PsyMultiverses

Moja hipoteza je da nauka polazi od stava: „to je sto je, to je takvo kakvo je“, dok je umetnost interpretirajuca: „ja vidim, opazam i i zatim unosim svoje bice u krajnji sud onog sto je opazeno“. To vodi ka koriscenju razlicitih delova persone kod naucnika i umetnika. Prvi se redukovati uticaj svog ego-kompleksa, dok ce drugi voditi racuna o balnsiranoj proznosti granice izmedju spoljasnjeg i unutrasnjeg. Evo, da objasnim detaljnije:

Ako analiziramo njihove različite pristupe i načine razmišljanja, možemo bolje razumeti kako se forma izražavanja i kreativnost razlikuju u ovim sferama.

Najpre, kod naučnika:

Naučnici se fokusiraju na objektivnost i posmatranje sveta kroz prizmu činjenica i dokaza. Njihova persona je često usmerena na razvoj metodičnog pristupa istraživanju i pokušaju da minimiziraju uticaj sopstvenih emocija i subjektivnih interpretacija. Cilj naučnika je da otkrije objektivnu istinu koja je ista za sve i nezavisna od individualnog iskustva.

U tom smislu, naučnici se trude da se oslobode uticaja svog ego-kompleksa i ličnih pristrasnosti koje mogu narušiti neutralnost u istraživanju. Umesto da unose svoje lične sudove, oni se trude da rezultate baziraju na empirijskim podacima i objektivnim merenjima.

Zatim, kod umetnika:

Umetnici se bave interpretacijom i subjektivnim doživljajem sveta oko nas. Njihova kreativnost proizilazi iz unutrašnjeg doživljaja i individualnog izraza. Umetnost je često kanal za izražavanje emocija, ličnih iskustava i imaginacije. Umesto da slepo prate činjenice, umetnici obraćaju pažnju na svoje unutrašnje iskustvo i zatim ga transformišu u svoje stvaralaštvo.

Umetnici koriste različite delove svoje ličnosti kako bi stvorili dela koja izražavaju njihovu jedinstvenost. To može uključivati intuiciju, emocije, pa čak i nesvesne elemente. Umetnost je često interpretacija sveta iz ugla umetnika, što može stvoriti širok spektar izraza i stilova.

Umetnici često pažljivo balansiraju granicu između spoljašnjeg sveta i unutrašnjeg doživljaja. Njihova Persona omogućava im da oblikuju stvarnost na jedinstven način, unoseći svoju subjektivnost u delo. Ova ravnoteža između spoljašnjeg (stvarnog) i unutrašnjeg (subjektivnog) omogućava umetniku da stvori dela koja su bogata dubljim značenjem i emocijama.

Sa druge strane, naučnici se trude da zadrže distancu i posmatraju svet spolja, oslanjajući se na činjenice i dokaze. To omogućava stvaranje objektivnog znanja koje nije opterećeno individualnom interpretacijom.

Ova hipoteza o različitim delovima persona kod naučnika i umetnika može nam pomoći da bolje razumemo različite načine izražavanja i razmišljanja u ovim oblastima. Ove razlike doprinose bogatstvu ljudskog iskustva, jer nam omogućavaju da sagledamo svet iz različitih perspektiva i shvatimo da je kreativnost i istraživanje moguće na više načina.

Cesto razmisljam, dok diskutujem sa razlicitim osobama, kako u psihi nema gubljenja, sve je neprestano dodavanje, trasnformacija i prelazak iz jednog „agregatnog stanja“ u drugo. Razmatranje psihe kao kumulativne, gde nema destrukcije i sve što je ikada postojalo, čak i kao misao ili osećaj, ostaje sačuvano negde u kolektivnom nesvesnom, može otvoriti mnoge duboke i zanimljive perspektive.

Najpre, mozemo li reci da je psiha kumulativne prirode? Pretpostavka da psiha funkcioniše kao kumulativna ima duboke veze sa Jungovim konceptom kolektivnog nesvesnog. Prema Jungu, kolektivno nesvesno je sloj nesvesnih iskustava i arhetipova koji su zajednički svim ljudima, prelazeći individualne granice. Ovo kolektivno nasleđe oblikuje naše ponašanje, snove i simbole.

U kumulativnom modelu psihe, sve naše individualne i kolektivne misli, osećaji i iskustva ostaju zabeleženi i doprinose našoj celokupnoj psihi. Ništa se ne gubi, već se nadograđuje na prethodno postojano, oblikujući nas kao jedinstvene individue u kontekstu univerzalne svesti.

Unutar kumulativnog modela psihe, važno je razumeti dvostruku prirodu svesti i nesvesti. Svest predstavlja ono što smo trenutno svesni, dok nesvesno obuhvata skriveni deo našeg uma, uključujući i ono što smo zaboravili ili potisnuli. Ovo nesvesno može sadržavati i iskustva i sećanja koja nismo svesni, ali koja i dalje oblikuju naše ponašanje i emocije.

Kumulativna priroda psihe otvara vrata za razumevanje duboke povezanosti između ljudi i univerzuma. Ideja da sve što postoji ostaje prisutno u kolektivnom nesvesnom sugeriše da smo svi povezani putem nevidljive mreže zajedničke svesti. Takođe, simboli i mitovi, koji imaju univerzalne značenja i prisutni su u različitim kulturama, takođe podržavaju ovu ideju o povezanosti i kumulativnoj prirodi psihe

Naravno, ovo moze imati interesantne implikacije za lični razvoj. Razumevanje psihe kao kumulativne može imati značajne implikacije za lični razvoj i samoprihvatanje. Kada shvatimo da ništa što smo ikada doživeli nije izgubljeno, već se nadograđuje na našu unutrašnju arhitekturu, možemo se bolje nositi sa traumama i izazovima života. Rad na osvešćivanju nesvesnih sadržaja i razumevanju njihove simbolike može doprineti celovitosti i samospoznaji.

Jung je razvio je koncept kompleksa. Kompleksi su emocionalni obrasci i sklonosti kojima oblikujemo naš identitet. Oni su skupovi povezanih misli, emocija i iskustava koje često potiču iz nesvesnih dubina naše psihe. Kroz razumevanje i osvešćivanje ovih kompleksa, možemo bolje razumeti sebe i svoje ponašanje.

Udica našeg prepoznavanja predstavlja kako se ovi kompleksi mogu uhvatiti i oblikovati našu percepciju stvarnosti. Kada smo nesvesni svojih kompleksa, oni mogu uticati na način na koji doživljavamo svet oko sebe. Ovaj fenomen je posebno zanimljiv jer može biti teško razlikovati stvarnost od naše projekcije.

Roboti, kao veštački entiteti, nemaju nesvesnu psihu i emocionalne obrasce kao što ih imaju ljudi. Oni funkcionišu na osnovu programiranja i veština veštačke inteligencije. Dakle, roboti ne razvijaju komplekse, što znači da njihove reakcije i ponašanja ne dolaze iz duboko usađenih emocionalnih obrasci.

Ljudi, s druge strane, obdareni su bogatom emocionalnom sferom i nesvesnim procesima koji utiču na njihovo ponašanje i osećanja. Ovi kompleksi mogu biti odgovorni za različite aspekte ličnosti, kao što su osećaj inferiornosti, superiornosti, krivice i slično. Razumevanje ovih kompleksa može nam pomoći da razvijemo svest o svojim unutrašnjim procesima i postanemo različite verzije sebe.

Razumevanje i osvešćivanje svojih kompleksa omogućava nam da rastemo i razvijamo se kao individue. Rad na razrešavanju konflikata koji proizlaze iz ovih kompleksa može doprineti ličnom rastu i samopouzdanju. Kada postanemo svesni svojih nesvesnih sklonosti, postajemo sposobni da donosimo svesnije odluke i postupamo na način koji bolje odražava naše autentično Ja.

U tom smislu, svako iskustvo prepoznavanja i rad na svojim kompleksima može nas transformisati i dovesti do novih verzija nas samih. Svestan pristup ovim emocionalnim obrascima može nas osloboditi od njihovih ograničenja i omogućiti nam da živimo autentičnije i ispunjenije živote.

taken from: https://doi.org/10.32388/2UZGCY

Review of Sanford Drob’s article: “Why Existence? An Explanation with No Remainder¹” (original: https://www.qeios.com/read/CX22GR)

Dragana Favre

MD, PhD, Psychiatrist and Analytical Psychotherapist

Geneva, Switzerland

In the first lines, I would like to share my enthusiasm and gratitude. Being able to read and, even, add my professional (in Jungian terms, Persona-filtered) and intimate (Ego-complex driven) opinion on one publication that tackles the major metaphysical and cosmological question. I dare to add that Leibniz’s famous quote² is also psychological dilemma, in ontological way, as human-individual and human-species.

This review will follow the narrative Drob’s article.

1.1

Drob gives an overview of philosophical attempts to answer why there is something instead of nothing. However, although mentioned, the teaching of the Neoplatonists stay unexplored which is, in my opinion, a great pity. Their extensive work and their semantics could be an interesting addition to the next chapters of this publication. Staying with “The Good” of Plato, there is a bias. Moral quality of the word “good” is probably a way to connect with Leslie’s axiarchism. Pleroma³ (πλήρωμα, old Greek word meaning „fullness„) is less human, social and ethical context- related term. It is fulness³, so the chapter on evil (ch. 4.1) becomes superfluous. 

Drob says early in his text: “For example, if the origins of existence are to be found in its actualization (i.e. its “beginning” is to be found in its “end”) does this count as a complete explanation or does it simply leave us with a “circle” that itself needs to be explained?

Here, my comment goes on the amplification of the term “actualization”. “Its “beginning” is to be found in its “end”” sounds as simplification and I am not sure if the author was searching for this impact of that word. Presuming that the end defines the origin of existence demands the realization of the end, the possibility of the end or finality of the end. Nevertheless, the actualization is ever-going process (for example, our world exists until it is not ruined (yet, but it is another story)). Being complete or a circle, as Drob wonders, are the questions which comes after we test the actualization as process and not as the finite action in time.

1.2

Since I am not native English speaker, I got “stuck” immediately with the “why” chapter.  My first thoughts went to ancient languages. Old Greek has four words for why: λαμά (what – why), τά (why), τίη (why-wherefore) and τίπτε (why pray)⁴.

In my mother tongue, serbo-croat, radi cega (what for) and zbog cega (because of what) are detailed versions of why (zasto) question. Leibniz asked the famous question in German: Warum ist überhaupt etwas2? Heidegger’s amplification sounded like this: Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts²? Warum comes from old German wär umbe (wo (where) and um (in order to, around) (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/warum). French translation is „Pourquoi il y a plutôt quelque chose que rien?“⁵ where «pourquoi” means literrally «what for». This long digression comes to accentuate different etymology and different meaning in different languages, different contexts and different syntaxes. Claiming that warum (why) is more important than überhaupt (at all, in general, overall) sounds as another rational choice of the author. Differentiating causation from purpose is important but the accent could have been given on overall (in general) which does not necessary includes the outliers. Similarly, for Heidegger’s modification: why beings at all and not only more of nothing, could be analyzed from the angle of more of nothing versus one (nothing, as opposite to one being or more beings).

However, the adverb why includes the temporal dimension. Drob does not devote enough of his writings to this aspect which could be expected since he writes in the following pages about the privileges of temporal order. Why implies that two events do not share same temporal coordinates, one thing precedes another. Even in mathematical terms: 11 + 11 = 22, the operation comes before the result (from the human brain angle, in atemporal and a-moral sense they are Abelian groups).

One remark: the example with the bus to Florida – it seems that the “how” and “why” got mixed unless there would be an answer: “Because buses to Florida exist” which would imply that being possible is reason per se without saying why exactly to Florida and not somewhere on the way to it. In parallel, the answer is product of concrete thinking, the answerer either is not able to use the abstract thinking or consciously manipulates the answer. In any case it is not the appropriate example of adult abstract thinking. Only a being with abstract thinking capacities (thinking about linear time included) can answer to this “why”.

Another note: There is interesting fans’ theory on Adams’42. In program language ASCII, the asterix is represented as 101010, or 42 and the asterix means different things for different people, like joker in cards or like “whatever you want it to be”. Adams never confirmed this but I feel there is a tiny place for this story in this review.

I will add a few lines to the interesting Drob’s discussion on the God hypothesis. God needs sentient beings in order to incarnate itself. What does it mean? Can we see God as an object of its own evolution, God as dynamic process, God who survive through changes (inner or outer), God as vulnerable in linear time? In Jungian analytical language this could be translated: is there an individuation of Self? Or is linear (Chronos) time-bound Self only a facet of The Self? 

1.3

I like the start of thought experiment by postulating that “nonexistent x can be a condition or foundation for existence”. This is quite analogous to the transformation of inorganic material into organic life. I wonder if we tackle here alchemist transformation. Nonexistent/not alive needs “electric charge” or “conjugation/coagulation” to become existent/alive. In modern cosmology, we can associate to the entropy jump. This jump, does it happen spontaneously/progressively? Is catalyzed by some additional agent?

If we follow the same analogy, does linear time starts existing from the moment we measure it or it has its objective existence? Or is linear time the effect of (one or many, primordial or later) entropy jump or time is related to the catalyzer of the entropy jump? Drob’s thoughts on this are welcome.

2.1

In the cartographic analogy, I would disagree with Drob. Indeed, his conclusions are valid when he writes “these gaps represent “nothing whatsoeves” as they have no interpretation within the map”. What he does not accentuate is the necessity of these gaps. Their exact distribution, abundance and form are not important (they do not exist as such), but their approximative existence is necessary to make the globe round. This reflects the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: exact places are not defined but there is a cloud of their possibilities. 

2.2

In this section before we can claim anything, we need to define our own existence or at least the limits of our knowledge about our existence. It seems that Drob chooses some of our reality manifestations as hypotheses and some other as facts/axioms. Although he does fine job with discussing the most of them it is not always clear why some terms are worth of explaining and the other are taken per se.

Drob cites Leslie who argues about the potential in the emptiness as pre-existence. I cannot omit the comparison with Jungian theory of archetypes⁶. In addition, I wonder why there are no citations or remarks of Jung’s heritage on this topic. His extensive and systematic studies on Plato, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, European mysticism and alchemists (and from 1929 on the oriental culture and religion) are profound well of knowledge about the preexisting ideas, the concept of eidos Platonian and its application in the study of human psyche⁷. Even more, in his seminal publications, Jung insists on the difference between archetypes and archetypal representations/images. “Leslie calls such pre-existent facts, i.e., facts that hold regardless of whether anything has existed, does exist, or will ever exist, “synthetic necessities.” They are not “logical” or “mathematical truths” as they require some form of at least hypothetical experience to secure their validity—but they are necessities, nonetheless.” – these lines fit well with numerous definitions of archetypes by Jung⁸.

The following sentence “Even in a blank, it would still be true that if there were a world it would be good for it to manifest love, beauty, wisdom, etc.” is subjective opinion. Surely, as human beings, we tend to support this line of thinking but the declarations on what is good and what is not, are dependent on the claimer’s position, context, history, aims. History thought us cruelly that good intentions are far from good realizations. 

2.3

Similarly, Drob argues that “we cannot conceive of a universe where the values of truth, compassion, beauty, freedom, and wisdom are vitiated “. I do not understand what are the bases for this statement. Does Drob talk about social values or natural values? I wish to ask, making me imagine the second slide of the psychopharmacological power-point presentations, what are his conflicts of interest.  Here, it is irrelevant to what religious, spiritual or philosophical tendencies he adheres, but it is essential to accentuate that our ethics is based on our ecosystem and our linear time. It would pretentious to be sure what are good (or any) intentions of Others if there is no empathy (in the sense of seeing the world from entirety of other’s being) for different Other.

For example, if we had lived on the planet that has very limited resources maybe religion would have been replaced by the scientific explanations, and what is wrong or what is good would be expressed in the statistics relevant to the survival of the species?

2.4

The author’s illustration of his claims reminds me on James Hillman’s “Soul’s Code”⁹ hypotheses. However, it is not taking in account the psychological marshmallow test¹⁰. I have always wondered if this test would be replicable in different cultures, especially in societies with ongoing wars, poverty or environmental crises (or where these factors changed significantly during the longitudinal study). Playing safe versus risking is dependent on many factors. Therefore, the potential is differently actualized depending on time (Chronos and Käiros time; linear and opportune now time). If we put this into to cosmological perspective, Now is not equal to Atemporality and is function on linear time (dependent in the sense that Kaïros is the crossover of Atemporality and Chronos). The value of Now is that it is actualized. The attention of atemporality is focused on it. But does this Now has potential of End, or just “pre-beginning” had it? Or in Hillmanian terms, does archetype contain and/or overwhelm all possible outcomes of its actualization?

Teilhard’s Omega¹¹ principle “privileges” Omega in front of Alpha. Indeed, paying the same respect to all “letters from alpha to omega” sounds more in concordance with the red thread of this paper.

2.5

Here, I would be grateful for the author’s differentiation between the values and archetypes. I believe that he refers to archetypes while anthropomorphizing them and focusing only on human moral aspects.

Drob’s accentuates linear time (one I call in this review Chronos, in concordance with Ancient Greek perspective on different times) – however I am wondering if Kaïros (or Kaïros x Chronos) would be more appropriate.

I am not sure if this hierarchy or dualism (mathematical/scientific facts versus moral/aesthetics values) is necessary. Why (again one why, here clearly in the sense where from) the writer of these lines separates fundamentally these representations? And speaking of representations vs. potentials, does Drob think that the idea (potential, eidos) of time exists in the Atemporal? 

In Taoism, there is a verse: “We shape clay into a pot, but it is the emptiness inside that holds whatever we want”¹². Emptiness gives the purpose. Maybe archetypes are axes (just like geometry coordinate systems axes, no matter here how many axes there are) used to be “filled” with values. Nothing does exist in this situation so Leibniz’s question loses meaning because Nothing is something. However, for the sake of not “playing smart” in front of great minds of Heidegger and Leibniz, let us stay with nothingness. Can we differentiate static nothingness and dynamic nothingness? Static would be absolute absence of entropy, of movement, of time, ultimate individuality. Dynamic would be nothingness that it (overall – überhaupt) nothing in its totality, but is composed of dynamic game of appearing and disappearing. Appearances and anti-appearances (sounding as antimatter? or as spectrum of archetype differing in frequency, amplitudes, parity) make duality, duality makes movement and tim. Time could exist only collectively, in duality. If we look through Drob’s paper’s prism: the origin of universe is value with potential of incarnation. 

3.1

After all being written, Drob comes back to reason (spirit, mind) and I wonder why is necessary to promote one above another. Rather, I would suggest based on very nice paragraph on Hegel, that macroworld is not the consequence of the microworld (quantum reality) but they are intertwined through their parallel existence, duality and time dimensions. The author hypothesizes that mind without values is unreachable, but he doesn’t explore the opposite. Values without mind are not actualized. They are part of the same but not being equal to same gives them possibility of movement.

Since we tackle panpsychism, it is worth of accentuating that it does not mean equal distribution of (un)consciousness but its equal total sum.

When talking about values, Drob insists only on moral categories. In my opinion, it is more various than this, and, probably, it is connected to the interaction of two individual entities plus time. If two, let us imagine, elementary primordial virtual particles (annihilating in any moment when they are in contact with their counter-particle) “meet”, they can have interactions that we can symbolically name or associates to human languages terms such as: mother, separation, division, comparison, bigger, provenance, solidarity etc. (in fact all that those elementary particles can do one to another).

I would be happy to hear how Drob differentiates value from information. New information which comes as surprise is known as entropy¹³ – can we claim the same for values. What is relationship between values and entropy? Is entropy related to the amplitudes or other parameters of values?

Following the McGilchrist’s studies on attention, Drob concludes that “attention directed by “value” causes the cosmos to appear as cosmos”, adding the causation to purpose of values in the existence of Uni/Multiverse. However, attention happens when Chronos gets its opportunity (its opportune moment Kaïros). Maybe universe exists because 0 (nothingness) is individuality and individuality gives rise to duality (0 is 1, 1 is 2, cf. Maria’s axiom¹⁴).

3.2

I am not enough familial to Leslie’s work, so why “shouldness” and not “couldness”? It seems that we leave the potentiality and we orientate toward predestination; in other words, free will is not dual with destiny.

3.3

It is not clear if many (or all) values are engaged at the same time, and if that impacts the outcome, as well what is the relationship of different values. Drob comes back in this short paragraph which could (not to say should) be more elaborated to the “freedom” of potential (again could/should). If something is potentially possible, is it “obligatory” to act on it and if so, are we again in the cartographic metaphor (or taoistic bowl) where the form is various but purpose is stable?

In my view, combinations of values make time and incarnate those values, thus values are on and off and only their relationship/communication/contact/awareness make them exist. In other words, Existence is (an)Other with me. Previously mentioned Shouldness allows the movement and what is hortatory is the keeping the sum neutral (therefore Evil and Good, as Drob simplifies, are both in the spectrum of Same).

The last sentence of this paragraph: “… the universe, indeed the entirety of existence, is conditioned by the general principle that provides the reason for its existence, the potential maximal realization and development of value in each of its multifarious forms” comes after the analogy with human life making me perplexed about the author’s view on the end of Uni/Multiverse. Does he suggest end of values or their Completeness?

4.1

As much I have enjoyed with Drob’s concept of open teleology, the section on Evil brings one too anthropomorphizing view on the universe, which is not necessary in this paper, except if for spiritual/religious reasons. The gnostic concept of Pleroma gives quite satisfying response to this query. Mixing the Good of Plato with moral good seems too weak analogy, as ethics and axiology are not the same disciplines.

It is difficult not to make references to the excellent book of Jung “Response to Job”¹⁵ which is dedicated to these questions, especially to limits et risks du principle privatio boni.

The author writes: “This claim does not require our world to be perfectly or even largely good, only that it be, as we have seen, an arena within which value and meaning can be realized and maximized.” Again, the word maximized seem to be correlated with his intrinsic (and definitely highly recommendable in our world) system of values. However, the universe, even if considers panpsychic, is not necessarily habited by only sentient beings in the form of human (and even if this would be true, the place on the top of the ethical pyramid does not seem to belong to homo sapiens). Why not instead of maximize aim to right measure and right tensions?

Similar goes for the elaboration on death. Why not aiming to harmony, compensation and alliance with Chronos? Too much of anything (even with + as is prefix) is not the same as good. Right measure has some breaks buttons.

4.2

Here again there is a rigid binarity: good versus evil (it would be interesting TV debate between one mother lion and one old antelope). I am surprised that questions of justice (fairness) and justice (accuracy) (in French justice and justesse) are not having some space that would be appropriate in this paragraph.

In. the same direction, I am wondering if there is a bias that something means better than nothing. Something is maybe only a visible part of All? Maybe the fluctuations and danse of nothing constitutes the dark matter? Maybe the fact that in this universe it seems that we are matter and not the antimatter does not give a bad name to the antimatter.

Again, I am not sure from what position Drob claims that death is disvalue. This looks as bias of individual versus collective. Death is part of collective process which we do not like on an individual level, but again we cannot privilege one without giving space to not one.

4.3

There is one very nice and highly complicated paper by Lahav and Neemeh¹⁶, in which they mathematically defend the hypothesis that the designer/higher consciousness is not viable idea since it makes fail the zombie paradox.

In this paragraph I miss a bit of discussion on relationship between entropy and enthalpy in big (open or not?) systems. I value (pun intended) panpsychism hypothesis and for that reason (as here I am biased) it could give it a favor to observe it through the lenses of the economics of entire system (uni/multiverse).

4.4

Drob let us think that sentient beings (and we take ourselves as their representatives) are holders of values. Here I do not find very strong arguments in favor of anthropomorphism. I do not think that it puts in the peril the Drob’s major take home message. The answer and the question are related but why discarding different ecosystems or different forms of (un)consciousness (sky objects, fluctuations of particles, different life forms)?

5.1

Answer is the fact that we (whoever we is) are capable of asking the Question.

Nevertheless, can we allow different means of asking (without words)? And is it possible that only more than one is needed to “ask”? One and only cannot reach this dilemma? (And again, one is two, as in the Axiom of Marie¹⁴). When (while accepting all time dimensions spectrum of this word) is enough of asking-answering?

5.2

Drob finishes with Wittgenstein’s advice on human remaining silent in the great mystical arena – can we add: with capacity of naming (asking)?

In conclusion, this paper stimulates. Drob’s thoughts and dilemmas are contagious. They contribute to this exciting domain. Capacity to ask, capacity to value, or if I can paraphrase, capacity to react to beauty maybe created uni/multiverse but certainly can save the world.

References:

1 Drob S., Why Existence? An Explanation with No Remainder, Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Article, May 22, 2023 

2 Muck, Warum ist überhaupt etwas?, in: Der Glaube der Christen. Ein ökumenisches Handbuch Bd.I, Hg. von Biser, Hahn, Langer. München Stuttgart – Pattloch/Calwer 1999, 217-237. https://www.uibk.ac.at/philtheol/muck/publ/warum_ist.pdf, consultes on June 11th 2023

3. Jung, C.-G., Psychological Types, CW6, pp. 429

4 https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/definitionlookup?type=begin&q=why&target=greek, consulted on June 11^th 2023

5 Prinzipien der Natur und der Gnade n.7, Gerhardt VI, 602

6 Jung, C.-G., Dialectique du Moi et de l’inconscient, Gallimard, Paris, 1964, coll. Folio essais, 1986, trad. de Die Beziehungen  zwischen dem Ich und dem Unbewussten , Rascher, Zurich, 1933, par le Docteur Roland Cahen – G.W. VII, 287 p.

7 Delaigue C., Jung et la métaphysique : entre être et non-être, Revue de Psychologie Analytique 2014/1 (n° 3), pages 135 à 149

8 https://www.cgjung.net/espace/cg-jung/archetypes/, consulted on June 12^th 2023

9 Hillman, J., The Soul’s Code: In Search of Character and Calling, Paperback – August 1, 2017

10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment, consulted on June the 10^th 2023

11 Castillo, M., The Omega Point and Beyond: The Singularity Event, American Journal of Neuroradiology March 2012, 33 (3) 393-395

12 Lao Tseu, Tao Te King, Synchronique, Sagesse poche, 2022, ch. 11

13 Gray, R.M., Entropy and Information Theory, First Edition, Corrected, Stanford University

Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000

14 Jung, C.-G., CW 16, p.207, par. 404

15 Jung, C.-G., Réponse à Job, Buchet-Chastel, 2009

16 Lahav N., Neemeh, Z.A:, A Relativistic Theory of Consciousness, Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2022)

Review

Jun 12, 2023

Qeios ID: 2UZGCY

Open Access

CC BY

https://doi.org/10.32388/2UZGCY

Nulti – Eden:

U Rajskom vrtu nema trzavica. Čini se da nema žrtvi, da nema agresija, da je nepotrebno biti spašen. Trougao je ignorisan. Možda i postoji, ali je nevidljiv. Nevino je i nežno, ali, zapravo, vidi se samo ono što je lepo. Moguća je patnja od strane onih van Rajskog vrta, čak i od strane stanovnika Rajskog vrta, ali to ne dopire do Svesnog.

Prvi – zmijski ujed:

Desi se okidač. Svet se umeša. Ili se umešamo u svet. Nepravda se desi. Harmonija sklizne i trougao se aktivira. Neko se povredi, a neko povredi i neko to vidi, pa želi da nešto uradi po tom pitanju. Ukoliko se sve ovo ponavlja i desi relativno rano, ponekad se zacementira u ulozi – ponekad-žrtva se identifikuje sa stalnom-žrtvom, slićno je i sa ostalima. Žrtva ne voli da je žrtva, ali oseća nepravdu te pozicije i ne menja je, jer čeka da se prepozna od strane drugih šta joj se čini. Agresor nije uvek svestan da je agresor. Žrtva-agresor je deo istog kontinuuma. Ukoliko je Agresor svesno upao u zamku i biti agresor je jedini način preživljavanja, neće biti motivisan da sklizne u žrtvu. Spasilac je najkomplikovaniji, jer je najmanje motivisan da promeni svoju ulogu. Ona je altruistična, korisna i dobro viđena od strane drugih. Takođe, spasilac ne vidi da je deo trougla koji samim postojanjem jednog ugla povlači nastajanje druga dva. drugim rečima, Spasilac da bi bio spasilac i kada nema problema nalazi žrtvu i agresora. Slično je i za druga dva entiteta.

Drugi – svet je kriv:

Trougao je nastao, mi smo se našli u ulozi i projektujemo druge dve na ostatak sveta. Ponekad su to projekcije na konkretne osobe, ponekad na društvo ili pojave. U svakom slučaju, mi smo intergrisano – celo biće koje se obojilo bojama jednog tima i vidimo oko sebe sve u spektru boja učesnika igara. Postoje i neki drugi, ali su bezbojno. Takođe, i mi imamo množda više tih trouglova aktiviranih u isto vreme, ali najčešće je jedan onaj prvi i najbolniji.

Treći – terapijski:

Ovde se neko javi na terapiju, ili se ne javi, ali ga životne okolnosti nateraju da se preispita validnost i trajanje svoje uloge i boja svog tima. Ovo može biti veliki skok u procesu individuacije, ali takođe može biti opcija nastavka penjanja po merdevinama individuacije ili ostanak, pa i potonuće u regresiju ii status kvo. Mnogima se treća faza nikada ne desi.

U trećoj fazi, počinje da se pounutrašnjava trougao. Pronalaze se delovi spasioca, žrtve i agresora u sebi. Ja se ne vidi kao intergrisani entitet koji celokupan uleteo u ulogu već kao različiti delovi sa različitim ciljevima, strategijama i načinima prilagođavanja svetu. U terapiji se polagano (i držeći za ruku terapeuta, ali bez uvlačenja njega ili nje u trougao – ukoiko se to oseti, o tme se priča otvoreno) šeta između celokupnog Ja i svih tih trouglića i delova trouglića Ja. Namera ovog postupka je da se razmrsi, osnaži, utka i ponovo isprelete (ali uz svesnost) ja sa sa svim svojim delovima.

Četvrti – jedan drukčiji vrt:

Ponovo smo na početku, ai nismo. Kada se terapija ustalila i Ja se konsolidovalo, vraća se u svet koji se više ne ignoriše. Postoje zmije, ujedi i disharmonije. trouglovi se uočavaju, anticipriaju se moguće reakcija ukoliko s epomalo sklizne, ali sveukupno vidi se šta se dešava i šta više nije neophodno za nastavak svesnog i harmoničnog života. Trouglovi postoje, ne ignorišu se, ali se ne upada u njig. Ne uzimaju se boje njegovog tima, ostaje se bezbojan iz ugla trougla, ali rajski šaren iz ugla osnaženog Ja.

Lakše štitimo ono što je naše. Naravno, ne mislim ovde na posesivnost i objektivno pripadanje, već naše u smislu nečega što prepoznajemo, sa čim moćemo da se povežemo. Antropomorfiziramo planetu, životinje, oblake, istorijske periode, grupe – dajemo naše obličje nečem što nije Ja kako bi bio nešto kao Ja.

I kada je već tako, zašto ne bismo to iskoristili u nešto korisno? Ako nam je potrebno da se identificiramo kako bismo voleli (projekcija na kojoj počiva zaljubljivanje i udruženost), zašto se ne identifikujemo više sa Zemljom, na primer? Ukoliko je, zbilja, doživljavamo kao deo Nas, možda ćemo je i voleti i, samim tim, štititi više? Zvuči jednostavno, ali nije, jer ni ljudska bića nisu jednostavna. Ni kada se volimo (sami sebe) nije baš da se volimo (videti pod ljubav je i volenje i ne volenje, slobodan izbor nevolenja kako bismo se prepustili volenju). A sami prema sebi imamo kompleksna osećanja. I to u pravom smislu reči kompleksna – naša Psiha sazdana je od kompleksa, nekih malih univerzalnih jezgra (koje postoje od početka života, ako ne i pre) okruženih i osnaženih psihičkom energijom. Dakle, ako pođemo od samoljubavi koja nije uvek sasvim jasna u svom polaritetu i na to se nadovežemo shodnoj ambivalentnosti samozaštite, sasvim je jasno da već sami sa sobom nismo uvek u akciji samospašavanja. Kako da zaštitimo ljudski rod na Zemlji, ili biosferu ili sve ono što je još manje Ja kad nismo uvek toleratni prema svim delovima Sebe?

Živimo, tako, jedan način života. I, onda, nešto se desi: pubertet, kriza, veliko otrkiće, bolest. I desi se mogućnost druge vrste života. Nekada se samo prebacimo, a nekad odbijemo promenu. A najčešće dugo osciliramo. Idemo od prošlog i sigurnog (čak i ako nepovoljnog) ka rizičnom novom koje nas vuče i zavodi. I, kao binarni kod, ili jedan ili nula. Sredina je teško ostvariva. No, nekad radimo na sebi ili smo već imali iskustva i uvide i krenemo razumno ka sredini, čak iako boli. Ipak, sredina nije dovoljna. Između A i C je B ukoliko smo u jednodimenzionalnom svetu. A nismo. Sredina je više od jedne tačke. ona je prostor, osovina i nova dimenzija. U sredini ima više opcija. Zato kompromisi nisu dovoljni niti pragmatična rešenja. Ona mogu da donesu neku vrstu socijalno shvaćene pravde ili, barem, zadovoljenja ega. Ipak, ono što tražimo je nešto mnogo ličnije. I za to je neophodno se setiti da crno i belo nisu boje. Boje su ono što je između njih i nije isto što i one.

A šta ako starimo ne samo. jer nam je genetski materijal ishaban ili ćelije sve manje dobro reprodukovane, već i zato što se troše nemilice i naše emocije? A šat ako brže starimo čto smo više protiv sebe, nekoherentni sa sobom? Ako se pretvaramo da smo dobri, a Senka je razuzdana? Ili ako projektujemo na Druge ono što osećamo da je naše? Nekada su mehanizmi odbrane duboko nesvesni. I tada smo nekoherentni (ukoliko posmatramo sve delove nas samih i njihovu povezanost), ali svest drži vrata dovoljno zatvorenim da nema previše „međusveta“, previše „onoga između crno-belog“. Ali kad se svest pomoli, jabuka zagrize ili, bar zamiriše, kada proces entropije krene i ništa više nije kao pre – svest počne mnogo (i to mnogo skupo po nas) da radi na prekrivanju promene i održavanju zatvorenih vrata koja se sve manje pristaju da budu zatvorena. Tada počinje nekoherentnost. I ona haba.

Taloži se mnogo toga u našim međusinaptičkim komunikacijama. I ide na sve strane. I nije složeno. I nekada ne može, a trudimo se da složimo. Idmeo protiv entropije. A ta bitka je nemoguća u ovom univerzumu.

Ili, drugim rečima: moći ubiti unutrašnjeg roditelja da bi se živelo i da bi se imao izbor, a onda, kada je ta mogućnost ne-tabu, ipak ga(ih) ne ubiti.

Šta to, zapravo, znači? Svi mi imamo roditelje, i ako ih ne poznajemo, i ako su donori i ako su totalni stranci oni koji su dali biološki materijal, a neko drugi je dao roditeljsku ljubav – ipak, svi mi potičemo od negde. I to poticanje je arhetipsko. Ideja poticanja, da je nešto bilo pre mene i od te gradivne materije sam sagrađena i Ja, to je ta arhetipska nit koja nas povezuje sa pretkom-roditeljem-stvaraocem. Imamo neku reprezentaciju o tome. Od nečega smo napravljeni. To nešto je neorgansko („zvezdana prašina“), organsko (ćelije, hromozomi, DNK); dalje (vekovima i milenijumima dalje) ili bliže (naš konkretni roditelj). Ta reprezentacija je ili sazdana na pravom roditelju, ili na idealu-fantaziji, na raznim modelima koje smo susretali u detinjstvu. Ima nečeg linearnog o tome: idemo od pre prema kasnije. Naučna fantastika voli da se poigrava sa kolapsom linearnosti – naš potomak se vrati prošlost i postane naš predak – DNK budućnosti i prošlosti se mešaju. Te petlje se u SF-u, uglavnom, loše završavaju (veoma uspeo primer u nemačkoj seriji „Dark“).

Dakle, nešto od pre je napravilo nas od sad. To nešto što nas je napravilo je linearno-hijerahijski superiorno – naravno, ne u smislu da je superiorno (deca, a i njihovi roditelji bi trebalo da teže da su ime deca superiornija od njih, da su više naučila, da se bolje adaptirana i da streme novom i kompletnijem…) etički ili kognitivno, već ima tu neku moć dužeg postojanja. I to jezgro, sačinjeno od arhetipskih umreženih niti ideje roditelja, se osnaži, oboji, pa i kontaminira energijom. Radi se o psihičkoj energiji, a adekvatna analogija bi bila svetlost, to jest njen spektar od tamnoće do sjaja. Sve zajedno čini kompleks unutrašnjeg roditelja (uopšteno, oca i majke). I taj kompleks kada kada se aktivira (traumatizmi, uspomene, produženi stres) može da gura Ego – da ga suzbija, da ga teroriše (uz Senkinu pomoć), da guši, da prekriva. Može i da bude koristan, konstruktivan, glas razuma ili sistematskijeh pogleda na situaciju. Kompleksi su korisni kada služe Egu, a ne kada ga sabotiraju.

Kada unutrašnji roditelj počne da pravi intrige, možemo se lako osećati krivim, nedostojnim, inferiornim, posramljenim, glupim, izgubljenim ili besnim. Teško ga je nazvati pravim imenom, ali se borimo protiv i poželimo često da ga nema – toliko da bismo ga ubili. A ta ideja o „ubistvu“ pravi petlju: ubijanjem njega, ubijamo i sebe, svoje psotojanje i, plus, osećamo se još krivljim. Čak i kada se osećamo da bismo da se otarasimo tog dela sebe, teško ćemo nazvati na oce-majko-ubilačke porive u sebi pravim imenom (naravno, radi se o unutrašnjoj majci i unutrašnjem ocu, čak i kad imamo sasvim žive roditelje koji nas stvarno nerviraju). Ne da nam se da se, zbilja, suočimo sa tim što je u nama – a to je jedino pto nam može pomoći. Da, možda nekada i želimo da sve to uništimo i to je tako i nema tabua i nismo loše osobe ako o tome mislimo. Tek onda je moguće se postaviti pitanje – ali da li bismo starno tako nešto bili kadri, sve i da možemo, da učinimo. I tu je caka. Moći bez krivice i spontano se odreću te realizacije, ne jer ne možemo, već jer biramo da ne učinimo, jer mi smo kompletniji-zreliji od toga što nas čini da patimo. Agresor u sebi se ne razoružava žrtvovanjem i stavljanjem u uloge žrtve, ni agresovanjem agresora već – izlaskom iz tog trougla, obustvaljanjem te opasne „igre“.

I pri površnim čitanjima ekolpke literature lako i relativno brzo se stiže do koncepata (i realnosti) devet planetarnih limita. To su one krajnje granice koje se ne mogu preći – inače nema spasa ljudskoj vrsti.

Ovo su planetarni limiti i njihovo trenutno stanje (https://aplanet.org/resources/the-current-status-of-earths-nine-planetary-boundaries/):

• acidifikacija okeana
• nestajanje stratosferskog ozona (trenutno sa zdrave strane, ali je bio ograman rizik devedestih)
• klimatske promene (premašen od 1990-e)
• atmosfersko zagađenje (aerosolske čestice) (teško za utvrđivanje, još nema jasnih tehnika za merenje)
• smanjenje biodiverziteta (od 2009-e limit je premašen)
• korišćenje sveže slatke vode (još uvek nije pređen)
• biogeohemijski gubici (primene u ciklusu fosfora i azota)(od 2009-e limit je premašen)
• deforestacija i smanjenje prirodnih resursa (premašeno negde oko 2005-e)
• hemijsko zagađenje (prešlo na tamnu stranu 2022-e)

Očito je da su problemi veliki i da smo mi sami svoji uništivači. Samo naše postojanje ubrzava naše nestajanje.

Previše žurimo i premalo smo solidarni. Uvek smo u stanju odbrane. Svaki Drugi je potencijalni agresor. Možemo li da izađemo iz tog paklenog trougla? Da ne budemo ni žrtve, ni agresori i spasioci? Da nema zločina, ili bolje reći da se zločin, ukoliko se desi, kazni, ali da mu se ne daje pažnja. Trenutno smo u iščekivanju stresa, kolapsa, problema i sve to nam daje neki doživljaj moći . paradoksalne moći. Svi smo žrtve koje znaju da su žrtve ito znanje se probraćuje u nekakvu kontrolu. Sama kazna, sam zločin se ponavlja, analizira, obrađuje, daje mu se status nečeg bitnog i on to postaje. Kada nema agresora, žrtva ga izmišlja; kada nema žrtve, spasilac je nameće; akcije agresora su same po sebi jasne. Zločin je ono što im daje ulogu, smisao i značaj. A zločin je veliki: saoubijamo se (a i ubijamo tim aktom druge). Igramo stalno iste uloge. Neki od nas se bore protiv, neki se prave silni, ostali se gube. A kada bi se umesto trougla napravio jedan lepi krug – solidarnost. Zvuči utopijski, naravno. niko ne želi da izgubi svoju ulogu, jer bez nje ili ne postoji ili ne zna kako dalje. Solidarnost je i dosadna – treba upotpuniti slobodno vreme nečim što nije uko bivstvovanje. Svima je potrebna apokalipsa iz različitih razloga. I tu bismo, bar, mogli da se nađemo – u tom trouglu koji bi se već napokon mogao nazvati pravim imenom, transformisati i nešto obliju strukturu i samim tim izglačati granice među nama. Bez njih je teško, ali smo bar živi. I oni posle nas. Možda to nije dovoljna motivacija? Možda bi bila bolja kada bi ta solidarnost dovela do usporavanja vremena – naravno ne Chronos vremena, već napeg doživljaja, ovog užasnog trčanja za nečim. Možda bi svet bez trougao-uloga imao nešto nežniji odnos prema subjektivnom vremenom? Za vreme se, možda, vredi boriti – ima nečeg ljudski egoističnog u toj borbi.