Greedy, Hateful, Lustful Bastards

The shadow in Jungian psychology. Our motive force, but also our deepest secret.

As the Buddhists know very well, this thing we call the "I" is not a single thing, and may not be anything at all. It certainly isn't a coherent story of perseverence and triumph. The deeper you go, the less identifiable and singlular it is, since we knit together vast numbers and scales of activity, from the reactions of metabolism to the synapsing of neurons and the drive for social success, even to communal and shared culture, into this being entitled "I". Even on the psychological level, there are myriad unconscious elements, making the quest to know one's self a life-long and generally unsuccessful endeavor, for those who are so inclined.

In Freudian psychology, the contents of the unconscious (referred to sometimes as the subconscious) are uniformly bleak. It is the realm of lusts and drives, a pandora's box to be kept firmly repressed, in order for its custodian to be a functioning member of society. But the effort of repression is draining and costly, leading to a sort of hydraulic theory of the unconscious, where the more material there is to repress, the more effort is required, to the point that people "break down" from the strain. Likewise, releases of pressure through swearing, or watching violent films, or thrill-seeking and similar forms of "fun" relieve some strain, and help maintain the proper psychological pressure.

Jungian psychology sees the unconscious as a much larger and varied entity. It forms the basis of our positive as well as negative motivations, and operates, among many levels, at a level of archetypal symbology that is richly descriptive and informative when allowed expression via dreams, free association, and creative activities like writing and visual arts. It includes our intuition, and can be tremendously healing, persistently giving us images / glimmers of needed changes and goals.

Tibetan Buddhism hosts a large collection of monster and shadow figures. This is Palden Lhamo, who is a protector, but a wrathful one who rides through a lake of blood, spreading death and destruction to Tibet's enemies. Not enough to keep out the Chinese, unfortunately.

But even in Jungian psychology, the unconscious has a dark side- the shadow, which comprises the motivations we try to deny or hide. But can not get rid of- they are always with us and part of us. The greed, hate, and lust that undeniably drive us, but which we do not want as part of our persona- our face to the world. In the theatrical presentation of the self, we are good, virtuous, and respectful. Repression is the order of the day. While much of Jungian psychology is devoted to interpreting positive messages from the unconscious, managing the negative and the dark is very much a focus as well, as these aspects are universal and persistent. It is the work of consciousness to integrate the shadow into the ego / personality, in a controlled and accepting way.

One particular specialty of the shadow is projection, causing us to consciously reject bad traits in ourselves by ascribing them to others. Our president is a master of projection, insulting others, accusing them of the very things he himself is guilty of, as a way of keeping himself sane and narcissistically coherent. Why anyone else puts up with it is hard to fathom, but then certain bloggers have similar problems of casting stones from glass houses. There are also collective projections, like the concept of hell. An important goal of depth psychology is to come to a mature accommodation with all of one's own facets, in order to be able withdraw projections of this sort, to own one's behavior, good and bad, and thus to master the shadow, without giving up its motivating virtues.

Another way to engage with the shadow is to indulge it to a controlled extent, as happens in bacchanals, carnivals, video games, and Trump rallies. Giving free reign to our dark side is, in the hydraulic sense, very free-ing, re-creational, and possibly even an ecstatic experience. But it must be carefully bounded and controlled. It is no way to run a positive life or culture. One can grade various cultures and their religions on a sort of shadow scale, from the carnage of the Aztecs and Nazis to the perhaps unrealistic compassion of Buddhist culture as in pre-invasion Tibet. Many religions have shown shadow aspects, such as the duality of Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, and the jihads and crusades of the Islamic and Christian varieties. The happiest societies seem to have the least shadow aspect- places like the Scandinavian countries, with their increasing mild secularity, and pre-invasion Tibet. In contrast, the unhappiest societies are heavily driven by shadow, like the Islamic countries of today, who not only valorize violence, but mix in plenty of "honor" and misogyny as well.

I think the lesson is that the hydraulic theory of controlled shadow release is not correct, rather, that more repression is better, when done consistently and intelligently. Releasing the shadow is bad, whatever the dose. The Buddhist technologies of meditation and cultivation in ways of charity, compassion, and love are clearly successful in cultivating a wider society that reflects those values. Conversely, having a president whose tastes tend to beauty pageants and WWE, and whose modus tweeterandi is hate, fosters a society that will be experiencing the opposite values.

• Single payer health care.
• Pence in charge of science?
• Annals of the credulous.
• Bloomberg's peeps. 
• Oops- OAS was wrong.
• Amazing ancient book of the week.

Young Americans for Freedom

Is Bernie the next Ronald Reagan?

My father was an enthusiastic Reagan supporter, and contributor to many of the right wing organs of the day, one of which was Young Americans for Freedom, or YAF. As one can imagine, its idea of freedom was freedom from government regulation, freedom to found businesses, freedom to rise as high as one's talents allow. Freedom to use one's money to go to private schools, freedom to hire workers on any basis they are willing to work, freedom to discriminate, to contaminate the environment, among much else. Reagan led a long campaign in the wilderness of the Republican right, on these ideas which became and remain the foundation of the right, of FOX, and of our current government. The Reagan revolution was far more influential than observers at the time (and from the left) anticipated, viewing the aging actor and his gouche entourage with distain. Reagan repaid that distain in spades, doddering through the Iran-Contra scandal, and finally leaving office with imminent senility. But he also was on occasion remarkably articulate- in marked contrast to our current virtually illiterate executive- and even inspiring, and was decisive at key moments. The ideology that Reagan brought into the mainstream, which now seems so stale and self-serving, was at the time taken as a significant and intellectually advanced critique of a system that had over the preceding decades so carefully balanced the public and private interests.

YAF was a melding of libertarians and conservatives, hardly hip even in its own day, but with an intellectual case to make. Today, things have changed substantially, as we are living in the world that the YAF-ers grew up and built, notably as part of the Gingrich revolution, the Tea party revolution, and the advanced propaganda organs that have succeeded the paltry efforts of YAF and its ilk. It is a new gilded age, where Mitt Romney can run for president as a "job creator", where Trump can win on the backs of the dispossessed, then turn around and give the lion's share of the spoils to the rich, where billionaires  clog our political system, where employees are routinely underpaid and abused, climate heating is denied and ignored, and homelessness and despair are rampant.

The youth of today look at this world, and find a significant lack of freedom. Freedom is not a simple concept, and changes dramatically with one's situation and with the times. Is being homeless the epitome of freedom? In our world, money buys freedom, and poverty is a sentence of servitude and shame. With enough money, one can become president if one wishes, while without money, one can not even eat. This is the world that the Reagan revolution has sharpened, if not created- one of staggering and shameless inequality, where our communal humanity is being drowned in desperate competition and fealty to corporate overlords, and where we are presumed to be worshipful towards the blizzard of vanity foundations they sponsor in lieu of nuns and priests to chant their prayers.

The great task of society is to impose order and discipline, but also to inspire shared values and commitment, so that all members work towards the greater good, according to their respective abilities. There is a place for capitalism and hierarchy here, to supply the former. But the latter has been sorely lacking of late, systematically denigrated by the political right, in favor of an ideology of division, greed, and, frankly, hate. It is clear that the happiest societies strike a more compassionate balance, recognizing (and funding, with various public services) a baseline of common humanity and dignity (and freedom), while leaving plenty of room for ambitious achievement in the hierarchical, capitalist mode as well.

It is high time for the pendulum in the US to swing the other way, but how is that going to happen? I have been struck by the symmetries between Bernie Sanders and Reagan. Bernie is far from a lock on the nomination, but his accession would be a fitting bookend to the Reagan revolution. Both are outside politicians, who took over their party with a grassroots / insurgent campaign and pushed it away from the center, after decades of lonely ideological battle on the political fringe. Both have strong support among the youth of their parties, indeed a curiously militant sort of support, despite themselves being, by virtue of their long-march campaign, quite old.

But Reagan never had to face the kind of propaganda organs that the right marshals today. He benefitted from a much more decent, and unified, world. Today our fellow citizens are living in a starkly separate reality, which has bled strongly into the mainstream media. It is hard to fathom how Bernie's movement is going to make serious inroads other than over the dead bodies of FOX and its copycats. And the irony is that these outlets thrive even more in opposition than when their own party is in power, making it doubly difficult to imagine how our cultural conversation is going to change, no matter how momentous the Bernie movement is. Yet, all that said, hope springs eternal, and here we have to hope in Hegelian fashion that the forces of history, or of a timely leader, are able to break the witch's spell on the right, and bring our country back to a semblance of decency and rationality. And that that someone might just be the next Democratic nominee for president.

• Watergate all over.
• I'd move to a decent state.
• Wild-life extermination and trade at fault for new virus.
• Nuclear families are only for those who can afford to go it alone.
• Another perspective on Afghanistan. And then another. How many Afghans really have a role in determining Afghanistan's future?

Cells That Eat Memories

Microglia dispose of synapses that need to be forgotten.

Memories are potent, essential, abstract, sometimes maddeningly ungraspable. But they are also physical entities, stored like so many hard-drive magnetic domains, in our brains. The last decades of research have found the "engram"- the physical trace of memory in our brains; neural synapses that connect based on the convergence of neuron activities, are painstakingly consolidated through re-enactments, and judged for permanence based on their importance. Engram cells are located in many places in the brain, supporting many kinds of memory, including memories made up of all sorts of experiences, such as multiple modes of sensation. The coordinated action of neurons, combined with emotional valence, sets up an engram event, and similarly coordinated activity at some future time can prompt its readout / recall.

A recent paper described the role of microglia- the scavangers and maintainers of the brain, in cleaning out engram synapses, resulting in forgetting. The researchers set up a typical fear response training system (by electrical foot shocks) in mice, which was remembered better after 5 days than 35 days. Treating the mice with various drugs and other methods that deplete microglia caused them to remember the bad experience much better after 35 days, indeed, virtually unchanged from the 5-day time point. The cells behind these memories are, at least in part, in the dentate gyrus, a part of the hippocampus.

Engram cells. Mice with specialized genetic elements were tracked during training, when cell activation was shown by red fluorescence (neuronal activity plus tamoxifen-activated genetic recombination leading to red fluorophore expression). Later, during memory recall, another genetic system (c-Fos expression, green) was used to track neuronal cell activation. The merging and superposition of both colors locates cells that fulfill the criteria of engram cells, i.e. memory cells. The scale bar is 20 microns.

How do the microglia do this? Well, the most important question is how stale and unimportant synapses are identified for destruction, but this paper doesn't go there quite yet. They ask instead what the microglia are doing to gobble up these synapses. They use complement, which is a tagging system commonly used in the immune system to mark cells and other detritus for destruction, and is also used during early brain development to prune vast amounts of excess neurons and synapses. So this is an obvious place to look for continued dynamic pruning during adulthood. Application of inhibitors of complement in these mice caused the same enhanced remembering of their bad experiences as did the inhibition of microglia generally. Fluorescence studies showed that the initial complement cascade component, C1q, is present right at the synapses that were previously trained and presumably are elements of engrams.

But what of the selection process? The researchers devised a way to selectively inhibit the activity of the trained neurons, by adding an inhibitory protein to the genetic engineering cocktail, thus damping activity of those cells during the 35 days post-training. This treatment enhanced forgetting by one-third, while co-treatment at the same time with the drug that depleted microglia brought memory performance back to maximal levels. Thus the activity of neurons involved in engrams is important, as one would expect, to maintain memories, while the microglial disposal system is responsive to whatever system is marking inactive engram / memory synapses for removal.

This is interesting work in a very exciting and young field, starting to put meat on the bones of our knowledge of what memories are in physical terms, and how they grow and fade. Much like other tissues like muscles and bones, which are constantly regenerating and adjusting their mass and strength in response to loads, the brain dynamically responds to use as well- a lesson for those heading into older age.

• Wage optimism ... another con.
• Don't do Facebook.
• Caring about the least of these.
• Proposed budget is insane.
• Animated movie of the week- Shaun the sheep.

De-carbonize it

... Sung to the tune of Peter Tosh's "Legalize it". How are we doing on greenhouse gas emissions? Not very well, if the goal is zero.

Climate heating has, over the last few decades, changed from a theoretical spectre to a universal reality. The seasons have shifted. The weather is more extreme. The fires have ravaged whole regions. The arctic is melting, the corals are dying, and the wildlife is thinning out and winking out. But our emissions of CO2, far from declining, keep reaching yearly highs. Humanity is not facing up to this crisis.

Global CO2 emissions keep going up, while the climate has already gone out of bounds.

The goal needs to be zero. Zero emissions, not in 30 years, but as soon as humanly possible. Here in California, we pride ourselves in a progressive and leading-edge approach to climate policy. So how are we doing? A graph of CO2 emissions shows that California emissions have been going down since a peak in 2004, and now are roughly at 85% of that peak, despite increases in population and GDP. That is laudable of course. But we are still emitting hundreds of millions of metric tons of CO2 per year. Millions of tons that will be extremely difficult to recapture, as we inevitably will have to if we want to restore the Earth's climate to a semblance of the form it had for the last few million years of evolution across the biosphere.

California CO2 emissions. Going in the right direction, but far from zero. Note the Y axis cut off at 400 million metric tons CO2 per year.

Breakdown of California emissions. Note how refinery emissions alone are higher than all household emissions (principally heating).

Can we get to zero? Yes, we can if we are serious enough. There are two ingredients to get there. One is policy to drive the change, and the other is the technical means to get there. One optimal policy is a stiff carbon tax. California already has a sort-of carbon cap/pricing system, covering a fraction of emitters and using a market-based mechanism that has sent prices under $20 per metric ton. This is not enough to make a difference, being the equivalent of about 15 cents per gallon of gasoline. To be serious, we would wish to triple the cost of gasoline, which would get users off of fossil fuels in a hurry. Such a tax would come to about $700 per metric ton of CO2 emissions- an unprecedented level when you look at carbon pricing schemes around the world, but if we want results we need to think about serious policy to get there. In order to insulate such tax systems from cost-shifting to other countries, they would need a complex system of boundary taxes to make sure that imported goods and forms of energy are all subject to the same effective carbon taxation, so that in-state sources are not penalized. This is an important goal for international agreements like the Paris accords, to make such boundary taxation normal and systematic, preventing races to the bottom of emissions regulation. It is the only way that any jurisdiction can set up a strong carbon taxing/pricing system.

Can we get to zero? The technical means are not all in place, but given enough motive force from policy, we can get there very soon. The key is storage. Fossil fuels not only hold huge amounts of solar energy, but they have stably locked them up for tens of millions of years, just waiting for humanity to mine them out and burn them up. Their storability turns out to be as significant as their energy density. Solar and wind energy do not have that property, and we are just beginning to devise the means to store their energy at scale, whether by chemical means (batteries, hydrolysis of water to hydrogen) or mechanical (pumping hydro stations, spinning rotors). Whether nuclear energy enters the mix is another and very appropriate question as well, as new, safer reactor designs become common, and a strong carbon tax makes them economically viable again.
 
Natural gas is not a transitional fuel- it is another fossil fuel, only slightly less bad than coal. Another fix for an addicted economy, like switching from heroine to oxycontin. We need to break this addiction, and as fast as possible, with strong policy that takes the problem seriously. Elizabeth Warren aims her policy at decarbonization by 2030. Bernie Sanders aims at 2050. Donald Trump says to hell with us all.

• January sets another heat record.
• Bumble bees are dying.
• Quote of the week: "Here, then, is a discovery of new evils, I said, against which the guardians will have to watch, or they will creep into the city unobserved. What evils? Wealth, I said, and poverty; the one is the parent of luxury and indolence, and the other of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent." - Plato's Republic

Hyperdemocracy or Oligarchy?

What can China teach the US about governance? Does it point to more democracy or less? A double book/essay review.

We are at a low point in the US democracy, with the Senate having covered itself in shame over the last week, and sure to do so again next week, courtesy of one party that is in thrall to its president. But the whole world is headed in the same direction, as rightist, "strong" leaders pop up all over, from Brazil to China. The whole idea of democracy is under threat world-wide from the a new authoritarianism, which has evolved out of the old communism and more traditional feudal arrangements. And from the lust for power generally. The US misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, trying so blindly to implant democracy in societies woefully traumatized and unprepared for it, followed by the appalling handling and aftermath of the Arab spring, seem to have cancelled any hope of an end to history in the form of democracy triumphant across the globe.

Two decades ago, Hugh Helco wrote a prescient jeremiad titled "Hyperdemocracy" diagnosing the ills of a shallow and ill-educated democracy in the US, titillated with constant "news" (fake and otherwise) and oversharing, but lacking true deliberation and veering towards ungovernability. One ironic consequence of everyone, every corporation, and interest group having their say is that no one can be trusted. Eventually government is bereft of the basic civic faith and common narrative that the social contract relies on. His critique was acute, but his suggested treatments were afterthoughts and the problem has amplified dramatically in recent years, with foreign countries like Russia weaponizing so-called "free speech" against us.

"For the making of public policy, hyperdemocracy presents three general problems. Policy debate occurs without deliberation. Public mobilization occurs without a public. And the public tends to distrust everything that is said. " "... good policy argumentation is bad political management"

A book relevant to the question came out in 2013, from billionarie Nicolas Berggruen, who argues in Intelligent Governance for the 21st Century that some sort of convergence between the non-democratic methods of China and our rather chaotic and hyperdemocratic methods is called for, to merge China's effectiveness in public management with our respect (such as it still is) for individual rights and democratic legitimacy. Berggruen has set up a series of vanity foundations and Davos-like talk shops to solve the problems of Europe, the world, and California. The solutions focus on meritocracy- trying to insulate decision makers from the political winds by appointing Berggruen's friends to influential commissions and special bodies that would advise the politicians who may not benefit from proper think-tank training. For California, his solutions ended up recommending taxing the poor more and the rich less- which says alot about his version of meritocracy.

Nevertheless, these arguments raise interesting questions at this perilous time. Does being in a hyperdemocracy mean that we have too much democracy and deserve less? Or do we really live in a hyperdemocracy at all? And does China have some kind of secret sauce for public management and institutional far-sightedness and continuity that we could learn from, seeing as they are a rising power with confidence and in some cases, outstanding public services? I think hyperdemocracy is a bit of a misnomer, since it is hardly an acceleration of democracy to replace reasoned discourse with propaganda and corporate interests, and to give up our politicians to utter corruption. The lack of a civil and civic discourse formed around truth and mutual respect is an unmitigated disaster, not some hyper form of democracy. The fact that Facebook allows those with money and psychological skills of a nefarious or pathological nature to implant viral falsities into our body politic is not "democracy", or "free speech", but is abdication of the most basic role of publishing- that of standing behind what you publish and standing for a level of discourse that befits our culture.

The fact is the America is hardly even a democracy at this point. The public routinely stands behind significant public policy advances that are as routinely stymied by a minority that is funded by rich ideologues, both directly through political corruption and through myriad propaganda outlets. Far from a hyperdemocracy, we live in a oligarchy, one that is slowly morphing into an even more concentrated fascist regime before our eyes. The convergence is taking place, but not in a good or intended way.

A high-speed train to nowhere. California's rail plan is in crisis.

So the prescriptions that Berggruen touts, allowing that they were authored before our current administration, hardly meet the crisis of our times. Yes, we need more competent public administration. Just look at California's high speed train fiasco, and its public pensions crisis. Yes, we need longer-term strategic thinking. But the elites that have been serving us over the last couple of decades have not done such a good job, particularly from Republican administrations. Where have the truly momentous foreign policy disasters come from? Where has the denial of climate change come from? From one region in our political spectrum. And that is no accident, being the region that has antidemocratic tendencies, and seems dedicated to some sort of aristocracy of class and money. Replacing it with a slightly more centrist aristocracy of class and money, with an intellectual patina, is not likely to alter our course very much.

Berggruen proposes an ideal republic that is extremely indirect, such that a small community of a few thousand people elect ten representatives, and then those representatives elect a next level that represents about 100,000 people, and they elect another body, and so forth until the top layer of some kind of president or council is elected in a pyramid of representation that is four levels deep. This hearkens back to what the American founders were trying to accomplish with their indirect elections of Senators, and the electoral collage for the Presidential election. But then later in the book, he bemoans the out-of-touch-ness of the European administration in Brussels, which has so little democratic legitimacy. It is a curious conflict in a book full of them, and of airy ideas.

Nevertheless, the idea of a more vibrant local politics is a very important one. We are overly focused on national politics, about which the average person can do nothing but get upset. Voting is great, but participation is better, in face-to-face settings. One way to enable this is to mandate one day per month holiday for political functions. This could include voting, but also encompass neighborhood meetings, town council events, etc. The way our culture values work over civic obligations and participation is extremely unbalanced. Participation would not be manadatory, but all levels of government would obligated to open their doors, hold relevant meetings on these days, and foster public participation.

Secondly, the idea of some insulation from the political winds is also important, for many policy makers, particularly those oriented towards the long-term. Berggruen points to institutions like the Federal Reserve, the civil service, and many other regulatory bodies, which have purposefully been separated from the political fray in a way that balances accountability with the freedom to think calmly and for the long-term. We should have more such bodies, even perhaps modeled on the 5-year plan system of China, to think carefully about our future infrastructure, our future social policies, and our future politics. The state of California could certainly use a bit more organized foresight, which used to be provided by business leaders like Leland Stanford, but now is more likely to be corrupted by business than served by it.

Berggruen bemoans the state of the California referendum system, originally a gem of democracy, which has been captured by business interests which regularly compete against each other in offering rival propositions which are engineered to sound as anodyne and contrary to their actual intent as possible. Here there is an easy solution, which is to outlaw paying people to collect signatures. The currency of the referendum system is signatures, and collecting them is arduous. No one would do so unless they either cared a great deal about the issue or were well paid.

Lastly, there is the media (leaving out general corruption, which can be addressed by public financing of elections and prohibitions on corporate meddling in political affairs). Here we get to the to a truly difficult issue- how to re-establish a shared culture of truth and civic pride from our dispirited current state of Twitted discourse. Here we could learn a few lessons, not from China, but from Europe, which carefully, but legally, disables some extreme forms of speech to set guardrails on the society. We might consider making false claims grounds for suit and penalty, (proportionate to the audience), not only in commercial speech where this is already the case, but in political and policy speech. Propaganda outlets like FOX are a cancer on the Republic, that trade in lies as the foundation of their bizarre narratives. Block the lies, and the narratives are much more difficult to maintain. This is very fraught policy to propose, as our largely free speech standard has served the US quite well most of our history, (excepting several phases of extremely partisan presses), and any kind of censorship can be twisted to nafarious purposes. But this legal standard would not be enforced in some star chamber, rather in open court, presumably with evidence, experts, scholarly apparatus, etc. There is far more to do to re-establish a productive fourth estate, which is such a crucial participant in a functioning democracy, but the truth is one place to start.

Our problems cry out for reform, not revolution. Our democracy is under extreme pressure, but has not yet broken down completely. It is an index of our problems that Democrats need typically to find the perfect candidate, pristine in speech and spotless in record and demeanor, in order to have any hope of winning, while Republicans can put up virtually any grifter or mysogyinst with a fair chance of success. It is a reflection of the unfairness of our current system, ridden as it is with dark money in the service of extreme and retrograde ideologies. But there is hope, especially in demographic change, that California, dysfunctional though it may be in many ways, represents the imploded future of the Republican party, which would unleash enormous energies for national reform, towards a democratic, not an oligarchic, future.

• Delete everything: the new normal in corporate obstruction of justice.
• An update from Mr. Sloth.
• Oh, the perils of crime.
• When grifters are in charge.
• Guess who cashes in on climate change?