![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Inner and Outer Conspiracies
My post on Subjectivity and the Rise of Consciousness spawned a number of really interesting reader responses and food for thought. One item in particular which I’d like to latch onto right now is a quote from Terence McKenna, which Jacob left. It goes:
Now in the era before science scientists liked to say people were more epistemologically naive… what they mean by that is they didn’t have a clear understanding of the division between the inside and the outside, between what we imagine and what actually is, but if you live long enough I think you discover what we imagine and what actually is, are very close to the same thing.
I want to link this back for a moment to my running alternative interpretation of conspiracy theory as spiritual alchemy. Jung posited that occult sciences like alchemy and astrology operated sort of as screens upon which the contents of the practitioner’s interior psyche was projected. Despite whatever their outward practical aim was, they were psychologically potent practices because the manipulation of outward signs and objects was laden with projected psycho-spiritual meaning. Thus when the alchemist mixed concoctions in the retort and studied their reactions, he was simultaneously mixing interior psychic contents.
I believe conspiracy theory works the same way. When someone seeks to root out corruption in an oppressive government, they also simultaneously are trying to identify and remove impurities from themselves and their own psychic lives. Looking at McKenna’s quote above in this light, we can ask whether conspiracy theory is actually somehow a pre-scientific or “primitive” way of thinking (by that, I don’t mean primitive = bad). People often talk about how alchemy ultimately gave way to the rise of science - as superstitious elements were stripped away. I wonder if the relationship between conspiracy theory and journalism (or historical studies in general) is essentially analogous to this: that conspiracy theory is basically journalism which openly embraces the psychological biases and spiritual evolution of the individual practitioner.
Perhaps this also helps to shed some light on why the rest of “scientific” society brands alchemical conspiracy theorists as nuts, lunatics, kooks, crazies, freaks, etc. Namely that “regular” society has accepted the modern scientific epistemological notions of division between the inner and outer, and conspiracy theorists do not. That is, they intrinsically do not, but may not be consciously aware of their primordial difference from the rest of modern society. Instead, of course, they turn to psycho-magical rationalizations of personal persecution, or that others in the society are ignorantly “asleep”, while they themselves are truth-seeking heroes.
So does conspiracy theory represent some kind of throwback to an earlier mindset? Maybe revival is a better word, or even continuation - if we can assume the mindset never died, but just jumped unnoticed from life-raft to life-raft as the modern world rapidly evolved. Among scientific types and anti-conspiracists, this is certain only to arouse their suspicions of the dangerous superstitious nature of conspiracy theory. But for the conspiracy theorist, I feel like this realization - that they are part of the long unbroken spiritual tradition of humanity - can allow them to draw strength from the traditions which came before them, expand and evolve into new directions, and overcome the negative labels which the rest of society uses to dismiss what they represent.
April 9th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
It’s important, I think, in a discussion like this one to keep in mind the idea of differentiation and a sense of the difference between the states of union before and after differentiation. Here is a Jungian/alchemical essay focussed on that:
http://www.bemyastrologer.com/joined_together.html
I like Ken Wilber’s terminology here. He talks of the prerational, rational and transrational. It’s good to have clearer words like these to use.
This helps to understand why there is a fear or distaste for the primitive or naive conspiracy theory. We evolve from prerational to rational and have a tendency to look down on our previous state. Once we evolve further to a postrational union, Jung’s and alchemy’s coniunctio of sol and luna, then differentiation and rationality are retained but transcended. The resulting union is not the same as the original union.
As we evolve, our consciousness includes earlier stages. So, despite having a well developed rational mind, I can set that aside and express my own child-like or primitive mindset. However, I am not lost inside it, as I believe a lot of conspiracy theorists are. They lack detachment or objectivity.
Even though it helps to differentiate the two states of union before and after differentiation, there is, of course, the meta-perception that these two states are the same. The highest evolved mystics all agree on that one.
It depends where one is coming from: the prerational resents the judgmental attitude of the rational, the rational deems the prerational to be insufficient, and the transrational sees both of these antagonists as being right while also accepting that they can’t both be right.
This little tale of Nasrudin sums it up through a narrative mode.
A judge in a village court had gone on vacation. As per the local rules, Nasrudin was asked to be a temporary judge for a day. Nasrudin sat on the Judge’s chair with utmost serious face and gazed around the public in audience and ordered that the first case be brought up for hearing.
“You are right,” said Nasrudin after hearing one side.
“You are right,” he said after hearing the other side.
“But both cannot be right,” said a member of the public sitting in the audience.
“You are right,” said Nasrudin to this member of the public.
[story from wikibooks: Tales of Nasrudin]
April 9th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
arizona:
(1) I looked over that article you linked to, and while i think i see what you’re getting at, i found that they misrepresented a lot of jung’s points from his source material, and that there are some kind of questionable psycho-mythical interpretations of symbolism. if you’re looking for a a really in-depth and scholarly piece of work on exactly this same topic, i recommend erich von neumann’s immense The Origin and History of ConsciousnessEven though it helps to differentiate the two states of union before and after differentiation, there is, of course, the meta-perception that these two states are the same. The highest evolved mystics all agree on that one.
(2) i like with what you’re saying here and think it cuts more to the heart of what i’m trying to get at in the above discussion. i recognized the danger right away of using describe the conspiracy mindset as both “primitive” and somehow useful for moving forward.
(3) i really like the term “transrational” but don’t much care for ken wilber. i personally feel that for all his talk of transcending rationality, he’s very much still stuck firmly within its grasp, and that in some sense the more he seems to struggle to define and differentiate, the more tangled he becomes.
certainly the same thing can and does happen to everyone in these pursuits though. von neumann would call it an over-reliance on the masculine solar tendency towards consciousness. an example myth he used to describe what happens to people caught in this fixation is the story of icarus flying too close to the sun, his wings melt and he plummets into the sea.
(4) immersion and loss of self into the matriarchal sea of the unconscious is the danger on the other end of the scale. i feel like this relates especially to your criticism of conspiracy theorists as lacking “detachment” or “objectivity.” certainly many practitioners of the conspiratorial arts do fall victim to this and lose track of “consensus reality” - which may or may not be a good thing, depending on who you ask.
(5) interesting as von neumann’s metaphors are, i’m just using them as a model and dont totally subscribe to it. what im trying to articulate is more of a “middle path.” its sort of a conscientious spiritual use of conspiracy theory, which is more in line with your use of “transrational” above. i especially like what you said about how the transrational mind looks and sees that everyone is essentially “right.” my own personal spin on that though doesnt agree that it finally decides “they can’t both be right”. to split hairs: i think thats a rationalist perspective - one right answer, one winner, one truth, etc. i’m more inclined to think that transrationality would insist that while they are all “right”, they are all also insufficient, because they are merely models which describe phenomena.
(6) it’s sort of like the argument i’ve made before about god and religion. religion is just a way of describing or catching god - it’s not god itself. toward that end, i’m also especially interested in what robert anton wilson called “model agnosticism” wherein you don’t “believe” in any one model - you merely use it as long as it is pragmatically useful. i guess another major facet of what i’m after is trying to articulate how people who engage in conspiracy theory utilize that sort of technique of testing and modifying models and conceptions of reality.
in any event, thanks for your comments. its really helped push me towards a bunch more ideas and opened up my interpretations a bit…
April 9th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
(1) Yes, I have read von Neumann but google happened to provide me with that page under “alchemy differentiation”. It appears to be written by a female astrologer and it is her own spin but I didn’t see anything jarring in it, that is, anything untrue to an orthodox Jungian model.
(2) I do like what you’re trying to do. However, sometimes the edges get more blurred than they need to. There’s no reason why the rational can’t be satisfied as well as the prerational.
(3) I’ve only recently discovered Wilber and he both annoys me and interests me. I’ve been leafing through “Eye to Eye”, eventually giving up on regular reading because it is too detailed and somehow overly intellectual while also seemingly irrational. I finally decided just to read the last chapter “The Ultimate State of Consciousness” (cutting to the quick, so to speak). The ultimate “state” is not really a state, or not one you enter. It is just always there. It is what we seek and seem never to find.
“And so it is that we all inevitably end up feeling that we just can’t see It, no matter how hard we try. But the fact that we always can’t see It is perfect proof that we always know It.”
(Gawd, I thougt, he could say anything and it would be true …)
He goes on to quote from the Kena Upanishad, concluding that “the very state of not-knowing Brahman IS the Ultimate State of Consciousness, and that is exactly how you feel right now.”
He then quotes a Zen poem that includes the line:
“In not being able to get It, you get It.”
(In a Jungian context, this is affirming the obvious, viz, that the unconscious IS unconscious or unknown.)
Wilber then elaborates in a penultimate paragraph, speaking about the Void which is “what you right now don’t see when you try to look for Brahman”.
The final paragraph caught me.
“Still don’t see It? How right you already are.”
At that moment, I decided I did like Wilber but you do have to take him with a grain of salt and probably only read the bits you’re really interested in. All of his models and frameworks are just that.
(4) I agree that losing track of consensual reality can be viewed in more than one way. This is most apparent in the way madness is viewed. Personally, I have a preference for maintaining healthy traffic between the domains.
(5) What you have expressed regarding the opinion “they can’t both be right” is tantamount to positing an opposing view. I think Nasrudin would have assessed your view as “you are right” and you would be exactly where you were before the logical member of the public spoke up. I’m not sure this is right but I THINK that both you and the logical member of the public are both right …
(6) The Abrahamic religions are all anti-idolatry but they fail to see an essential idolatry in adhering too much to their scriptures or models of deity. An image of God is a way to God, just as those models are. However, while the image or the model has meaning - is alive for the beholder - then it IS God (at least for the time being). We’re back to the primitive prerational mindset that may not be wrong after all.
You like Marie-Louise von Franz (me too). I can’t remember where she wrote this but she has written that when a tribal or primitive person believes there is a spirit in a tree (or a person in love believes salvation or divinity lies in the beloved), then she has absolutely no good reason to say they are wrong. She can talk about projection of unconscious contents but that’s just another way of seeing it and not necessarily a “better” way.
I have to confess, however, that I have a lot of difficulty maintaining that kind of non-judgmental stance. Maybe because the logical and rational are too strong in me.
Thanks for your website, and especially your new storytelling section. I’m giving serious consideration to starting up my own project, or rather a new one, with a focus on the story aspect. I’ll be watching how you progress with that side of things.
April 11th, 2005 at 2:26 am
“I have to confess, however, that I have a lot of difficulty maintaining that kind of non-judgmental stance. Maybe because the logical and rational are too strong in me.”
Yeah, but that brings us to the most fundamental point: there is no inside/outside dichotomy. It’s illusory.
To say “there’s a spirit in this tree” is intuitively correct when drawn from the direct experience of feeling the tree’s spirit (something I can honestly say I’ve felt.) Since nothing is outside of myself, and essentially everything *is* myself… Projection, et al is still a perfectly correct conclusion too.
But the question of “objective reality” vs. “self-imposed reality” becomes a very moot thing (you simply cannot separate them.) You usually just default to whatever feels most immediatly and intuitively correct.
Once you realize that everyone is a world unto themself, you can’t ever really say “No… you’re just projecting that” with any confidence.
April 14th, 2005 at 1:06 am
[…] rituals obviously begins to cross this line. It may be objectively real, or it may have a subjective reality in our psyches - or it may be both, which is the cr […]
May 7th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
[…] ancestors, who recounted many similar visitations. This in turn reminds me of a very good Terence McKenna quote. In case you’re not familiar with his work […]