Consciousness
Having it and understanding it are very different things!
We’ve all got it but no one has any idea what makes it or how.
Over the years I’ve made maybe 10 or more films about consciousness in one respect or another. It’s such an endlessly fascinating subject and one about which so many books have been written. The first time I tackled it was a series of 3 films for Channel 4 called Brainspotting. It was to be presented by the inimitable Ken Campbell. I wanted to see if the audience would accept a serious science series but presented by a fictional character rather than a real person. So I wrote a character for Ken who had his brain in a fish tank and kept in contact with it by phone. Ken was his customary and delightfully anarchic self and, as far as I could tell, loved the part. We certainly had a lot of fun. Our only disagreement was when I found Ken had fitted a tangerine to the top of his head with a spring and a kitchen plunger, in preparation for an interview with Richard Dawkins. I made him take it off. Ken was outraged. “How could I be so timidly and boringly conventional?” he wanted to know. I told him Dawkins wouldn’t even let us in the door, let alone agree to an interview if Ken turned up with a wobbling tangerine on a spring, stuck to his head.
Ken grumpily agreed but got his revenge. He pressed Dawkins about plants having opinions. We were turfed out. Ken was happy. He grinned in triumph. I grinned back and bided my time. The game, by mutual consent, had been on from the start. He was the master of weird. I was an enthusiastic beginner. But I got him back when he was out weirded in an interview with John Lilly. The whole thing was great fun.
Anyway, this is me and Ian having a chat about Consciousness. We barely scratch the surface of course. I think it would be fun to come back and get further into some of the real weirdness of consciousness, self awareness, the self.
The term 'collective conscious' is probably derived from its source 'collective UNconscious', made up by CG Jung over a century ago during the first world war.
Its not clear if the derivation is an 'accidental' coincidence or curiously a 'meaningful' one. It's curious because a meaningful coincidence is how Jung termed a 'synchronicity'. So it was not a mistake when the term was used incorrectly. But it was done with meaning. While the purveyor was unconscious of doing it. This is not to make a mockery of people using the term. On the contrary, it is to pay close attention to what was actually going on in its use. Users are pointing at something very real and very important, but do not have the language to describe it. Its kind of 'forbidden' to talk about it directly. We knows something is happening but are unable to say it. Except in our dreams.
Look in the mirror: What the collective unconscious means, is the possibility of a powerful universal force which emerges within large formations of people or a 'great masse'. Yet this power is not aware of itself. It is unconscious. Nevertheless it acts. And with impunity which is often seen in its devastating effects with the result being people everywhere saying how unfair it all is and it must be blamed on someone. All but the self must be blamed at all costs and talking shops crop up everywhere and are highly respected. But what is this 'self'.
The whole conditions the parts. We're taught from the start we are all individuals. And this has to be beaten out of us until we capitulate. By our parents no less. Until, we believe that instead, the parts condition the whole. And we're left with the terrible mistake we call social organisation. With society now doing the beating.
I think this all came out quite nicely during your dialogue today. With David alluding to an unconscious activity.
What better exposition do we have of the archetypes we see in our dreams pointing right at this powerful force? Brexit, Trump Delusion Sydrome, the plandemic? Ukraine(or Russians are aliens so we are allowed to kill them)? jew hatred, transmania, white supremacy prejudice, climate change fanaticism? All are archetypes upholding this force, unaware of itself, causing great harm with impunity.
Not by individuals acting as its so tempting to try and believe. I can blame 'them' for all the worlds problems so easily right? But as a large masse forms and gains power, it develops a life of its own. And acts as a whole, without the parts needing to be forced, educated, bribed or blackmailed. We all take part from the enfolded whole, unaware of the activity. The whole conditions the parts.
The beauty of this theory is it undermines the popular two 1) that wealth and power are not that smart and make a lot of silly mistakes 2) or, that theres a conspiracy, breathing together in a high castle somewhere, to take over the world and enslave us. Its beautiful because its a more rational third way which so much more plausibly describes cause and effect.
You should listen to Jiddu Krishnamurti who was not only fascinating to relate against these questions. But entertaining too for making so many philosophers look so obviously like the idiots they are. You can cite me as being a primary exposition. I'd take that because I can update my CV with philosopher. I'm already jokingly called an amateur economist but know more about it than a professor. I'm virtually unemployable. :)
And I quote: "As modern humans go through their process of individuation, moving out of the collective unconscious into mature selves, they establish a persona—which can be understood simply as that small portion of the collective psyche which they embody, perform, and identify with"
https://www.northstokelife.com/2024/06/the-term-collective-unconscious.html