The Ironies of Modern Progress and Infantilization (by Ben Cain)
by rsbakker
It’s commonly observed that we tend to rationalize our flaws and failings, to avoid the pain of cognitive dissonance, so that we all come to think of ourselves as fundamentally good persons even though many of us must instead be bad if “good” is to have any contrastive meaning. Societies, too, often exhibit pride which leads their chief representatives to embarrass themselves by declaring that their nation is the greatest that’s ever been in history. Both the ancients and the moderns did this, but it’s hard to deny the facts of modern technological acceleration. Just in the last century, global and instant communications have been established, intelligent machines run much of our infrastructure, robots have taken over many menial jobs, the awesome power of nuclear weapons has been demonstrated, and humans have visited the moon. We tend to think that the social impact of such uniquely powerful machines must be for the better. We speak casually, therefore, of technological advance or progress.
The familiar criticism of technology is that it destroys at least as much as it creates, so that the optimists tell only one side of the story. I’m not going to argue that neo-Luddite case here. Instead, I’m interested in the source of our judgment about progress through technology. Ironically, the more modern technology we see, the less reason we have to think there’s any kind of progress at all. This is because modernists from Descartes and Galileo onward have been compelled to distinguish between real and superficial properties, the former being physical and quantitative and the latter being subjective and qualitative. Examples of the superficial, “secondary” aspects are the contents of consciousness, but also symbolic meaning, purpose, and moral value, which include the normative idea of progress. For the most part, modernists think of subjective qualities as illusory, and because they devised scientific methods of investigation that bypass personal impressions and biases, modernists acquired knowledge of how natural processes actually work, which has enabled us to produce so much technology. So it’s curious to hear so many of us still assuming that our societies are generally superior to premodern ones, thanks in particular to our technological advantage. On the contrary, our technology is arguably the sign of a cognitive development that renders such an assumption vacuous.
.
Animism and Angst
One way of making sense of this apparent lack of social awareness is to point out that there are always elites who understand their society better than do the masses. And we could add that because the modern technological changes have happened so swiftly and have such staggering implications, many people won’t catch up to them or will even pretend there are no such consequences because they’re horrifying. But I think this makes for only part of the explanation. The masses aren’t merely ignoring the materialistic implications of science or the bad omens that technologies represent; instead, they have a commonsense conviction that technology must be good because it improves our lives.
In short, most citizens of modern, technologically-developed societies are pragmatic about technology. If you asked them whether they think their societies are better than earlier ones, they’d say yes and if you asked them why, they’d say that technology enables us to do what we want more efficiently, which is to say that technology empowers us to achieve our goals. And it turns out that this pragmatic attitude is more or less consistent with modern materialism. There’s no appeal here to some transcendent ideal, but just an egocentric view of technologies as useful tools. So our societies are more advanced than ancient ones because the ancients had to work harder to achieve their goals, whereas modern technology makes our lives easier. Mind you, this assumes that everyone in history has had some goals in common, and indeed our instinctive, animalistic desires are universal in so far as they’re matters of biology. By contrast, if all societies were alien and incommensurable to each other, national pride would be egregiously irrational. And most people probably also assume that our universal desires ought to be satisfied, because we have human rights, so that there’s moral force behind this social progress.
The instincts to acquire shelter, food, sex, power, and prestige, however, seem to me likewise insufficient to explain our incessant artificialization of nature. There’s another universal urge, which we can think of as the existential one and this is the need to overcome our fear of the ultimate natural truths. There are two ways of doing so, with authenticity or with inauthenticity, which is to say with honour, integrity, and creativity or with delusions arising from a weak will. (Again, this raises the question of whether even these values make sense in the naturalistic picture, and I’ll come back to this at the end of this article.) Elsewhere, I talk about the ancient worldviews as glorifying our penchant for personification. Prehistoric animists saw all of nature as alive, partly because hardly anything at that time was redesigned and refashioned to suit human interests and the predominant wilderness was full of plant and animal life. Also, the ancients hadn’t learned to repress their childlike urge to vent the products of their imagination. At that time, populations were sparse and there were no machines standing as solemn proofs of objective facts; moreover, there wasn’t much historical information to humble the Paleolithic peoples with knowledge of opposing views and thus to rein in their speculations. For such reasons, those ancients must have confronted the world much as all children do—at least with respect to their trust in their imagination.
More precisely, they didn’t confront the world at all. When a modern adult rises in the morning, she leaves behind her irrational dreams and prides herself on believing that she controls her waking hours with her autonomous and rational ego. By contrast, there’s no such divergence between the child’s dream life and waking hours, since the child’s dreams spill into her playful interpretations of everything that happens to her. To be sure, modern children have their imagination tempered by the educational system that’s bursting at the seams with lessons from history. But children generally have only a fuzzy distinction between subject and object. That distinction becomes paramount after the technoscientific proofs of the world’s natural impersonality. The world has always been impersonal and amoral, but only modernists have every reason to believe as much and thus only we inheritors of that knowledge face the starkest existential choice between personal authenticity and its opposite. The prehistoric protopeople, who were still experimenting with their newly acquired excess brain power, faced no such decision between intellectual integrity and flagrant self-deception. They didn’t choose to personify the world, because they knew no different; instead, they projected their mental creations onto the wilderness with childlike abandon and so distracted themselves from their potential to understand the nature of the world’s apparent indifference. After all, in spite of the relative abundance of the ancient environments, things didn’t always go the ancients’ way; they suffered and died like everyone else. Moreover, even early humans were much cleverer than most other species.
Thus, the ancients weren’t so innocent or ignorant that they felt no fear, if only because few animals are that helpless. But human fear differs from the reactionary animal kind, because ours has an existential dimension due to the breadth of our categories and thus of our understanding. Humans attach labels to so many things in the world not just because we’re curious, but because we’re audacious and we have excess (redundant) brain capacity. Animals feel immediate pain and perhaps even the alienness of the world beyond their home territory, but not the profound horror of death’s inexorability or of the world’s undeadness, which is to say the fear of nature’s way of developing (through complexification, natural selection, and the laws of probability) without any normative reason. Animals don’t see the world for what it is, because their vision and thus their concern are so narrow, whereas we’ve looked far out into the macrocosmic and microcosmic magnitudes of the universe. We’ve found no reassuring Mind at the bottom of anything, not even in our bodies. Our overactive brains compel us to care about aspects of the world that are bad for our mental health, and so we’re liable to feel anxious. And as I say, we cope with that anxiety in different ways.
.
Modernity and Infantilization
But how does this existentialism relate to the source of our myth of modern progress? Well, I see a comparison between prehistoric, mythopoeic reverie and the modern consumer’s infantilization. In each case, we have a lack of enlightenment, a retreat from rational neutrality, and an intermixing of subject and object. I’ve discussed the mythopoeic worldview elsewhere, so here I’ll just say that it amounts to thinking of the world as entirely enchanted and filled with vitality. Again, the modern revolutions (science and capitalistic industry) have led to our disenchantment with nature, because we’ve been forced to see the world as dead inside. That’s why late modernists are at best pragmatic about progress. We must somehow express our naïve pride in ourselves and in our self-destructive modern nations, because we prefer not to suffer as alienated outsiders. But modernity’s ideal of ultrarationality makes absolutist and xenophobic pride seem uncivilized—although American audiences are notorious for stooping to that sort of savagery when they chant “USA! USA!” to quell disturbances in their proceedings. In any case, we postmodern pragmatists think of progress as being relative to our interests.
Arguably, then, we should all be despairing, nihilistic antinatalists, cheering on our species’ extinction to spare us more horror from our accursed powers of reason, because of the atheistic implications of science-led philosophical naturalism. But something funny happened along the way to the postmodern now, which is that our high-tech environment has driven most of us to revert to the mythopoeic trance. We, too, collapse the distinction between subject and object, because we’re not surrounded by the wilderness that science has shown to be the “product” of undead forces; instead, we’ve blocked out that world from our daily life and immersed ourselves in our technosphere. That artificial world is at our beck and call: our technology is designed for us and it answers to us a thousand times a day. Science has not yet shown us to be exactly as impersonal as the lifeless universe and so we can take comfort in our amenities as we assume that while there’s no spirit under any rock, there’s a mind behind every iPhone.
So while we’re aware of the scientist’s abstract concept of the physical object, we don’t typically experience the world as including such absurdly remote quantities. Heidegger spoke of the pragmatic stance as the instrumentalization of every object, in which case we can look at a rock and see a potential tool, a “ready-to-hand” helper, not just an impersonal, undead and “given” object. (This is in contrast to objectification, in which we treat things only as “present-to-hand,” or as submitting to scientific scrutiny. The latter seems to reduce to the former, though, since objectification is still anthropocentric, in that the object is viewed not as a fully independent noumenon, but as a subject of human explanation and that makes it a sort of tool. True objectivity is the torment not of scientists but of those suffering from angst on account of their experience of nature’s horrible indifference and undeadness. True objectivity is just angst, when we despair that we can’t do anything with the world because we’re not at home in it and nature marches on regardless. All other attitudes, roughly speaking, are pragmatic.) In any case, the modern environment surpasses that instrumentalism with infantilization, because we late modernists usually encounter actual artifacts, not just potential ones. The big cities, at least, are almost entirely artificial places. Of course, everything in a city is also physical, on some level of scientific explanation, but that’s irrelevant to how we interpret the world we experience. A city is made up of artifacts and artifacts are objects whose functions extend the intentions of some subjects. Thus, hypermodern places bridge the divide between subjects and objects at the experiential level.
However, that’s only a precondition of infantilization. What is it for an adult to live as a child? To answer this, we need standards of psychological adulthood and infancy. My idea of adulthood derives from the modern myths of liberty and rational self-empowerment. Ours is a modern world, albeit one infected with our postmodern self-doubts, so it’s fitting that we be judged according to the standards set by modern European cultures. The modern individual, then, is liberated by the Enlightenment’s break with the past, made free to pursue her self-interest. Above all, this individual is rational since reason makes for her autonomy. Moreover, she’s skeptical of authority and tradition, since the modern experience is of how ancient Church teachings became dogmas that stifled the pursuit of more objective knowledge; indeed, the Church demonized and persecuted those who posed untraditional questions. The modern adult idolizes our hero, the Scientist, who relies on her critical faculties to uncover the truth, which is to say that the modern adult should be expected to be fearlessly individualistic in her assessments and tastes. Finally, this adult should be cosmopolitan—which is very different from Catholic universalism, for example. The Catholic has a vision of everyone’s obligation to convert to Catholicism, whereas the modernist appreciates everyone’s equal potential for self-determination, and so the modernist is classically liberal in welcoming a wide variety of opinions and lifestyles.
What, then, are the relevant characteristics of an infant? The infant is almost entirely dependent on a higher power. A biological infant has no choice in the matter and her infancy is only a stage in a process of maturation. Similarly, an infantile adult lacks autonomy and may be fed information in the same way a biological infant is fed food. For example, a cult member who defers to the charismatic leader in all matters of judgment is infantile with respect to that act of self-surrender. Many premodern cultures have been likewise infantile and our notion of modern progress compares the transition from that anti-modern version of maturity to the modern ideal of the individual’s rational autonomy, with the baby’s growth into a more independent being.
That’s the theory, anyway. The reality is that modern science is wedded to industry which applies our knowledge of nature, and the resulting artificial world infantilizes the masses. How so? For starters, through the post-WWII capitalistic imperative to grow the economy through hyper-consumption. Artificial demand is stimulated through propaganda, which is to say through mostly irrational, associative advertising. The demand is artificial in that it’s manufactured by corporations that have mastered the inhuman science of persuasion. That demand is met by mass-produced supply, the products of which tend to be planned for obsolescence and thus shoddier than they need to be.
The familiar result is the rebranding of the two biologically normal social classes: the rich and powerful alphas and everyone else (the following masses). Modern wealth is rationalized with myths of self-determination and genius, since no credible appeal can be made now to the divine right of kings. Mind you, the exception has been the creation of distinct middle classes which is due to socialist policies in liberal parts of the world that challenge the social Darwinian cynicism that’s implicit in capitalism. Maintaining a middle class in a capitalistic society, though, is a Sisyphean task: it’s like pushing a boulder up a hill we’re doomed to have to keep reclimbing. The middle class members are fattened like livestock awaiting slaughter by the predators that are groomed by capitalistic institutions such as the elite business schools. And so the middle class inevitably goes into debt and joins the poor, while the wealthy consolidate their power as the ruling oligarchs, as has happened in Canada and the US. (For more on what are effectively the hidden differences between democratic liberals and capitalistic conservatives, see here.)
The masses, then, are targeted by the propaganda arm of modern industry, while the wealthy live in a more rarified world. For example, the wealthy tend not to watch television, they’re not in the market for cheap, mass-produced merchandise, and they don’t even gullibly link their self-worth to their hording of possessions in the crass materialistic fashion. No, the oligarchs who come to power through the capitalistic competition have a much graver flaw: they’re as undead as the rest of nature, which makes them fitting avatars of nature’s inhumanity. Those who are obsessed with becoming very powerful or who are corrupted by their power tend to be sociopathic, which means they lack the ability to care what others feel. For that reason, the power elite are more like machines than people: they tend not to be idealistic and so associative advertising won’t work on them, since that kind of advertising construes the consumption of a material good as a means of fulfilling an archetypal desire. Of course, the relatively poor masses are just the opposite: burdened by their conscience, they trust that our modern world isn’t a horror show. Thus, they’re all-too ready to seek advice from advertisers on how to be happy, even though advertisers are actually deeply cynical. The masses are thereby indoctrinated into cultural materialism.
Workers in the service industry literally talk to the customer as if she were a baby, constantly smiling and speaking in a lilting, sing-songy voice; telling the customer whatever she wants to hear, because the customer is always right (just as Baby gets whatever it wants); working like a dog to satisfy the customer as though the latter were the boss and the true adult in the room—but she’s not. The real power elite don’t deal directly with lowly service providers, such as the employees of the average mall. Their underlings do both their buying and their selling for them, so that they needn’t mix with lower folk. This is why George H. W. Bush had never before seen a grocery scanner. No, the service provider is the surrogate parent who is available around the clock to service the consumer, just as a mother must be prepared at any moment to drop everything and attend to Baby. The consumer is the baby—and a whining, selfish one she is at that. That’s the unsettling truth obscured by the illusion of freedom in a consumption-driven society. A consumer can choose which brand name to support out of the hundreds she surveys in the department store, and that bewildering selection reassures her that she’s living the modern dream. But just as the democratic privileges in an effective plutocracy are superficial and structurally irrelevant, so too the consumer’s freedom of choice is belied by her lack of what Isaiah Berlin calls positive freedom. Consumers have negative freedom in that they’re free from coercion so that they can do whatever they want (as long as they don’t hurt anyone). But they lack the positive freedom of being able to fulfill their potential.
In particular, consumers fail to live up to the above ideal of modern adulthood. Choosing which brand of soft drink to buy, when you’ve been indoctrinated by a materialistic culture, is like an infant preferring to receive milk from the left breast rather than the right. Obviously, the deeper choice is to prefer something other than limitless consumption, but that choice is anathema because it’s bad for business. Still, in so far as we have the potential to be mature in the modern sense, to be like those iconoclastic early modern scientists who overcame their Christian culture by way of discovering for themselves how the real world works, we manic consumers have fallen far short. Almost all of us are grossly immature, regardless of how old we are or whether consumer-friendly psychologists pronounce us “normal.”
Now, you might think I’ve established, at best, not a one-way dependence of the masses on the plutocrats, but a sort of sadomasochistic interdependence between them. After all, the producers need consumers to buy their goods, just as a farmer needs to maintain his livestock out of self-interest. Unfortunately, this isn’t so in the globalized world, since the predators of our age have learned that they can express the nihilism at the heart of social Darwinian capitalism, without reservation, just by draining one country of its resources at a time and then by taking their business to a developing country when the previous host has expired, perhaps one day returning as that prior host revivifies in something like the Spenglerian manner. Thus, while it’s true that sellers need buyers, in general, it’s not the case that transnational sellers need any particular country’s buyers, as long as some country somewhere includes willing and able customers. But whereas the transnational sellers don’t need any particular consumers and the consumers can choose between brands (even though companies tend to merge to avoid competing, becoming monopolies or oligopolies), there’s asymmetry in the fact that the mass consumer’s self-worth is attached to consumption and thus to the buyer-seller relationship, whereas that’s not so for the wealthy producers.
Again, that’s because the more power you have, the more dehumanized you become, so that the power elite can’t afford moral principles or a conscience or a vision of a better world. Those who come to be in positions of great power become custodians of the social system (the dominance hierarchy), and all such systems tend to have unequal power distributions so that they can be efficiently managed. (To take a classic example, soviet communism failed largely because its system had to waste so much energy on the pretense that its power wasn’t centralized.) Centralized power naturally corrupts the leaders or else it attracts those who are already corrupt or amoral. So powerful leaders are disproportionately inhuman, psychologically speaking. (I take it this is the kernel of truth in David Icke’s conspiracy theory that our rulers are secretly evil lizards from another dimension.) Although the oligarch may be inclined to consume for her pleasure and indeed she obviously has many more material possessions than the average consumer, the oligarch attaches no value to consumption, because she’s without human feeling. She feels pleasure and pain like most animals, but she lacks complex, altruistic emotions. Ironically, then, the more wealth and power you have, the fewer human rights you ought to have. (For more on this naturalistic, albeit counterintuitive interpretation of oligarchy, see here.)
In any case, to return to the childish consumer, the point is that consumption-driven capitalism infantilizes the masses by establishing this asymmetric relationship between transnational producer and the average buyer. Just as a biological baby is almost wholly dependent on its guardian, the average consumer depends on the economic system that satisfies her craving for more and more material goods. The wealthy consume because they’re predatory machines, like viruses that are only semi-alive, but the masses consume because we’ve been misled into believing that owning things makes us happy and we dearly want to be happy. We think wealth and power liberate us, because with enough money we can buy whatever we want. But we forget the essence of our modern ideal or else we’ve outgrown that ideal in our postmodern phase. What makes the modern individual heroic is her independence, which is why our prototypes (Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno, Darwin, Nietzsche) were modern especially because of their socially subversive inquiries. We consumers aren’t nearly so modern or individualistic, regardless of our libertarian or pragmatic bluster. As consumers, we’re dependent on the mass producers and on our material possessions themselves. We’re not autonomous iconoclasts, we’re just politically correct followers. We don’t think for ourselves, but put our faith in the contemptible balderdash of corporate propaganda. We haven’t the rationality even to laugh at the foolish fallacies that are the bread and butter of associative ads. It doesn’t matter what we say or write; if we enjoy consuming material goods, our subconscious has been colonized by materialistic memes and so our working values are as shallow as they can be without being as empty as those of the animalistic power elite. As consumers, we’re children playing at adult dress-up; we’re cattle that make-believe we’re free just because we routinely choose from among a preselected array of options.
So both technology and capitalism infantilize the masses. By doing our bidding and so making us feel we’re of central importance in the artificial world, technology suppresses angst and alienation. We therefore live not the modern dream but the ancient mythopoeic one—which is also the child’s experience of playing in a magical place, regardless of where the child actually happens to be. And capitalism turns us into consumers, first and foremost, and constant consumption is the very name of the infant’s game, because the infant needs abundant fuel to support her accelerated growth.
A third source of our existential immaturity is inherent in the myth of the modern hero. For many years, this problem with modernism lay dormant because of the early modernists’ persistent sexism, racism, and imperialism. Only white European males were thought of as proper individuals. Their rationalism, however, implied egalitarianism since we’re all innately rational, to some extent, and once the civil rights of women and minorities were recognized, there was a perceptible decline in the manliness of the modern hero. No longer a bold rebel against dogmas or a skeptical lover of the truth, the late-modern individual now is someone who must tolerate all differences. Ours is a multicultural, global village and so we’re consigned to moral relativism and forced to defer to politically correct conventions out of respect for each other’s right to our opinions. Thus, bold originality, once regarded as heroic, is now considered boorish. Early modernists loved to discuss ideas in Salons, but now even to broach a political or religious subject in public is considered impolite, because you may offend someone.
Such rules of political correctness are like parents’ futile restrictions on their child’s thoughts and actions. Western children are protected from coarse language and violence and nudity, because postmodern parents labour under the illusion that their children will be infantile for their entire lifespan, whereas we’re all primarily animals and so are bound to run up against the horrors of natural life sooner or later. Compare these arbitrary strictures with the medieval Church’s laws against heresy. In all three cases (taboos for infantilized adults, protectionist illusions for children, and medieval Christian imperialism), the rules are uninspired as solutions to the existential problem of how to face reality, but the Church went as far as to torture and kill on behalf of its absurd notions. At most, postmodern parents may spank their child for saying a bad word, while an adult who carries the albatross of the archaic ideal of the independent person and so wishes to test the merit of her assumptions by attempting to engage others in a conversation about ideas will only find herself alone and ignored at the party, inspecting the plant in the corner of the room. Still, our postmodern mode of infantilization is fully degrading despite the lack of severe consequences when we step out of bounds.
This is the ethic of care that’s implicit in modern individualism, which is at odds with the modern hunt for the truth. Modernism was originally framed in the masculine terms of a conflict between scientific truth and Christian dogmatic opinion, but now that everyone is recognized as an autonomous, dignified modern person, feminine values have surged. And just as someone with a hammer sees everything else as a nail, a woman is inclined to see everyone else as a baby. This is why, for example, young women who haven’t outgrown their motherly instincts overuse the word “cute”: handbags are cute, as are small pets and even handsome men. This is also why girls worship not tough, rugged male celebrities, but androgynous ones like Justin Bieber. As conservative social critics appreciate, manliness is out of fashion. Even hair on a man’s chest is perceived as revolting, let alone the hair on his back. Men’s bodies must be shorn of any such symbol of their unruly desires, because men are obliged to fulfill women’s fantasy that men are babies who need to be nurtured. Men must be innocent, not savage; they must be eternally youthful and thus hairless, not battered and scarred by the heartless world; they must be doe-eyed and cheerful, not grim, aloof and embittered. Men must be babies, not the manly heroes celebrated by the early modernists, who brought Europe out of the relative Dark Age. Men have been feminized, thanks ironically to the early modern ideal of personal autonomy through reason. As for women themselves, those who must see themselves primarily as care-givers in so far as they’re naturally inclined to infantilize men, they too become child-like, because “care” is reflexive. And so modern women baby themselves, treating themselves to the spa, to the latest fashions and accessories, to the inanities of daytime television, to the sentimental fantasies of soap operas and romance novels, and to the platitudes of flattering, feel-good New Age cults.
.
The Ignorant Baby and the Enlightened Aesthete
Those are three sources of modern infantilization: technology, capitalism, and postmodern culture. I submit, then, that the reason we can be so ignorant as to speak of technoscientific progress, even though scientific theories imply naturalism which in turn implies the unreality of normative values and the undeadness of all processes, is that we lack self-knowledge because we’re infantile. We’re distracted by the games of possessing and playing with our technotoys, because our artificial environment trains us to be babies. And babies aren’t interested in ideas, let alone in terribly dispiriting philosophies such as naturalism with its atheistic and dark existential implications. That’s why we can parrot the meme of modern progress, because we’ve already swallowed a thousand corporate myths by the time we’ve watched a year’s worth of materialistic ads on TV. What’s one more piece of foolishness added to that pile? If we were to look at the myth of progress, we’d see it derives from ancient theistic apocalypticism, and specifically from the Zoroastrian idea of a linear and teleological arrow of historical time. The idea was that time would come to a cataclysmic end when God would perfect the fallen world and defeat the forces of evil in a climactic battle. All prior events are made meaningful in relation to that ultimate endpoint. In that teleological metaphysics, the idea of real progress makes sense. But there’s no such teleology in naturalism, so there can be no modern progress. At best, some scientific theory or piece of technology can meet with our approval and allow us to achieve our personal goals more readily, but that subjective progress loses its normative force. Mind you, that’s the only kind of progress that pragmatists are entitled to affirm, but there’s no real goodness in modernity if that’s all we mean by the word.
The titular ironies, then, are that the so-called technoscientific signs of modern progress are indications rather of the superficiality or illusoriness of the very concept of social progress that most people have in mind, despite their pragmatic attitude, and that the late great modernists who are supposed to stand tall as the current leaders of humanity are instead largely infantilized by modernity and so are similar to the mythopoeic, childlike ancients.
Here, finally, I’ve pointed out that there’s no real progress in nature, since nature is undead rather than enchanted by personal qualities such as meaning or purpose, and yet I affirmed the existential value of personal authenticity. I promised to return to this apparent contradiction. My solution, as I’ve explained at length elsewhere, is to reduce normative evaluation to the aesthetic kind. For example, I say intellectual integrity is better than self-delusion. But is that judgment as superficial and subjective as a moral principle in light of philosophical naturalism? Not if the goodness of personal integrity and more specifically of the coherence of your worldview which drives your behaviour, is thought of as a kind of beauty. When we take up the aesthetic perspective, all processes seem not just undead but artistically creative. Life itself becomes art and our aesthetic duty is to avoid the ugliness of cliché and to strive for ingenious and subversive originality in our actions.
Is the aesthetic attitude as arbitrary as a theistic interpretation of the world, given science-centered naturalism? No, because aesthetics falls out of the objectification made possible by scientific skepticism. We see something as an art object when we see it as complete in itself and thus as useless and indifferent to our concerns, the opposite being a utilitarian or pragmatic stance. And that’s precisely the essence of cosmicism, which is the darkest part of modern wisdom. Natural things, as such, are complete in themselves, meaning that they exist and develop for no human reason. That’s the horror of nature: the world doesn’t care about us, our adaptability notwithstanding, and so we’re bound to be overwhelmed by natural forces and to perish with just as little warning as we were given when nature evolved us in the first place. But the point here is that the flipside of this horror is that nature is full of art! The undeadness of things is also their sublime beauty or raw ugliness. When we recognize the alienness and monstrosity of natural processes, because we’ve given up naïve anthropocentrism, we’ve already adopted the aesthetic attitude. That’s because we’ve declined to project our interests onto what are wholly impersonal things, and so we objectify and aestheticize them with one and the same act of humility. The angst and the horror we feel when we understand what nature really is and thus how impersonal we ourselves are are also aesthetic reactions. Angst is the dawning of awe as we begin to fathom nature’s monstrous scope, horror the awakening of pantheistic fear of the madness of the artist responsible for so much wasted art. The aesthetic values which are also existential ones aren’t merely subjective, because nature’s undead creativity is all-too real.
This is more-or-less how I see things too.
In many ways, I find myself stranded in-between the infantile consumerist (I consume things like videogames, R. Scott Bakker novels, etc.) and the cold-blooded elite (my family has ties to the finance world, I don’t watch TV unless its pirated and advertisement-free).
Speaking of which, they made a TV show that might fulfill some of your desires, it’s on HBO and it’s called True Detective. Give it a go.
Having been co-opted by the ruling elites to deliver this tasty advertisement, I must now go back to work exploring our undead universe.
Jorge, you’re actually the third reader of my articles to recommend to me that show True Detective. I did indeed start watching it, since it’s only just started. It’s a fine show and there are few others that are as explicitly dark. Indeed, the McConaughey character is a full-blown antinatalist, but I don’t go that far with pessimism. In fact, my next YouTube video will critique the well-known YouTuber Inmendham’s antinatalism. And on my blog I’ve already written a long criticism of antinatalism (link below).
But yeah, “stranded between being an elite and one of the masses” is a good way to sum up the postmodern condition, I think. That’s why we’re often cynical and apathetic, because we know our societies are dysfunctional or dehumanizing, but there seems to be no alternative. So we watch our great satirists, like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, or Trey Parker’s South Park tear down the system with comedy, and we laugh and get angry, but the whole thing is anticlimactic.
That’s the mark of postmodernism: there’s no climax. We’re nearing the end of modernity and the beginning of–what exactly? Global collapse? Neofeudalism? The transhsuman technological singularity? It’s all up in the air, but more importantly we don’t know which side to fight for or what to do with ourselves to fight the horrors and make things better. So we sleepwalk through most of life, waking to only moments of enlightenment before remembering that knowing the truth is useless without having any way to usefully apply the insight. So we consume with the rest of them. We’re practically zombies.
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2012/11/the-question-of-antinatalism.html
I mean, that was always the point of the zombie film, wasn’t it? I remember watching Dawn with my friends in college and one of them was like “Dude, that’s us.” I mean, who doesn’t like the mall? The cute observation that we can’t find an ontological class into which to squeeze phenomenology also underscores the point. Are p-zombies conceivable? More like, is the opposite conceivable, that we have a spirit?
Your ability to pinpoint specific instances of the postmodern dilemma in my life is completely uncanny. Last night I was watching Steward and you pretty much hit the nail on the head: it’s all fucked, but there’s no solution.
As for antinatalism, it’s untenable/unrealistic. People who can stomach such a position will die, and the rest will breed and then we’re back to square one. But consider this line:
“Imagine the hubris, to yank a soul out of the void and throw it into this thresher.”
I mean, that was always the point of the zombie film, wasn’t it?
Heh, yeah, I think so too! It’s a weird game of spotting movies or trends in movies, like the matrix or the dark knight, seeing the bent of the zeitgeist being flashed right in front of us. Heh – at the end of the matrix Neo talks about showing everyone – yet something compels these movies to be made, right in front of us, and…nothing? Just cos play zombies at conventions?
“Imagine the hubris, to yank a soul out of the void and throw it into this thresher.”
Wanna lay money down on the Inchies saying much the same thing in TUC? Particularly with the awareness of the eternal torture machine/damnation thing?
Sorry I didn’t reply sooner, but I happened to have just finished making a 57-minute YouTube video critiquing Inmendham’s antinatalism, so I wanted to add the link here. Unfortunately, I had a lot of software problems getting the video uploaded. But I’ve prevailed, thanks to my Herculean labours! So here’s the video:
I think you have to decide why you’re going into this business – just going into it for the sake of going into it, perhaps with the happy smile time propaganda slung around ‘thinking’ just being great and dandy and all – this will likely actually just fuck up and feed upon its own self referential loop, like a mike held near the speaker its hooked up to. And/or it’ll just destroy – all with the ‘hey, but it’s wrecking something all toward something good on the horizon’ as we were indoctrinated at school to think about unfun of sitting at desks for a delayed gratification down the track. But at best theres a big fat question mark on the horizon. Why you’d keep gutting your mind without any particular cause/business in mind would seem to me a by product of the education systems holyfication of thinking.
Were you addressing your comment to me or to Jorge, Callan? As I say to Jorge, it’s hard to know what to fight for as an alternative to the dysfunctional or dehumanizing modern societies. But as for the philosophy I’m working out, it does indeed have a positive, constructive side. So I do have an (albeit incomplete) answer to your question of why I’m laying down all of these harsh criticisms. I’m working my way to clarifying a vision of an unembarrassing (honourable, enlightened) postmodern way of life.
To you, Ben.
Modern society largely hinges on most people having given up their capacity for self sufficiency in regard to producing food (never mind how shelter is also taken away by the idea of government/kings owning the land and then having ‘sold it off’, which just obsfucates the existance of the original made up claim).
With the food supplies controlled, aren’t modern societies a reflection of how beholden the many are to the few who decide who gets paid/gets food?
I would think a system of urban farming and sharing produce to others for free so as to encourage more urban farming in those others might throw off (to the amount you urban farm) the undue influence of the few upon the many. Even just one pot with some carrots growing has it’s butterfly effect.
Or, I’ll be a little provocative, are you trying to find honour and enlightenment within your current societal structure at the more satisfying level of keeping everything as it is and just looking at it in the right way? Already commited to the structure – it’s enormous so it’s not going to change any more than the giant glaciers our ancient ancestors saw were not going to go back where they came from? So just commit to how things are and try and find a comfortable, honourable and enlightened niche to get into within it? I’m just predicting you’ll treat the area of play as philosophical only – a matter of the right philosophical position. While the physical position, you’d given up on that some time ago already? Certainly in the philosophical position we all feel free-er, while with the physical its restricted movement, banal repetion of action, etc. Am I guessing right that you’ve let go of the latter and focused on the philsophical realm instead?
You ask some great questions, Callan. I think I should address them in a blog post since the issue here, I think, is fatalism. Am I talking just about philosophical truth or is there any hope of improving things in a practical way? As I think comes out in the last third of my YouTube video on antinatalism (embedded above), I’m not so pessimistic that I’ve given up all hope of constructive social change. The point of admirable pessimism/realism for me is to purify our character by sitting in this crucible of angst for awhile, to honourably come to terms with the harsh truths, to jump through the flaming hoop of philosophy. Most people don’t think about these issues at all; they just engage with the world plenty, for better or worse. I just can’t help seeing these things in aesthetic terms, and those who wrestle with the dark existential truths are more aesthetically pleasing to me (more honourable, noble, beautiful, heroic, inspiring, authentic, and so on).
But are the philosophical folks likely going to change the world for the better? That’s the question in Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground. There are the mice and the men, who are roughly the introverts and the extroverts. The introverts know everything but they don’t do anything and indeed they can’t because their knowledge paralyzes them. I haven’t resolved these issues, of course, and the most I’m doing to change the world for the better, at the moment, is blogging about the philosophical issues (and writing novels and making YouTube videos).
Of course, the more entangled you get in the world, the more it’s likely to corrupt you until you forget whatever philosophy might once have taught you. The point is, these are ancient problems, going back to the ascetic traditions in the world’s religions.
Excellent read, Ben! There’s nothing I can really add, because I think you nailed it down pretty well. I’m glad to see more philosophers today realizing that us modernists DO have myths, just as the ancients did.
Your discussion about the myth of progress is very similar to what John Michael Greer’s blog is about. He ties peak oil to the modern myth of progress and apocalypse. Since most of technology today is powered by fossil fuels, the only real reason why the status quo and masses are hanging on with all their might to the idea that fossil fuel use is infinite, is because they believe in the so-called infinite march of technological progress.
Here is his blog: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the kind words and for reading. I’ll check out that blog.
I just wanted to add, Jorge, that it’s not necessarily that we’re all fucked, because their is no solution. I think the “solution” is actually beginning to view the world we are in as not a problem, but rather as a predicament. Predicaments aren’t really “solved,” it is best to approach them as just being a process of undead nature. You can’t really solve undead natural predicaments, because they’re typically impersonal.
So, if you read Oswald Spengler, it becomes apparent that our typical track record is all about civilizations going belly-up gradually, sometimes the decline lasts several hundred years. I think the best approach and mindset to the increasingly de-industrial world is to fasten your seatbelt tightly and hang on for the ride. And I think one of the best ways to soften the long descent is to adopt a more naturalistic lifestyle by starting to live more sustainably. That’s the best response to reverse infantilism; by learning to be responsible and produce some of your own resources and depending on more local community to aid in this process. Sure beats the hell out of continuing to support the status quo by excessive and extravagant consumption of finite planetary resources.
The peak oil stuff has been thoroughly, utterly, debunked. It is not real. If someone wants me to make the case here, I will, but even the most basic googling will enlighten you.
Not only is peak oil not a problem, there is another untapped resource in the ocean bed called methane hydrate we’re starting to learn how to utilize.
We will have commercial fusion (we already have actual fusion) LONG before the oil and everything else runs out.
One major thing you neglect to mention, Nick, is the most overlooked concept in the peak oil blogosphere, or in the alternative energy scene: net energy. That is, how much energy are you expending to extract more raw resources? The raw resource, like petroleum, requires machines to extract it out of the earth in the first place; and those machines require A LOT of processed input of petroleum, coal et al. I’ve heard all the tripe about so-called fusion technology, and the bottom line is that most alternative energy resources out there have pretty much a worse net energy ratio than petroleum.
I’ve heard it repeated ad infinitum by the believers in the myth of progress, like yourself, who somehow expect an infinite surplus of oil for an indeterminate amount of time. Wake up. The reality is that we’ve wasted tons of highly concentrated energy over a more than half a century or so; energy that took millions of years building up in the earth’s crust via sunlight.
Why don’t you do me a favor and read the Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” and see if you haven’t changed your mind by then.
The bottom line for believers in the myth of progress is that they don’t want to be held responsible for their irresponsible lifestyles which they may have to give up increasingly as we move down the road of deindustrial culture. In the age of entitlement, everyone wants to stick their heads in the sand and point the finger.
I think it’s an exchange – you have to be able to humour the idea Nick might be right, if you want to expect him to humour the idea you might be right.
Just going with the idea oneself can’t be wrong just encourages the same attitude in the other person.
And for Nick, I rather wonder if the belief in growth is because you have already signaled your surrender to it – you think it’s going to happen, so you just give up and support it utterly because ‘it’s going to happen’. Which was a fine attitude for our ancient ancestors because if the volcano went off or the glacier moved in, that’s just how it was and you had to make peace with it and treat it as good. But now were seeing man made events that are the size of volcanos and glaciers – to just accept this is like accepting a child slapping oneself in the face, as if that’s just how it has to be (and dang if I don’t see parents just accepting that from a child, for sure). I would suggest to stop treating growth like it’s a volcano or other natural event.
Woah Ben,
Thoroughly enjoyed this. Must say I agree on most points.
We are living in 21st century, whilst your average Joe is somewhere in Newtonian 17th century concerning the knowledge of the stuff he uses.
And yes, we are infantilized, or rather our choices are, but so many people are satisfied with them that they are infantilized as well.
When people naively talk about “resistance” to modern capitalism and consumerism, they are always dissatisfied when I outline the only option available – stop consuming. Or, rather, they are unwilling to accept just how far they should go (indeed, how deep the Rabbit Hole is).
In defense of our society though, we are playful/childish by nature. People should just accept that. We like our toys and allow ourselves to be milked for it. The greatest irony, perhaps, is defining “freedom”, the so-called staple of our society – freedom is as elusive, ambiguous and overrated term as any I have encountered.
Thanks very much. I agree we should hold onto the best of our childlike qualities, but there’s a difference between infants and children. Does consumption make us childlike or infantile?
There’s an inspiring social movement called minimalism, where people try hard to get rid of the clutter in their lives, including many of the possessions they have but don’t need and that actually do more harm than good. Here’s an interesting article on it:
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/why-millennial-quit-6-figure-205835000.html
Thx for the link, Ben.
Come to think of it, I could probably ditch most stuff I own since I don’t care. I tried “caring” for my car (like my friends do). Didn’t work. Don’t care about clothes (but most men don’t), don’t care about fancy furnishings (just gotta clean those more).
Jorge, are you aware that your quote from True Detective resembles Ligotti’s writings closely enough to verge on plagiarism? Please look here: http://www.ligotti.net/showthread.php?s=5dbc6e5ae162a0651d4ca336d0ea6be2&t=7969
I guess the point is that what looks like a proliferation of pessimistic philosophy in the culture at large has only a handful of sources at bottom, and the imitation of these stances in cinema, tv and comics strikes me as being merely faddish.
If we nevertheless take these ripples of gloom as signifying the zeitgeist, I wonder whether Nietzsche’s influential overcoming of Schopenhauerian pessimism is finally losing ground. Has joyful wisdom been forgotten? Is it simply a question of the pendulum swinging the other way? If so, why now?
I also thought that dialogue from True Detective was taken right out of some antinatalist text. The writer is a novelist or playwright. Anyway, it’s rare for anything so dark to appear on TV, but then this is HBO where dark is the norm. HBO is known for having high-minded shows for intellectual, and of course reason tends to make us unhappy, because the unvarnished truth is usually not to our liking.
Some people here are seriously underestimating science/technology.
I’ll believe the decline in energy availability when I start to see the price at the pump go up. $5 gallon? I’ll raise an eyebrow. $10? You’ve got my attention.
Jorge,
Or they just charged what they thought the market could bear and are now maintaining that price roughly as their profit margins shrink.
C’mon, it’s not very scientific to judge the progress of an event by a secondarily derived value from it?
Callan, are you kidding? We do that in science all the time, it’s called an assay. You use one measure as a proxy for some deeper but difficult to capture phenomenon. I will grant that you have to calibrate it carefully though.
The idea here is that we can use the price of oil as a readout for its scarcity as price is derived from supply/demand. Oil companies are in competition, so they cannot shrink their profit margins too much as that will lower their ability to compete.
I do not worry about peak oil. I worry about the ecological impact of our incessant ability to use energy to extract ever greater quantities of energy.
Jorge, is there a naturalism fallacy? You’re talking about using one naturalistic measure to measure another naturalistic measure that’s harder to measure. That’s fine – because nature doesn’t bluff!
The oil companies, given our addiction to oil, both can bluff and have good room to bluff given that addiction. You don’t use a secondary measure when watching a magicians show, do you? You don’t just measure that the rabbit came out of the hat so that indicates the magician has powers?
Maybe it’s exactly as you say. But to consider that as being the only possibility would seem like falling for magicians bluffs.
Actually bought “The Conspiracy against the Human Race” yesterday. Fascinating read, to be sure.
Even if I cannot fully embrace it’s pessimistic views on the pointlessness of living.
Yes, that is a fascinating book. Oddly, I don’t get nearly as much from his short stories, although I haven’t read his more recent ones.
I started reading it 2 days ago. It reads like Inchoroi propaganda.
Good points, MS.
I don’t think capitalism is “bad” per se, but like all other tools it is all about how you use it. I see capitalism as a transitory system; a temporary tool to be used so we can evolve into a system more long-term.
The process is actually quite simple: it’s not that people necessarily *need* to “stop consuming,” people need to actually start getting more involved in shared local community resources. We need major decentralization, where people, for example, need to start trading and buying/selling on a much smaller, local level. Barter would be a good transition economy, where people largely produce their own food on their land, and other services, which benefit other local regions in a decentralized trade village network. That’s more or less what our ancestors did amongst tribal villages.
Stop consuming from the corporate predators. Start consuming from your local farmers, but under the condition that you are also able to supply the local resource networks with your own production skills. It’s all about learning to be more self-sufficient.
I hear you, Joseph.
Although bartering does sort of bring us full-circle in economical and sociological terms, I’ve always suspected it might come down to tribalism (although some sort of modern/post-modern one) if economies collapse. I would actually prefer it (even if I work with technology professionally) to this developing state of homogenization and separation of people. It is logical, I guess – if you render us all the same,
it becomes easier to push products that “everyone needs”, because everyone’s the same. Fracture tribes, minorities, families and mini-tribes into separate targeted entities. Groups of people holding to any kind of shared values (whether personal beliefs or traditional values) are potentially dangerous simply because that belief is shared and visibly connected. We are being separated from the herd, each one of us.
And the powers-that-be are aware, I think, of how “tribes” are dangerous. A increasing trend in supporting and even enforcing worker mobility (here in EU) is designed to break it apart and make every one of us a stranger. It is masked by words like “opportunity” but in the end it serves to disconnect everybody from everyone else.
And don’t forget the efforts that go into food control. My country joined the EU just recently, and people are shocked by the rules imposed. If you don’t buy globally prescribed GMO seed, you are shutdown as “unsafe”, “unhealthy”, etc. So mechanisms already exist to prevent people bypassing corporate products.
And I don’t even want to go onto the topic of farmaceutics and fear-breeding program that goes on incessantly.
A few comments – Ben teaches us that the natural world is an undead monstrosity. Scott teaches us that humans are one with rest of the natural world. If both are right then humans are undead monstrosity. Perhaps the most authentic way for an undead monstrosity to live is the most undead, monstrous way possible. Maybe the selfish bastards have got it right.
Ben also teaches that increasing population usually produces increasing centralization of power in order to manage the resources needed to keep the increasing population fed, clothed and sheltered. Is there a way to measure human autonomy? And is there a way to determine the maximum level of autonomy consistent with a given population density and technological capability?
One thing I learned in my English Major days is that it’s hard for a writer to convincingly depict a character who is much smarter than the writer. I don’t know how much we can trust the speculations of humans about posthumans. On the other hand, perhaps we were the Neanderthals’ posthumans. We did not work out well for them. Similarly, we seem to be the post-somethings to the rest of the animal kingdom, and it’s not working out well for them. Our posthumans might not work out well for us. The antinatalists and the technological optimists might both get what they think they want.
The earth’s supply of fossil fuels is not infinite. The moment you realize you are eventually going to run out of something is the moment to start figuring out how to do without it. Present day capitalism is built for short term profits. Present day politics is built to win the next election. As a society we have no institutional capability to plan for the long term. This lack of capability (which exists not because humans are incapable of long term planning but because humans who are capable of long term planning have no power) makes it highly likely that when we do finally run out of fossil fuels we will be caught totally by surprise. Of course, as I implied above, our posthumans might solve our fossil fuel problem for us.
Perhaps if being unselfish and charitable is also as monsterous (what, did they somehow escape the universe?), then in terms of living monsterously that’s just as valid a choice?
Regarding monstrosity, this is an aesthetic matter so it’s partly subjective. Nature is monstrous because it’s inhuman and miraculously active for a mindless behemoth. I agree we’re monstrous too in the sense that we’re undead inside, since we’re physical beings. But we’re also people rather than just animals. Scott Bakker isn’t entirely with me on this, but I think nature creates a multitude; in fact, the insane wastefulness/generosity in the variety and extent of what nature creates is part of its monstrosity. So nature makes animal slaves and also freed slaves (humans). We have limited autonomy to create in an ironically rebellious way. And that’s just what we tend to do: we create our microcosms, beginning with our inner worlds (minds) and branching out to our societies, cultures, and the technosphere (the world of artifacts, machines, tools, etc).
As I see it, selfish folks are more animalistic, so in aesthetic terms they’re cliched and thus immoral; roughly speaking, this means simply that they’re boring. Their actions aren’t original enough to inspire anyone else to great artistic heights. Anyway, see my video (embedded above) for more on this stuff.
I’m not sure about measuring autonomy. I think you’re asking whether there’s some degree of oligarchic control of the masses which should be permitted if it allows for sufficient autonomy. As I say in one of my articles (link below), I don’t think we’re all equally free. I think introverts are potentially freer than extroverts, because they have greater top-down control (their minds are literally filled with more ideas). Ironically, introverts tend not to exercise that greater freedom, because their knowledge scares them into submission.
http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2013/07/authenticity-and-cost-of-self-creation.html
‘free’ is not that big a deal – ‘free’ is a means to an end. Maybe it splits the bubble of our world vs the darwinistic practicalities of that world view we sit in, but ‘free’ is just a damn useful asset in dealing with any problem that comes up. An asset too useful to give up. But I guess that’s the defining boundary of worlds – from the inside the end sought is freedom, from the outside freedom is a means to an end. That or an indicator of how far away oneself is from ancient goals.
so in aesthetic terms they’re cliched and thus immoral
I think there are real problems to come up if one starts linking chiche and immorality. Hey, why not have freakier and freakier sex because anything else is cliche and thus immoral? Missionary is immoral!
And I’m not sure why you mention creating in rebelious ways, Ben? Why is being able to do that at some cosmic level important?
I agree there are problems with my aesthetic interpretation of morality. I don’t claim to have all the answers and I’m still working this stuff out. Regarding the sex example, though, that’s like saying that killing someone is OK as long as you do it in an inventive way. No, that goes just to style, not to the substance of the action. Even kinky sex is still sex. Compared to what all the other animals are doing, the more original (i.e. anomalous and distinguishing) choice is something like ascetic abstinence, not having sex in an imaginative way.
I’m not clear on what you’re saying about freedom, but there’s a big discussion of this under my YouTube video on antinatalism. I’m explaining there why our autonomy is important. You might want to check out that video and some of the comments (link below). For example, someone there said that our transcendence from the animalistic cycle of life is only superficial, since it’s all down to evolutionary programming. I responded that that’s like saying there’s only a superficial difference between an African-American slave and a free white man (during the period when the US institutionalized slavery). No, our greater autonomy is real and it’s anomalous and thus unsettling; in fact, it’s virtually supernatural, like all other artificiality and intelligent design and self-creation. You just don’t find our degree of self-control in the other species, let alone anywhere else in the universe. There’s a comparison to be made here between the supernatural and the artificial. I plan to write on that within a month or so.
Why should our creations be rebellious? Because we’re at war with undead nature and we should fight with honour and with grim humour (irony), using nature’s gifts to us against it, outdoing natural creativity with our microcosms. That’s the best self-assigned purpose of our life, as I see it.
fucking yawn. Seriously you think one day we’ll wake up and pumps will be off at the gas station. Have you heard of a supply and demand graph? Jesus
The graph is like jesus? Supplying bread and fish and petrol because demand equals supply?
Plan I’ve had stewing for years now in regard to economics and community – with a slight rebuttal to the OP at the end. I’m being somewhat self indulgent in linking, heh!
Callan I just looked at your idea and I don’t think it will work. Suppose more people want to be artists than farmers. It’s possible that food may become a scarce resource that farmers don’t want to give away for free.
Well farmers don’t typically give away food right now, so the outcome you are describing is already the case.
As I briefly cover in the article, how much do you give to charity, Gareth? Don’t feel you can because you only get so much from your job, etc?
It depends on whether you want to get out of that strapped charity situation and also want to because you feel it’s constricting your capacity to change certain problems in society.
I’m vaguely remembering your other posts here in the past as well as your peak oil post above, you don’t see much going wrong in society around the world (except maybe for folk who deserve it or something), so really apart from your farmers/artists ratio (as if one can only be one or the other) I doubt you see any grand problems in society to deal with it by this method, anyway? It’d be just solving a problem that for you doesn’t exist? Or am I wrong on that?
The author introduced via this reference has some very interesting things to say about the origins of the infantilized situation we are now in.
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/JCP98.html
His basic thesis is that our entire culture is based upon the systematic destruction of our innate psycho-biological intelligence – beginning with our child-birthing methods.
Thank you very much for that link, Leah.
pure awesomeness. thank you for the courage for writing this.