sense to say, in one way, that the ego consciousness must “expand” as it engages with the “unconscious knowledge” just in order to become too big a mouthful to be swallowed up by the whale. There is good reason why don Juan insisted that the art of the warrior, the hunter after knowledge, is to balance the terrors of existence with the wonders of existence. The “ocean” is Nietzsche’s Dionysian, and it exists “beyond good and evil”. When don Juan talks of the importance of preserving the “personal awareness” in the face of the infinite, this “personal awareness” is quite evidently Seth’s “ego consciousness”.

But, I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself here. We need to take the next step, however, in unfolding the deeper layers of Seth’s words, “ You are in a position where your private experience of yourself does not correlate with what you are told by your societies, churches, sciences, archaeologies, or other disciplines. Man’s “unconscious” knowledge is becoming more and more consciously apparent.

The discrepancy between “private experience” and our public institutions (and particularly political institutions, generation gaps, etc) is the next subject.

Advertisements

12 responses to “Ego Consciousness and “the Mind-Forg’d Manacles””

  1. Scott Preston says :

    Here’s a rather startling claim from a Japanese scientist, an expert on Mammoths, on why studying why Mammoths went extinct might lead to lessons for humanity, “which might be facing its own dangers of extinction”.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jul/09/woolly-mammoth-japan-russia-video

    Reminds me of the (sadly) no longer available essay by biologist David Ehrenfeld entitled “The Coming Collapse of the Age of Technology” (1999, it used to be widely available on the net). At least, I have the first few paragraphs still,

    “A little-noticed event of exceptional importance occurred on the 8th of May, 1998. The conservative, power-oriented champion of science, progress, and reason, Science magazine, published an article by the distinguished British scientist James Lovelock which said:
    We have confidence in our science-based civilization and think it has tenure. In so doing, I think we fail to distinguish between the life-span of civilizations and that of our species. In fact, civilizations are ephemeral compared with species.

    Can the Machine Stop?

    Nearly everyone in our society, experts and lay people alike, assumes that the events and trends of the immediate future—the next five to twenty-five years—are going to be much like those of the present. We can do our business as usual. In the world at large, there will be a continued increase in global economic, social, and environmental management; a continued decrease in the importance of national and local governments compared with transnational corporations and trade organizations; more sophisticated processing, transfer, and storage of information; more computerized management systems along with generally decreased employment in most fields; increased corporate consolidation; and a resulting increase in the uniformity of products, lifestyles, and cultures. The future will be manifestly similar to today.

    Power carries with it an air of assured permanence that no warnings of history or ecology can dispel. As John Ralston Saul has written, “Nothing seems more permanent than a long-established government about to lose power, nothing more invincible than a grand army on the morning of its annihilation.” The present economic-technical-organizational structure of the industrial and most of the non-industrial world is the most powerful in history. Regardless of one’s political orientation, it’s very difficult to imagine any other system, centralized or decentralized, ever replacing it. Reinforcing this feeling is the fact that our technology-driven economic system has all the trappings of royalty and empire, without the emperor. It rolls on inexorably, a giant impersonal machine, devouring and processing the world, unstoppable.”

    • Scott Preston says :

      Reinforcing this feeling is the fact that our technology-driven economic system has all the trappings of royalty and empire, without the emperor. It rolls on inexorably, a giant impersonal machine, devouring and processing the world, unstoppable.”

      In other words, what I’ve been referring to as “the techno-corporate state”, following Arthur Selwyn Miller’s usage. The Juggernaut. The “New Colossus”.

      Not sure how many are familiar with the sources of the word “Juggernaut”. It’s quite interesting. It’s the Anglicised name of a Hindu god “Jagganatha”, which means “Lord of the Universe”. The festival of Jagganatha involves building a monstrous carriage or cart. Once the carriage of Jagganatha is set in motion, it is unstoppable, and it crushes every enthusiastic devotee, worshiper, and disciple under its gigantic wheels who happens to fall under them, quite indifferently, which is usually dozens. It’s kind of ironic that the force called “Lord of the Universe” is quite indifferent, in that regard — inexorable, implaccable, indifferent. It just crushes and grinds as it progresses, like the clockwork universe.

      Anyway, the Christians and Muslims regarded the procession of Jagganatha with either horror, or tragi-comic bemusement, or as an aberration. But it certainly made an impression — hence the word “Juggernaut” for a monstrous, huge, blind, merciless, terrifying force that just rolls over living beings indifferently, pulverising them.

      You don’t have to look to Jagganatha for an example of the horror. The Europeans had the same figure in their own backyard — ie, in their own conscience — where the blind, indiifferent force was called “mill o’ the gods”. Jagganatha is the other name for “INVISIBLE HAND”, so the horror and bemusement of the British (or, the mental-rational consciousness more generally) was a bit duplicitous and hypocritical, considering that the “Invisible Hand” is our own version of the god Jagganatha, “Lord of the Universe”. And there is something of Nietzsche’s conception of the Dionysian power in that, too.

      You should come to know this “Lord of the Universe”. It is the world we are also blindly creating, as Ehrenfeld laments.

    • Thinking Green says :

      “Reminds me of the (sadly) no longer available essay by biologist David Ehrenfeld entitled “The Coming Collapse of the Age of Technology” (1999, it used to be widely available on the net).”

      Here’s a copy of David Ehrenfeld’s essay. I hope I’m not causing any copyright difficulties by placing it here. I emailed it to myself many years ago.

      The Coming Collapse of the Age of Technology

      David Ehrenfeld

      A little-noticed event of exceptional importance occurred on the 8th of May, 1998. The conservative, power-oriented champion of science, progress, and reason, Science magazine, published an article by the distinguished British scientist James Lovelock which said:

      “We have confidence in our science-based civilization and think it has tenure. In so doing, I think we fail to distinguish between the life-span of civilizations and that of our species. In fact, civilizations are ephemeral compared with species.”

      Lovelock, originator of the Gaia Hypothesis—about the central role of life in the earth’s self-regulating system that includes atmosphere, climate, land, and oceans—went on to recommend that we “encapsulate the essential information that is the basis of our civilization to preserve it through a dark age.” The book would be written not on ephemeral, digital magnetic, or optical media but on “durable paper with long-lasting print.” It would record in simple terms our present knowledge of science and technology, including the fundamentals of medicine, chemistry, engineering, thermodynamics, and natural selection. As the monasteries did in the Dark Ages, the book would help to keep our culture from vanishing during a prolonged period of chaos and upheaval.

      Set aside the question of whether such a task could be done, or whether science ought to be described for future generations in a neutral way. What commands our attention first is that Science magazine was willing to print two precious pages based on the premise that our scientific-technological civilization is in real danger of collapse.

      Can the Machine Stop?

      Nearly everyone in our society, experts and lay people alike, assumes that the events and trends of the immediate future—the next five to twenty-five years—are going to be much like those of the present. We can do our business as usual. In the world at large, there will be a continued increase in global economic, social, and environmental management; a continued decrease in the importance of national and local governments compared with transnational corporations and trade organizations; more sophisticated processing, transfer, and storage of information; more computerized management systems along with generally decreased employment in most fields; increased corporate consolidation; and a resulting increase in the uniformity of products, lifestyles, and cultures. The future will be manifestly similar to today.

      Power carries with it an air of assured permanence that no warnings of history or ecology can dispel. As John Ralston Saul has written, “Nothing seems more permanent than a long-established government about to lose power, nothing more invincible than a grand army on the morning of its annihilation.” The present economic-technical-organizational structure of the industrial and most of the non-industrial world is the most powerful in history. Regardless of one’s political orientation, it’s very difficult to imagine any other system, centralized or decentralized, ever replacing it. Reinforcing this feeling is the fact that our technology-driven economic system has all the trappings of royalty and empire, without the emperor. It rolls on inexorably, a giant impersonal machine, devouring and processing the world, unstoppable.

      Futurists of all political varieties, those who fear and loathe the growing power as well as those who welcome it, share faith in its permanence. Even those who are aware of the earth’s growing social and environmental disasters have this faith. Robert D. Kaplan originally writing in the Atlantic Monthly in 1994, is an example. “We are entering a bifurcated world,” said Kaplan, in “The Coming Anarchy.” Part of it, in West Africa, the Indian subcontinent, Central America, and elsewhere in the underdeveloped world, will be subject to ethnic conflict, food scarcity, massive overcrowding, militant fundamentalism, the breakdown of national governments and conventional armies, and the resurgence of epidemic disease, all against a backdrop of global climatic change. But the other part of the world will be “healthy, well-fed, and pampered by technology.” We’ll be all right, those of us with the money and the technology. The system will not fail us.

      Despite the grip of the idea of irreversible progress on the modern mind, there are still some people who believe in the cyclical view of history. Have they generated a different scenario of the future? Not necessarily. The archaeologist Joseph Tainter notes in his book, The Collapse of Complex Societies, that collapse and disintegration have been the rule for complex civilizations in the past. There comes a time when every complex social and political system requires so much investment of time, effort, and resources just to keep itself together that it can no longer be afforded by its citizens. Collapse comes when, first, a society “invests ever more heavily in a strategy that yields proportionately less” and, second, when “parts of a society perceive increasing advantage to a policy of separation or disintegration.”

      Forget the Mayan and Roman Empires: what about our own? Certainly the problem of spending more and getting less describes our present condition. Are we receiving full value from an international banking and finance system that shores up global speculators with billions of dollars of public money, no matter how recklessly they gamble and whether they win or lose? Our NAFTA strategy has cost this country tens of thousands of jobs, reduced our food security, and thrown our neighbor, Mexico, into social, economic, and environmental turmoil; is this an adequate repayment for the dollars and time we have spent on free trade? More than 70 percent of government-supported research and development is spent on weapons that yield no social, and a highly questionable military, benefit; the Pentagon loses—misplaces—a billion dollars worth of arms and equipment each year. Is this a profitable investment of public funds? We may ask whether the decline in returns on investment in this system has reached the critical point. Tainter quotes from a popular sign: “Every time history repeats itself the price goes up.” The price is now astronomical.

      If we follow Tainter, however, we need not worry about our future. In the curiously evasive final chapter of his book, he states that “Collapse today is neither an option nor an immediate threat.” Why not? Because the entire world is part of the same complex system. Collapse will be prevented, in effect, by everyone leaning on everyone else. It reminds me of that remote island, described by the great British humorist P.G. Wodehouse, where the entire population earned a modest but comfortable living by taking in each other’s washing.

      I don’t have this kind of blind faith. I don’t believe in the permanence of our power. I doubt whether the completely globalized, totally managed, centralized world is going to happen. Techno-economic globalization is nearing its apogee; the system is self-destructing. There is only a short but very damaging period of expansion left.

      Now if I were playing it comparatively safe, I would stick to the more obvious kinds of support for my argument, the things I know about as an ecologist. I would write about our growing environmental problems, especially certain kinds of pollution and ecosystem destabilization: global soil erosion; global deforestation; pollution and salinization of freshwater aquifers; desertification; saline seeps, like those that have ruined so much prime agricultural land in Australia; growing worldwide resistance of insects to insecticides; acid rain and snow; on-farm transfer of genes for herbicide resistance from crops to weeds; the loss of crop varieties; the collapse of world fisheries; the decline, especially in Europe, of mycorrhizal fungi needed for tree growth; the effects of increasing co2 and introduced chemicals in the atmosphere, including but not limited to global warming; the hole in the ozone layer; the extinction and impending extinction of keystone species such as the pollinators needed for the propagation of so many of our crops and wild plants; the accelerated spread of deleterious exotic species such as the Asian tiger mosquito; the emergence of new, ecologically influenced diseases, and the resurgence of old diseases, including, for example, the recent discovery of locally transmitted malaria in New Jersey, New York City, Michigan, Toronto, California, and Texas; the spread of antibiotic resistance among pathogenic bacteria; and finally the catastrophic growth of the human population, far exceeding the earth’s carrying capacity—all of these things associated with the techno-economic system now in place.

      Some of the problems I mentioned are conjectural, some are not; some are controversial, some are not; but even if only half or a fifth of them materialize as intractable problems, that will be quite enough to bring down this technological power structure.

      The Forces of Internal Breakdown

      But I am not going to dwell on the ecological side effects of our technology, important as they are; most of them have already received at least some attention. I am leaving this comparatively safe turf to discuss the forces of internal breakdown that are inherent in the very structure of the machine. Part of the system’s power comes from our faith in its internal strength and cohesiveness, our bland and infuriating confidence that somebody is at the wheel, and that the steering and brakes are working well.

      The causes of the problems affecting our global system are numerous, overlapping, and often obscure—I will not try to identify them. The problems themselves, however, are clear enough. I have grouped them in six broad categories.

      1. The Misuse of Information

      One of the most serious challenges to our prevailing system is our catastrophic loss of ability to use self-criticism and feedback to correct our actions when they place us in danger or give bad results. We seem unable to look objectively at our own failures and to adjust the behavior that caused them. I’ll start with three examples. First observation: in 1997, NASA launched the Cassini space probe to Saturn. After orbiting the earth, it is programmed to swing around Venus to gain velocity, then head back toward earth at tremendous speed, grazing us, if all control thrusters function exactly as planned, at a distance of only 312 miles, using our gravity to accelerate the probe still more and turn it into a Saturn-bound trajectory. The space probe cost $3.5 billion and carries in its nuclear energy cell seventy-two pounds of plutonium-238, the most deadly substance in existence. Alan Kohn, former emergency-preparedness operations officer at the Kennedy Space Center, described Cassini as “criminally insane.” Yet this dramatic criticism from a NASA insider, plus similar concerns expressed by many outside scientists, did not stop the project.

      The second example: on February 15, 1996, President Clinton launched his Technology Literacy Challenge, a $2 billion program which he hoped would put multimedia computers with fiber optic links in every classroom. “More Americans in all walks of life will have more chances to live up to their dreams than in any other time in our nation’s history,” said the president. He singled out a sixth-grade classroom in Concord, New Hampshire, where students were using Macintosh computers to produce a very attractive school newspaper. Selecting two editorials for special notice, he praised the teacher for “the remarkable work he has done.” An article in New Jersey’s Star Ledger of February 26, 1996 gave samples of the writing in those editorials. The editorial on rainforest destruction began: “Why people cut them down?” The editorial about the president’s fights with Congress said, “Conflicts can be very frustrating. Though, you should try to stay away from conflicts.… In the past there has been fights.”

      The third example: around the world, funds are being diverted away from enormously successful, inexpensive methods of pest control, such as the use of beneficial insects to attack pests, to the costly, risky, and unproven technologies favored by multinational, biotechnology corporations. Hans Herren, whose research in the biological control of the insect pests of cassava helped avert a famine threatening 200 million Africans, said: “When I visit [African] agricultural research institutes, I find the biological control lab half empty, with broken windows … but the biotechnology lab will be brand new with all the latest equipment and teeming with staff.”

      These examples, superficially quite different, show that we are not using the information at hand about the results of our past actions to guide and direct what we plan to do next. This inability to correct ourselves when we go astray is exacerbated by the dangerously high speed of our decision-making (Jeremy Rifkin calls it the “nanosecond culture”), a consequence of modern, computer-assisted communications. This speed short-circuits the evolutionary process of reasoned decision-making, eliminating time for empirical feedbacks and measured judgment. Messages arriving by express mail, fax, and email all cry out for an immediate response. Often it is better to get a night’s sleep before answering.

      A final example of the misuse of information is information glut. We assume these days that information is like money: you can’t have too much of it. But, in fact, too much information is at least as bad as too little: it masks ignorance, buries important facts, and incapacitates minds by overwhelming the critical capacity for brilliant selectivity that characterizes the human brain. That quantity and quality are so often inversely related in today’s information flow compounds this problem. If our feedback alarm bells were sounding properly, we would curtail the flow of junk—instead, we worship it.

      2. The Loss of Information

      The acceleration of obsolescence is a plague afflicting all users of contemporary technology. Although obsolescence is an inherent part of any technology that isn’t moribund, several factors have combined in the last few decades to exaggerate it out of manageable proportions. One factor is the sheer number of people involved in technology, especially information technology—each has to change something or make something new to justify a salary. Another factor is the market’s insistence on steadily increasing sales, which in turn mandates an accelerated regimen of planned obsolescence.

      The social disruption caused by accelerated obsolescence is well known. A less familiar, yet equally important, result is the loss of valuable knowledge. The technical side of this was described by Jeff Rothenberg in an article in the January 1995 issue of Scientific American, entitled “Ensuring the Longevity of Digital Documents.” It turns out that neither the hardware nor the software that underlie the information revolution has much staying power. “It is only slightly facetious,” says Rothenberg, “to say that digital information lasts forever—or five years, whichever comes first.” The most durable digital storage medium, the optical disk, has a physical lifetime of only thirty years and an estimated time to obsolescence of ten years. Digital documents are evolving rapidly, and shifts in their basic form are frequent. Translation backwards or forwards in time becomes difficult, tedious, and expensive—or impossible. The result is the loss of much of each previous generation’s work, a generation being defined as five to twenty years. There is always something “better” coming; as soon as it arrives, we forget all about it.

      One striking example of the obsolescence nightmare, documented by Nicholson Baker in The New Yorker and by Clifford Stoll in his book Silicon Snake Oil, concerns the widespread conversion of paper library card catalogs to electronic ones. Having spent a fortune to convert their catalogs, libraries now find themselves in an electronic-economic Catch-22. The new catalogs don’t work very well for many purposes, and the paper catalogs have been frozen or destroyed. Better electronic systems are always on the horizon. Consequently, libraries spend a third or more of their budgets on expensive upgrades of software and hardware, leaving little money for books and journals.

      A second example of the effects of obsolescence is the wholesale forgetting of useful skills and knowledge—everything from how to operate a lathe to how to identify different species of earthworms. Whole branches of learning are disappearing from the universities. The machine is jettisoning both knowledge and diversity (a special kind of information) simultaneously. To illustrate the loss of biodiversity, biologists Stephen Hall and John Ruane have shown that the higher the GNP in the different countries of Europe—the more integrated into “the system” they are—the higher the percentage of extinct breeds of livestock. I’m sure that the same relationship could be shown for agricultural crop varieties or endangered languages. The system is erasing our inheritance.

      Another problem involving the loss of information is incessant reorganization, made easier by information technology and causing frequent disruption of established social relationships among people who work and live together. Changes occur too rapidly and too often to permit social evolution to work properly in business, in government, in education, or in anything touched by them.

      An article by Dirk Johnson in the “Money and Business” section of The New York Times of March 22, 1998 described some recent problems of the Leo Burnett advertising agency, which gave the world the Jolly Green Giant and the Marlboro Man. Johnson described one especially serious trouble for a company that prides itself on its long-term relationships with clients: “No one at Burnett can do much about a corporate world that shuttles chief executives in and out like managers on a George Steinbrenner team and that has an attention span that focuses on nothing older than the last earnings report. It is not easy to build client loyalty in such a culture, as many other shops can attest.”

      3. Increasing Complexity and Centralized Control

      A third intrinsic problem with the techno-economic system is its increasing complexity and centralized control, features of much of what we create—from financial networks to nuclear power plants. Nature, with its tropical rainforests, temperate prairies, and marine ecosystems, is also complex. But nature’s slowly evolved complexity usually involves great redundancy, with duplication of functions, alternative pathways, and countless, self-regulating, fail-safe features. Our artificial complexity is very different: it is marked by a high degree of interlinkage among many components with little redundancy, by fail-safe mechanisms that are themselves complex and failure-prone, and by centralized controllers who can never fully comprehend the innumerable events and interactions they are supposed to be managing. Thus, our artificial systems are especially vulnerable to serious disturbances. System-wide failures—what the Yale sociologist Charles Perrow calls “normal accidents”—occur when one component malfunctions, bringing down many others that are linked in ways that are poorly observed and understood. The fruits of this complexity and linkage are everywhere, from catastrophic accidents at chemical and nuclear plants to the myriad effects of accelerated climatic change.

      Accidents and catastrophes are the most noticeable results of running a system that is beyond our full understanding, but the more routine consequences, those that don’t necessarily make the front-page headlines, may be more important. Many of these consequences stem from a phenomenon first described by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern in 1947, and applied to social systems by the biologist Garrett Hardin in 1968. Von Neumann and Morgenstern pointed out that it is mathematically impossible to maximize more than one variable in an interlinked, managed system at any particular time. If one variable is adjusted to its maximum, it limits the freedom to maximize other variables—in other words, in a complex system we cannot make everything “best” simultaneously. As we watch economists desperately juggling stock prices, wages, commodity prices, productivity, currency values, national debts, employment, interest rates, and technological investments on a global scale, trying to maximize them all, we might think about von Neumann’s and Morgenstern’s theory and its implications for the fate of our complex but poorly redundant techno-economic machine.

      4. Confusing Simulation with Reality

      The fourth group of problems is the blurring of the distinction between simulation and reality. With globalization, the ease of making large changes in a simulation on the computer screen is accompanied by a corresponding ease of ordering these large changes in the real world—with disastrous results in activities as different as the planning of massive public works projects, the setting of monetary policy, and the conduct of war. Beginning with the Vietnam war, all contemporary American military adventures have had this through-the-looking-glass quality, in which the strategies and simulations conform poorly to actual events on the ground. As Martin van Creveld shows in his book, The Transformation of War, the simulated war of the military strategists is increasingly different from the realities of shifting, regional battlefields with their “low-intensity conflicts” against which high-tech weapons and classic military strategies are often worse than useless.

      As we attempt to exert more complicated controls over our world, more modeling, with its assumptions and simplifications, is needed. This in turn causes all kinds of errors, some serious, most hidden. According to James Lovelock, years before the ozone hole was discovered by a lone pair of British observers using an old-fashioned and inexpensive instrument, it was observed, measured, and ignored by very expensive satellite-borne instruments which had been programmed to reject data that were substantially different from values predicted by an atmospheric model. Simulation had triumphed over reality.

      What I call the “pseudocommunity problem” is another illustration of the fuzzy line that exists between simulation and reality. It began with television, which surrounded viewers with friends they did not have and immersed them in events in which they did not participate. The philosopher Bruce Wilshire, an articulate and charismatic lecturer, has observed that students who are otherwise polite and attentive talk openly and unselfconsciously during his lectures, much as if he were a figure on a television screen who could not be affected by their conversation.

      Email and the Internet have made this situation much worse. Email has opened up a world of global communications that has attracted many of our brightest and most creative citizens, especially young people. Considerable good has come of this—for the handicapped, for those who have urgent need of communicating with people in distant places, for those living in politically repressed countries, and others. But the ease and speed of email are traps that few evade. Real human interaction requires time, attention to detail, and work. There is a wealth of subtlety in direct conversation, from body language to nuances of voice to choice of words. In email this subtlety is lost, reduced to the level of the smiley face used to indicate a joke. The result is a superficial, slipshod substitute for effective communication, often marked by careless use of language and hasty thought. Every hour spent online in the “global village” is an hour not spent in the real environment of our own communities. It is an hour of not experiencing the love and support of good neighbors; an hour of not learning how to cope with bad neighbors, who cannot be erased by a keystroke; an hour of not becoming familiar with the physical and living environment in which we actually live. Perhaps this is why a recent study of the social involvement and psychological well-being of Internet users, published in American Psychologist, found a significant decrease in the size of their social circle and a significant increase in their depression and loneliness after one to two years online. There are no good substitutes for reality.

      5. The Unnecessary Exhaustion of Resources

      Our techno-economic system is distinguished by its exceptionally high consumption of renewable and non-renewable resources. When this is pointed out, advocates of the system answer that substitutes for depleted resources will be found or new technologies will eliminate the need for them. To date, neither of these claims has been demonstrated to be true in any significant case. Meanwhile, resources—from food to forests, from fresh water to soil—are disappearing quickly. Blindness to warnings of impending shortage limits our options: by not responding while there are still the time and resources left to take corrective action, we are forced to work under crisis conditions, when there is little that can be done. The problem is too familiar to require much elaboration, but the most conspicuous example deserves brief mention. The global production of oil will probably peak—and thereafter decline—sometime between 2000 and 2010, regardless of new oil field development. Almost every part of our technology, including nuclear technology, depends on oil. Oil is not going to disappear any time soon. But we have already used more than half of the world’s supply, with most of this consumption in the last few decades. As the recent report of Petroconsultants S. A. and the book, The Coming Oil Crisis, by the distinguished petroleum geologist C. J. Campbell make plain, we have only a very few years left of cheap oil.

      The loss of cheap oil will strike far more deeply than can be predicted by economists’ price-supply curves; it will fatally damage the stability of the transnational corporations that run our global techno-economic system. Transnational corporations are, ultimately, economic losers. Too often they rely on the sale of products that don’t work well and don’t last, that are made in unnecessarily expensive ways (usually as a result of making them very quickly), that are expensively transported, carry high environmental and human costs, and are purchased on credit made available by the seller. At present, these products are subsidized by subservient, lobbyist-corrupted governments through tax revenues and favorable regulation; their flaws are concealed by expensive advertising promotions which have co-opted language and human behavioral responses in the service of sales; and they are imposed on consumers by the expensive expedient of suppressing alternative choices, especially local alternatives. All of this depends on the manipulation of a huge amount of surplus wealth by the transnationals, wealth that has been generated by cheap oil. When the oil becomes expensive, with no comparably inexpensive energy substitutes likely, when jobs disappear and the tax base shrinks, when consumers become an endangered species, and when corporate profits dwindle and the market values of their stocks decline, the fundamental diseconomies of global corporations will finally take their toll and we will begin to see the transnationals disintegrate.

      6. The Loss of Higher Inspiration

      There is one final, internal problem of the system, maybe the most important: namely, a totally reductionist, managed world is a world without its highest inspiration. With no recognized higher power other than the human-made system that the people in charge now worship, there can be no imitation of God, no vision of something greater to strive for. Human invention becomes narrow, pedestrian, and shoddy; we lose our best models for making lasting, worthy societies. One such model is the noble dream of people and their communities functioning non-destructively, justly, and democratically within a moral order. The other—long a reality—is nature itself, whose magnificent durability we will never totally comprehend, but which has much to teach us if we want to learn. When people and communities become mere management units and nature is only something to exploit, what is left worth striving after? We become no better than our machines, and just as disposable.

      The End of Global Management

      The reductionist idea of a fully explainable and manageable world is a very poor model of reality by any objective standard. The real world comprises a few islands of limited understanding in an endless sea of mystery. Any human system that works and survives must recognize this. A bad model gives bad results. We have adopted a bad model and now we are living with the terrible consequences.
      The present global power system is a transient, terminal phase in a process that began 500 years ago with the emerging Age of Reason. It has reached its zenith in the twentieth century, powered by the global arms trade and war and enabled by a soulless, greed-based economics together with a hastily developed and uniquely dangerous technology. This power system, with its transnational corporations, its giant military machines, its globalized financial system and trade, its agribusiness replacing agriculture—with its growing numbers of jobless people and people in bad jobs, with its endless refugees, its trail of damaged cultures and ecosystems, and its fatal internal flaws, is now coming apart. Realization of the machine’s mortality is the necessary first step before we begin to plan and work for something better. As the great British philosopher Mary Midgley says, “The house is on fire; we must wake up from this dream and do something about it.”

      Looming over us is an ominous conjunction of the internal sources of breakdown I have just described with the many, interlinked ecological and social threats that I only briefly listed. What can we do? Obviously a crash as comprehensive as the one that’s coming will affect all of us, but that doesn’t mean that there is nothing that can be done to soften the blow. We should begin by accepting the possibility that the system will fail. While others continue to sing and dance wildly at the bottom of the avalanche slope, we can chose to leave the insane party.

      I do not mean going back to some prior state or period of history that was allegedly better than the world today. Even if going back were possible, there is no halcyon period that I would want to regain. Nor do I mean isolating ourselves in supposedly avalanche-proof shelters—gated communities of like-minded idealists. No such shelter could last for long; nor would such an isolated existence be desirable. In the words of my friend, geographer Meg Holden, we should be unwilling “to admit defeat in the wager of the Enlightenment that people can create a nation based not on familial, racial, ethnic, or class ties, but on … the betterment of self only through the betterment of one’s fellow citizens.” There is no alternative but to move forward—a task that will place the highest demands on our ability to innovate and on our humanity.

      Moving forward requires that we provide satisfying alternatives to those who have been most seriously injured by the present technology and economics. They include farmers, blue-collar workers suddenly jobless because of unfair competition from foreign slave labor or American “workfare,” and countless souls whose lives and work have been made redundant by the megastores in the shopping malls. If good alternatives are not found soon, the coming collapse will inevitably provoke a terrible wave of violence born of desperation.

      Creating a Shadow System

      Our first task is to create a shadow economic, social, and even technological structure that will be ready to take over as the existing system fails. Shadow strategies are not new, and they are perfectly legal. An illustration is Winston Churchill’s role in Britain before the start of World War II. Churchill was a member of the governing Conservative Party but was denied power, so he formed his own shadow organization within the party. During the 1930s, while Hitler was rearming Germany and the Conservative leadership was pretending that nothing was happening, Churchill spoke out about the war he knew was coming, and developed his own plans and alliances. When Hitler’s paratroopers landed in Holland and Belgium in 1940, and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s silk umbrella could not ward them off, Churchill was chosen by popular acclaim to replace him as prime minister. He created a dynamic war cabinet almost overnight, thanks to his shadow organization.

      The shadow structure to replace the existing system will comprise many elements, with varying mixes of the practical and theoretical. These elements are springing up independently, although linkages among them are beginning to appear. I will give only two examples; both are in the early stages of trial and error development.

      The first is the rapid growth of community-sponsored agriculture (CSA) and the return of urban farmers’ markets. In CSAs, farmers and local consumers are linked personally by formal agreements that guarantee the farmers a timely income, paid before the growing season, and the consumers a regular supply of wholesome, locally grown, often organic, produce. The first CSA project in the United States was started in 1985, in western Massachusetts, by the late Robyn Van En—just thirteen years later, there are more than 600 CSAs with over 100,000 members throughout the United States. Urban farmers’ markets similarly bring city-dwellers into contact with the people who grow their food, for the benefit of both. Although difficulties abound—economic constraints for farmers whose CSAs lack enough members, the unavailability of the benefits of CSAs to the urban poor, who do not have cash to advance for subsequent deliveries of produce—creative solutions seem possible. A related development has been the burgeoning of urban vegetable gardening in cities across the country. One of the most exciting examples is the garden project started by Cathrine Sneed for inmates of the San Francisco Jail and subsequently expanded into the surrounding urban community.

      On another front, less local and immediate but equally important, is the embryonic movement to redefine the rights of corporations, especially to limit the much-abused legal fiction of their “personhood.” The movement would take away from corporations the personal protections granted to individuals under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Constitution does not mention corporations; state charter laws originally made it plain that corporations could exist and do business only through the continuous consent of state governments. If a corporation violated the public trust, its charter could be revoked. The loss of the public right to revoke charters of corporations and the emergence of the corporation as an entity with limited liability and the property and other personal rights of citizens, was a tragic and often corrupt chapter in nineteenth-century American law. It has led to our present condition, in which transnational corporations with no local or national allegiances control many of the government’s major functions, subverting democracy and doing much to create the unstable conditions I have described.

      Recapturing the government’s right to issue and cancel corporate charters should be a primary goal of those trying to build a more durable and decent social, economic, and technical system. Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun, has suggested that we add a Social Responsibility Amendment to the Constitution containing the key provision that each corporation with annual revenues of $20 million or more must receive a new corporate charter every twenty years. Similar ideas are being advanced by Richard Grossman and Ward Morehouse of the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy; by Peter Montague, editor of Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly; and by others in the United States and Canada. Although still embryonic, the movement has drawn support from both conservatives and liberals—the shadow structure is neither of the right nor the left, but is an emerging political alliance that may gain power when the transnationals decline.

      In the words of Vaclav Havel, president of the Czech Republic, spoken in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall on July 4, 1994: “There are good reasons for suggesting that the modern age has ended.… It is as if something were crumbling, decaying and exhausting itself, while something else, still indistinct, were arising from the rubble.” What is crumbling is not only our pretentious techno-economic system but our naive faith in our ability to control and manage simultaneously all the animate and inanimate functions of this planet. What is arising—I hope in time—is a new spirit and system rooted in love of community, and love of the land and nature that sustain community. And the greatest challenge will be to make this spirit and system truly new and truly enduring by finding ways to develop our love of nature and community without returning to destructive nationalisms, without losing our post-Enlightenment concern for the common good of the rest of humankind and nature.

      David Ehrenfeld, professor of Biology at Rutgers University, is the author of The Arrogance of Humanism (Oxford, 1978) and Beginning Again (Oxford, 1993). He is the founding editor of the international scientific journal Conservation Biology.

      – – – – –
      © 1999-2003 Tikkun Magazine. This article may be found on the web at:
      http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik9901/article/990111a.html
      This article may be reproduced for purposes of personal scholarship only. For other uses, please contact Tikkun at:
      2342 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 1200, Berkeley, CA 94704
      Phone: (510) 644-1200 | Fax: (510) 644-1255 | Email: magazine@tikkun.org

      • Scott Preston says :

        Thanks. Tell me… when someone posts a comment to the Chrysalis, do you receive either notification or a copy of the comment directly? I’ll explain why I need to know that, but oddly enough I’ve never known whether anyone receives a notice or copy of any comments posted here.

        I think re-posting the article may be infringement, I’ll check into it, but I may have to take it down.

        • LittleBigMan says :

          That depends on if you check any of the boxes that state:
          “Notify me of follow-up comments via email.”
          “Notify me of new posts via email.”

          I never check those boxes, instead, I would come back to see if there have been any comments posted for me.
          Back to my cave 🙂

        • Scott Preston says :

          I think you just hit the 300 comment mark with that.

        • Thinking Green says :

          Hi Scott, David Ehrenfeld’s essay is circulated quite widely but I can certainly understand if you feel the need to remove it from the comments section of your blog. I shared it in good faith, and I would like to think that David Ehrenfeld would appreciate the sympathetic consideration his work has received here. I know I’m not the only person who has found his “Coming collapse …” essay very thought provoking.

          Regarding your questions, no I don’t receive a notification of any kind regarding comments unfortunately.

          I do however receive notification via my email of new posts by yourself.

        • Thinking Green says :

          Actually, yes, LittleBigMan has it.

          Under the “Leave a Reply” and “Fill in your details” sections, the check boxes appear. I’ve now checked them both on this page.

        • Scott Preston says :

          @Thinking. Ehrenfeld’s essay used to be very widely available on many university websites, but not any more. My own link (on the sidebar) to one of those sites is broken now since it was removed, and very likely due to enforcement of copyright issues. That would be too bad, because Ehrenfeld’s essay is deserving of wider public attention and discussion, and he wrote it largely for a public hearing, not merely for “purposes of personal scholarship only”, which diminishes its impact and relevance completely.

          I’ll leave it up for the time being. I have my own .PDF version, but readers should probably copy the above and paste it into some word processor, before I may be told by some suit to delete it… or else. It deserves wider circulation, thought, and debate.

      • Scott Preston says :

        @Thinking. I cleaned up the formatting for Ehrenfeld’s essay.

        Just as a point of interest. I brought the essay to the attention of Tad Homer-Dixon at the University of Toronto. He was working then on much the same issues as Ehrenfeld (as you may know from his books on The Ingenuity Gap and The Upside of Down). He told me he was amazed by Ehrenfeld’s essay, as he hadn’t known of it at all — part of the problem of restricted circulation and access.

        It’s a great essay that covers all the salient problems of the present, except one — the “background” psycho-dynamics involved. This is why I pursue unwrapping that Seth quote so relentlessly, because it is the larger background to Ehrenfeld’s foreground concerns, which need to be supplemented to become complete. Even where Ehrenfeld talks of the “techno-economic” system, we aren’t that far from what has become, now, the techno-corporate superstate that we are beginning to perceive far more clearly, thanks to Snowden, Assange, and the other whistleblowers.

        • Thinking Green says :

          Yes, I see what you mean, the essay has disappeared from the internet. Lost. How strange and unfortunate, as you note. Ironic, indeed, given the subject matter.

  2. amothman33 says :

    What make us stick to the center, and what make us roll from the center. The faculty of remembering is a basic tool of human knowledge and understanding. The contract that have been taken by god from the human in the realm of the particle, that he is the source of everything and the concurrence of the human to that is the root. There is a verse in the Quran which remind the human of that contract and refuse to accept any reasons for not remembering that contract. The connection of the human knowledge with the divine knowledge is the glue that prevent us from rolling from the vital center. The fallacy of Descarte, I think despite the truth that I does not cause thinking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: