Principio Individuationis

OK. Let’s speak to the principio individuationis or the process of individuation as the theme and central dynamic of Modernity — the Modern Project in a nutshell. Individuation is quite evidently the whole thrust of the Modern Era since the Renaissance and the Reformation, and at least up until the period 1914 – 1945 when we entered “post-modernity” and the “post-Enlightenment”. The Lutheran Revolution emphasised the liberty of the individual conscience (then called “libertinism”), while the Renaissance, with its perspectivism, emphasised the individual “point-of-view”. So, with these developments came also an intensification of the self-awareness and the sense of individuality. This became formal principle with Descartes’ famous “cogito, ergo sum” — “I think, therefore I am”, which is very self-conscious, with its accent on the ego-nature or Selfhood and rational self-interest.

But there’s something very peculiar about this “thinking thing” (or res cogitans) isn’t there? Why not “I sing, therefore I am” or “I love, therefore I am” or “I dance, therefore I am” or “I speak, therefore I am”? Why select the rational faculty alone as distinctive of being? Why should this cogito, in the form of “Universal Reason”, have become the yardstick for the calculation of what is authentically human? This question lies at the root of what me mean in speaking of “the mental-rational consciousness structure”.

At first glance, there is no real reason for privileging thinking over any other consciousness function, or — singing, dancing, speaking, loving, or even walking. Even Pascal, objecting to Descartes’ rationalism, suggested he could just as well substitute “I walk, therefore I am” and make as much sense. But the deeper question here is why the process of individuation became identified with thinking, intellection, calculation, or mentation. As I’m sure you can imagine, “I sing, therefore I am” or “I love, therefore I am” would have led to a very different form of society. And there were indeed objections of such a nature to Descartes’ formula in his own time.

There is, of course, a hidden presumption in Descartes’ search for a method or new ground of being that precluded things like singing, loving, speaking, etc. Descartes wanted a principle that would uniquely and absolutely distinguish and differentiate the human from nature. Activities like singing, dancing, loving, or language and so on seemed just as readily found in nature as in human beings. Thinking alone seemed to distinguish and differentiate the human being from nature. “Pure Reason” was unnatural, if not supernatural. The result of Descartes formula is called “metaphysical dualism”, and it broke the bond between the human and the natural world by an act of dichotomisation — into subject and object states, mind or body, or Ego and It conditions.

Now, the process of the individuation of consciousness has been the principal dynamic of the Modern Era. In support of that process of individuation (and as mentioned in a comment to the last post) liberal democracy was conceived as ideal, and along with liberal democracy — freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom to choose one’s own marriage partner (rather than arranged marriage), freedom of choice of profession (rather than following in the father’s footsteps or being apprenticed out), social mobility, freedom of dissent, and so on. The ideal here is that everyone should have the freedom to individuate — to realise their own full human potential: self-fulfillment, self-realisation, self-articulation, and so on. Basically, these are the tenants of liberal humanism, and they are good ones. The problem here is that “human” was very narrowly understood and even misunderstood, so that “individuation” became the process of mere self-aggrandisement, and of expanding the false self, ending finally in “the culture of narcissism”.

The peculiar aspect of Descartes’ formula for the good society — the cogito — is that it is not even “individual” at all. In this “I think” lies an abstract “I”, the “I” of “Universal Reason” that is not individual, but the abstract “I” of humanity-in-general. This “I” is not at all individual. It is the abstract “I” of the universal humanity. And as Nietzsche put it, the authentic self is not the self that says “I” or which even thinks “I”, but which does “I”.  The “I am” of the Cartesian cogito is a mental abstraction, and is itself only an intentional object, and not the subject. This “I” or identity is the “foreign installation”, Blake’s Urizenic “Selfhood” that is non-entity or “Nobodaddy”.

The problem is not individuation, as some have mistakenly concluded. The problem is that the individuality has been too narrowly understood. This “I am” or the cogito is not at all the centre of the personality structure. It functions on the circumference of the personality structure, as a kind of interface between the perceiver and the perceived. And that is what Rosenstock-Huessy’s “cross of reality” is intended to illustrate. The “I” or ego is removed from the vital centre, and takes its place as being only one aspect of the overall individuality,

Cross of Reality A

In Nietzsche’s terms, that which does I, rather than says “I” or thinks “I”, is the core individuality, which Gebser calls “the Itself”, and which articulates itself in (or radiates into) these four directions of the cross of reality. The individuality is a singular energy dynamic that articulates or manifests through this fourfold structure. The individuality assumes all these forms and yet remains ever itself. The perfection of the individuality, or fulfillment of the individuality, is called “equanimity” because all four aspects of the individuality are in dynamic equipoise. Thinking, willing, sensing, feeling are all aspects of the individuality, and they map to this cross of reality. But the vital centre here — that is what we know as “the intuitional”. “I think” has no more ontological primacy than “I sing” or “we sing” or “I dance” or “we dance” or “I love” or “we love”. The individuality can only find its fullest expression by circulating through all these forms, and not getting stuck in any one of them. Why should “I think” have any more ontological, or even epistemic supremacy than “I will” or “I feel” or “I sense”? In fact, even the assertion of the “I” in these modalities of being is a bit of an exaggeration.

So, there is nothing at all wrong with individuation. The problem is, it has not been properly understood what “individual” really means, and so you end up with absurdities like “the self-made man”. And if you properly appreciate the cross of reality, you will also appreciate why “self-made man” is an absurdity. Yet, an entire social philosophy has been erected upon this absurdity. The self-made man is a conceit of the left-hemisphere of the brain only. I’m sure your familiar with the joke about “the self-made man who worships his maker”?

There was another posting on the subject of such narcissism in today’s Guardian — “I, narcissist”. Getting warmer, anyway. At least beginning to recognise it as “the human condition”. But in broader terms, narcissism is about getting stuck on any one of the arms of the cross of reality. Wego is just as much a narcissistic construct as ego, or sensing oneself to be nothing but the plaything of external forces is also a narcissistic construct. “The spice must flow”, and it must flow through all these forms. Narcissism is stagnation — another word for decadence, really. And as Blake put it “the standing water breeds pestilence”.

 

Advertisements

6 responses to “Principio Individuationis

  1. Steve Lavendusky says :

    Jung’s process of individuation involves the discovery of oneself as a unique individual in the middle of a sea of expectations and projections showered upon one by family, friends, and society. The easiest way I’ve found to distinguish Jung from Freud is this: Freud tried to fix broken people so they would fit into society, and Jung tried to break people who fit into society so they might thereby become individuals. People who reached middle age with a huge hole in their lives came to Jung to find out what it was that they were missing. They came to find themselves, to become individuated. He offered a new birth. In their first birth they came out of their mother’s womb fresh into the world. In their second or new birth they came out of the womb of society fresh into world.

  2. Steve Lavendusky says :

    I want to ask you a very very silly question. If you could spend two hours with Jean Gebser or Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy who would you choose and why.

    • Scott Preston says :

      Boy, that’s a toughie! Actually, I would prefer to get Gebser and Rosenstock-Huessy together, and to be the fly on the wall.

      As you may know, Gebser was looking for a champion who would come up with a method to justify his insights and intuitions. He himself looked to grammar for that method, and wrote a short book called Der grammatische Spiegel — “The Grammatical Mirror” (though it hasn’t been translated from German). It was in grammar and in changes in grammatical forms, that Gebser looked for signs of his consciousness mutations. It makes perfect sense. And to a certain extent, Marshall McLuhan followed that same procedure.

      Rosenstock is probably that champion, though. Unfortunately, they didn’t seem to know much (if anything) of each other’s work. What Gebser attempted in Der grammatische Spiegel was what Rosenstock-Huessy fully realised and formulated — a “grammatical method” that could account for Gebser’s profound intuitions. So I tend to think of getting Gebser and Rosenstock together as the meeting of McGilchrist’s right and left-hemispheres of the divided brain.

      Gebser does make a very brief reference to one of Rosenstock’s historical works The Age of the Church in his Ever-Present Origin, but didn’t seem to be aware of Rosenstock’s more methodological writings. They both died in the same year — 1973, yet without apparently ever crossing each other’s paths in life. The pity of it.

      So, I can’t really choose between one or the other, because it would be like choosing between the first or second attentions of the divided brain. It would have been fascinating to see them interact in that sense.

      • Steve Lavendusky says :

        I would like to get Barfield, Gebser, and Huessy together and be the fly on the wall.

    • Scott Preston says :

      I just finished watching the movie The Big Short. Have you seen it? Remarkable movie about the market crash of 2008 showing how corrupt and fraudulent the financial system really is — and still is. It’s a movie everyone should see.

  3. abdulmonem says :

    I do not decrease the important value of others thoughts in my making, however I am responsible for the making of my own unique path to understanding reality, that is why all seekers emphasize their own search in this wonderful universe of never stopping revelations, that is why responsibility is individual. As Scott keep saying never cage yourself in one box. The process of perception is in a continual operation mode, from the human inside to the external images and symbols of the outside and from the images and symbols of the outside to the human inside and once the human put more emphasis on one of these motions, the lostness of the clear vision gets augmented. This is the story behind all the calls to move toward integrated consciousness, from the emissary to the master. We must realize that there is a master that needs to be recognized and adored and here resides the true purpose of our intentional life, to move from a self-centered vision to a cosmic vision, including the creative intelligent light energy behind everything that kept and keeps itself beyond the easy grasp of the human to push him toward on a continual path of search. I feel we are living in a time to prove that divine revelations of all prophets are true through our own private experiential tasting of the revelations. In one of the link sent by Steve I read the following which i like to conclude my comment with, Research without illumination is a dead alley. Exclusive mentality, owing to its necessity for analysis,leads us to complexity which to day prevent us from seeing simply.If we want to know the secret of life, it is necessary to abandon the seductive scientific reasoning structure and avoid falling in its deceptive trap.

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: