The Axis power.
Perhaps one of the most curious and dangerous things about being a human is the way we cope with (and carfully nuture) or grundegs. Firstly it is of course obvous that most worries and anxieties pre-exist the reasons which we give them (and which may or may not be the reak ones). Without specualating on the existence of real deep underlying reasons – it is eay to see that emotions work on a different set of criterior to the conscious mind 0 a criteria all of their own – and of which we are only vaguely aware. There is then no real reason for any sort of overlap beween these two forces in the mind – that is the forces of what we call us – our own awareness of ourselves as ourselves- and that of emotions. And in this the danger really lies. It we find it impossible as a human being to let emotions as emotions. He deman there just must be a reason for that feeling. Now this may or may not be true (I ctually confess myself agnositic on this one) but wthjat is true is that if there is such a reason it might not be easily expressible in the simple lagauage of cause and affect that was established to understnd a wholely different set of circumstances. We are lef then with the slightly idiotic situation where we have to explain an emotion using tools that are utterly incapabple of doing so.
To this situation I guess there ae two easy common responses. The first might be called the religious (but is also the psychoanalytic) resonse. That I we face up to th full cpomplexity of this situation and try to devise a languge system (whether it is spititualism or the unconscious) that is capable of experessing not just our feelings but the profound (and perhaps absolutely meaningless) distjunction we feel between these feelings and our ‘conscious mind’. Even is this mystery in answerable at least we thereby face it as a mystery (and perhaps even the central mystery) of being a human. This is of course a venerabl and creditable response. There is however a second and far less worthy way of inding a set of reasons. One could assume that those reasons are genuinely in the world – that something or somebody somewhere is giving one reasons to feel the way that we do. The problem with this is of course that firstly that someone is unlikely to be throught of as you. The very set up of a mismatch of oneself from oneself sets up a sistuation that makes it feel that what is occurring just must be external to oineself. If oneself is ruled out the problem becomes even more complex. The point after all of the set up is that there is a dijuction within our minds between what we feel nd what we think. It is then this disjunction that need to be explained. Any cause will then have tpo be capapbe of ‘riding’ thuis disjunction – or expressing hat ois essentially inexpressible. How can one then expres the inexpressible. ? the proble of being a human lies in the fact tht this is depressingly easy. One expreses the inexpressible by running together unlinked and separate elements in the world – and hypothsizing a link between then – a link that is actually unaticualted and unexpressible – but which the is tangible (through th pre=existing feeling) on the less. In short one invents a could and over arching predjudice, that is a way or expressing the inexpressible through warping ones understanding of what the world consisted in. Faced with the need for intangible causes one invents a world in which intangible forces can come to play.
The problem then of course is that these prejudices refuse to simply lie passively in the mind – but rater invraibly wi;ll gt a life of their own – an life that is beyond any human being that actually has then (or at least and right angles to them) and creates all kind of new problems, all of which revolve around the fact that a good predjudice is so terribly sticky. In mean that a good prejudice created from a good disjuction in the soul actually ‘looks’ for oher elements within it – other things that an be expressed trhough it. Disjunction seem to tend to fuse together in ever greater wholes. There are several reasons for this. Furstly I suspect that given that hat created the prejudice was a disjuction in the firstl place- there simply – that is tjere can be no logical limit to what one says is part of it – and what one does not. How could there be when the entire process is set up against logic? Hiow could there then be any way to limit it spread? Seconldy it is clear that dusjuction themselves have a habit of fusing together. The reasons for this again is obvious enough. Firstly similar disjunction will be absolutely indisitnguishible in our minds. For how could we tell then apart? And how can be tell apaprt two disjunction that are only fairly similar. The disjnuction in itself is so neboulos – tht any atmopt to sperate disperate parts is going to be problematic – with the result that disjunctions and the reasons for them groiw and multiply in our minds. These first tow reasons are in a sense not our fault. There is possible not muich we can as haumans do about them – save not take then too seriously. Or is one must take them seriously then at least express them in apprioriate ways.
However there are other ways that disjunction can spread. Frislty ones it has been expressed in its collection of predjucies – then in a sense everything has changed. Jhat was nebiupous and ‘spitiual’ has become a very real and tangible force in the world. A cforce that inhabits ou minds, and makes us react one way rather than another. In doing this it then can have a life of its own. Acts are understaood in terms of it and through it – so that we becom incapbple of discovering anything other than products of our own orignal mismatch. We all of course know the ultimate results of this. But even more worrying is that there is a commercial viablilty to disjuncion. I mean the problem is a real one for everyone. Everyone has disjunctions lying this thm – through which they are – and which can left to themselves feel odd and myseries. IfWe are then a sense necessarily looking for an explanation to this riddle. If someone gives us an explaination- a language to express this inexperessible feeling – then the realeaf of the conscious mind is palable. Yipee, it thinks I wwas right all along – there was a reason. No matter if that reason does not makes sense – conscious minds seem not to need sense awny as lomng as they have a reason ( or to be less cynical the entire situation was senseless all along, and therefore a reason which gave sense was never required).
Now thus far of course our sscoety is not really behaving any different t any other society – all society lives but manufacturing intangible predjudice ( that is almost what a society is).The problem is that we have discovered that we can manufacure very easily a large number of competing and evolving predjucies. What is more (and this is one odf the most wonderful discoveries of post reformation Europe) people will actually fight to mnaitna their particular predudice. The reason of this is of course obiovus enough. The conscioiys mind in a sense establsishes what it is through predujcie. That is it is in pedjucie is captures something that would toehr wise elude it – namely the axis capable of expressing emotioin. Wihout that axis it coiuld harldy operat are a conscious mind at all – but woyuld be for ever dragged this way and that be forces beyond any knid of explaiantion (ket alone control). In predjduce it hollows out a space to itself to exist as itself – a space where in can inhabit the links it makes between differing things. To question these links is effectively to question our very souls. The that notonly will hamns defend their prejudices – but also the very act of their being other possible ones makes the ones they hold so much more precioius and un-negicateble. That is the mind feels it has to fight for the right to hold itself together (in prejudice) when faced with the fact that these beeives it has are just that believes (and prejudices). It cannot abandinn them without fear of losisng itself within disjunction – and must rather viciously defend them and justifiy them – when faced with the alternatives. In short humans will end up fighting for the very preducies that will effectively limit tham- and will fight far harder for these than they will for their freedom. This of course is the capatialsits dreem. Modern capitalism could almost be defined as an axis as a productive axis for new and dsiperate predujedice (being a diverse society is nothing about being multi-cultural, but only rather is actually in interna dyaminc within capitalism that makes profit in the manifacture of differe4nces). Endless new beliefs are manfactured – individuals buying them and then defending them to all comers – and we are thereby caught within a axis of belief and prejdice.
The result is of course the deep mystery of the world in which we live – where beliefs linking up in indissolvalbe unions apapent speeratr things abound. Many of these links are of course harmless enough – and ma well do one good : For instance I have absolutely no problem with most relgiou linkings- or that new one linking the environment with diet and spirituality. That seems to me at least to be utterly reasonable. The problem of course with other far darker links. Liknks that will of course be just as beleivalbe for the faithful – and yet lead to unpredictable consequences. Fo example there appears to be what I might call the Daily Malil link. This one links up Euripe, assymlm seekes, right-wing politics (I mean about tax and meri or oitherwise of the poor), the war or terror, seixsm (is a desfrete way) and (and bizarrely enough) health issues, and (even more ludicrously) a sanctaconous belief in one innate goodness (and genoristy), insipte of the the evidence to the contrary – ad only oin the condtion of course that being good does not greatly inconvience to doer of that good. This very powerful axis firstly ensures that all these problems remain utterly linked in the holders minds. So that is vitamins are useless and therefore are withdrawn it is ruopes fault that we are deperived of our quite useless and perpetually harmful smarties. Or if he have to accept the Europian constituation one will have to accept more asslym seekes – or become overrun with ‘foriengers’ (although of course having nannies or dentisits to do the jobs we do not want to do is okay). The problem then whith this axis or predudjuce is that the forces that created it or quite lieltrly beyond any reason. The wpoint about it is it is allowing reason as reason express what would be otherwise inexpressible. It is then in a snse the keirkargardian soul.
The very point of being is to believe the inherently unbeleivalbe- and to defend it as such (an to see any act of questoning of that belief as some how an attack on oneself). Or to put in another way – it is to manage to hold together ones mind – and give reason the kind of ‘reasonable’ world it craves –and any attempt to question such overaching feeling is then seen as somehow a querying of ones ‘actual idenetiy’ – which of course horrible enough it is. The uposhot of course is thatwe manufacturew utterly a world beyond any control. ‘ W e’ that is the way we understand ourselves as oudelves – come into existience firmly aftyer our prejducues. We can only be what we are – and have the minds we do through them and within them- come what may. We are only fully human after we has created this unlikely amalgam of prejudices. Our problem is in a sense not to cuyre this situation – which is an arrent nonsense. It is ntot he knid of thing that needs a cure. One must rather mange it. That is one must mange the fac that haumns have an inbuilt cpabpcity to creat dusjunct realities. How that manging is to be achive will of course be very tricky – and whether it can ever be perfectly accomplished is doubtful. But what is certain is that to have a soectiy that does not only dewell in the distjnction (all societies do that)_ part that reather particales it – creating ever new and bizarre combination – irrespective of the consequence – is only likely to make the situation al lot worse.