Meaning in Repetition

The only way to determine significance is to view the contents within their context. We live an embodied cognition, meaning we are intertwined, psychic and physical experiential states enmeshed. To separate the two, for study or any meaningful inquiry, requires a degree of acknowledging at the onset that error will occur and, indeed, already has merely due to limitations of the observer and the infinitesimally small uncrossable separation between me and it. This and that. Object and subject.

We always have a personal and collective aspect of our life; we cannot separate one from the other even if we have convinced ourselves of the lie that we have successfully performed this task. No. You may never escape that which you don’t know; because how would you even know what it was that you were escaping? The most blind individual is the one who only understands themselves as an individual and never as an object in context.

To maintain such a psychic position requires a strong degree of hubris willpower. It is effortful and painful to push against the currents of life—yet, that is by no means a declaration that we are not allowed to try! In fact, many of us, myself included, have spent significant portions of our life striving against ourselves. Like an auto-immune disease attacking its own body, we utilize our mind to attack the very roots that hold us up.

Then, when we imagine ourselves to have succeeded in such an absurd task, we reverse course in a dramatic fashion, worrying about our isolation and complaining about our separateness. Given enough time, this mindset begins to take hold as the default position. It extends a step further, lamenting the initial act of severing one’s own roots—then, another step, vilifying the agent that could carry out such a horrendous action against our body—the body wherein our personal, individual mind resides.

And, with the small steps of each movement, the fact that we were the initial cause and agent that cut us from our roots slips into the unconscious, where the forgotten and repressed mingle and plot their schemes for returning to the light of our conscious mind.

When looked up from the depths of this dark, bottomless abyss, the stream of consciousness appears as an illuminated flow crossing across the mind of the liver. And so the process repeats: unconscious content vie for life in the spotlight of the stage of consciousness, and we go about operating from this place of awareness, left once more with the choice of acknowledging the existence that there exists far more within ourselves persistently knocking at consciousness’ door, or relying on more effortful and convoluted measures to attempt in vain to seal this unknown door.  

The Fundamental Divide

Many living in this modern age will agree with the statement that “we have never been more divided.” If not to this extreme, then at least to the degree of acknowledgment of the strong division among the citizens of society.

While I am specifically referring to the discord within the United States, the principles and mechanisms of actions underlying this division are far more universal than any single country or period within human history.

Often when thinking about divisions within society or among peoples, there is a basic mistake made in the first movement of thought; that is, the natural tendency appears to look outward and continue the investigation from this starting point. However, while this can yield useful and insightful discoveries, it also serves to overlook another source of division because of this initial outward movement: We neglect to inquire into internal divisions.

The consequences of this inward inquiry are different from that of the outward one; however, there are many similarities between the internal and the external. Both are necessary for deepening understanding of each other.

Throughout the work of Carl Jung, there is an emphasis on the inner and outer, moreover, the interplay between these two. There is a tremendous amount to expand on from this point, so instead, I would like to redirect to the initial divide that he so often wrote about: the division of the physical and the mental (i.e., psychic).

While Jung is by no means the originator of this idea, his psychological approach to this mind-body division was novel for the time since this question had previously been delegated to the realm of philosophers. Moreover, Jung was one of the forerunners for the relatively young field of psychology, beginning as a discipline around the late 1900s. Still, more than a century after Jung’s first publication in 1912, it is only in recent years (especially the last two decades) that the field of psychology, mental health, and the psychic side of life are beginning to gain traction. At least, relative to being treated on equal terms with the physical side of life.

As a society, there is a growing movement to remedy injustices and advocate for equality. Yet, even with the increased acknowledgment and receptivity to the reality of mental illnesses and the necessity for psychiatric and other related interventions, the inner world or the psychic side of existence still must overcome a more considerable burden of proof than the physical side.

Jung emphasizes this disparity in our treatment of the physical and the psychic in his 1957 book The Undiscovered Self, writing, “One can regard one’s stomach or heart as unimportant and worthy of contempt, but that does not prevent overeating or overexertion from having consequences that affect the whole man. Yet we think that psychic mistakes and their consequences can be got rid of with mere words, for ‘psychic’ means less than air to most people” (p.47).

Even today, the term “psychic” is likely to be less well-received than “mental” or “psychological.” However, the correspondence between the terms physical and psychic is the most logical pairing and usage for the natures being described. This may seem like an arbitrary point, but I believe that solidifying psychological terminology is essential to increase understanding and awareness of the nature, components, and disorders that occupy this psychic landscape.

Moreover, Jung’s quote can be applied to the original point of societal divisions, for he is indeed addressing a very similar topic. This is evident in his subsequent writing, “when everyone admits that the weal or woe of the future will be decided neither by threat of wild animals, nor by natural catastrophes, nor by the danger of world-wide epidemics, but simply and solely by the psychic changes in man. It needs only an almost imperceptible disturbance of equilibrium in a few of our rulers’ heads to plunge the world into blood, fire, and radioactivity” (p.47).

While on the surface, these outer divisions appear distinctly separate from that of those inner divides, Jung’s work highlights how our inner and outer worlds are deeply interconnected. Furthermore, he emphasizes how the outer worldly situations are collective externalizations of suppressed content from our inner worlds. For example, the increasing focus on materialism and objectification has parallels to how the physical side of life, and, particularly the rational and scientific side more recently, represent a one-sidedness that obscures and diminishes the significance of the inner, psychic side of life; both on the individual and collective levels.  

As psychology and the mental world gain more acknowledgment and receptivity than in previous points in time, and there is increasing focus on the outer world, Jung’s work invites us to explore the inner world as a method for understanding and addressing the variety of manifestations that arise within the outer.

Reference:

Jung, C. G., Hull, R. F. C., & Shamdasani, S. (2010;1957). The Undiscovered Self: With Symbols and the Interpretation of Dreams (Bollingen) (Revised ed.). Princeton University Press.

Exposition of Modern Discourse

Technology has provided a medium through which we are allowed opportunities to feel a sense of social connection and communal belonging; however, real or actual these people or interactions may be, the objective reality of this activity is often overlooked or ignored: it is still mediated through an individual’s interaction with a piece of technology; that is, it is still me, the individual author, typing away at this keyboard, viewing words on my screen, and conceptualizing a general audience who will read these words.

However, no matter my degree of precision or accuracy, there will always be a degree of disconnect between my intention and the audience’s interpretation. Nonetheless, the medium of the written tradition using expository prose has far deeper roots than those of Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, or other modern-day, internet-based forms of communication.

The historicity of the linguistic form of prose provides my expression a higher probability of concordance between the audience’s reception and my intention as the author. Conversely, these new social media platforms lack this kind of historical foundation yet are treated as if they are the same. As a result, tools of rhetorical analysis and logical examination are employed while using these platforms that I argue demonstrate an invalid usage of such analytical tools.  

For example, one common distortion that I believe social media platforms have allowed to become rampant is conflating particular and universal statements. These platforms are intended to provide an outlet for truncated expressions, yet we utilize them as if they may also allow us the nuance of having an in-person debate. Moreover, we forget how arduous it is to use language precisely and employ logic even during in-person interactions.

Using nonverbal communication, oral expression, and gauging the reception of our message through analyzing our audience’s demeanor, serve to highlight the complexity of in-person interaction, despite this medium being biologically hardwired. However, we have somehow found ourselves assuming that this same level of human communication can be experienced via technological mediums.

Yet, is reading not different than hearing? Is interacting through Zoom not different than interacting with someone in person? Is it not different to interact with someone one-on-one rather than to interact in front of a group?

Social media platforms are so often vilified for promoting division and groupthink among people—and I am not here to defend these mediums—instead, I desire to point out that these platforms are nothing more than a technological medium that has amplified and underscored fundamental issues within human communication that were present before these platforms existed.

Therefore, my emphasis is to not place our hope in the notion that abandoning the usage of these platforms or refining the etiquette of how they are used will solve the divisions we are witnessing as a collective society. Even if we were to leave these platforms altogether and return to a prior state of communication standards, we still would be plagued by our challenges with wielding language, our proclivity toward fallacious arguments, and reliance on personal biases.

While technological interconnectivity may have accelerated these ailments, even accentuating them to new levels, it is nonetheless exploiting weaknesses in human communication and social discourse that have long existed.

The emphasis should be placed on understanding the tools of rhetoric, the structure of logic, and the importance and purpose of argumentation as a medium for discovering the truth. To place the burden on social media platforms or even news sources is to fall, once more, into the trap of oversimplification, treating everything as either a friend or foe in a perpetual fight on one side or the other of a raging societal debate—all the while glossing over or willfully ignoring the deficits of discourse that continue to result in arguments premised on false dilemmas, misunderstandings stemming from conflated terms, and so forth.

I believe we are desperately craving conversations that are deeper than those mediated through social media platforms. Unfortunately, these platforms also serve as the easiest and most accessible way for us to connect with a vast number of others; moreover, social media has become integrated into our social lives and does allow for genuine social connection, despite it being a novel medium for it.

However, the structures of these platforms are not neutral. Even for those who set out with the sincere desire to engage in an authentic social interaction can easily find their desire for a meaningful discourse devolve into debates and diatribes, serving only to increase their sense of isolation and wish to find a community that provides a sense of belonging.