The Autism of Politics

Our politics is an inarticulate communal search for expression of emotion.

I recently saw "A Brilliant Young Mind", a British take on growing up with autism. It is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen, exploring themes of family, loss, and love with wrenching sensitivity. The challenge of expressing, even feeling, one's own emotions is at the heart, naturally enough, for people on the spectrum. There is a fight by family members to crack that shell, to establish communication that expresses the love they know is there, and which will build warmth and confidence.

One theme is the power of speech- the bullying in school, the words of love from a parent. We may have recited the saying about sticks and stones, but it isn't true. Humans feel and use speech as touch, like Chimpanzees use grooming, to soothe each other. Music functions similarly, to touch others with shared emotions, strengthening essential bonds of trust and empathy. We also use speech also to attack each other, and climb the social hierarchy on the bodies of those cut down by words. 

Well, politics is a natural extension. We feel strongly that there should be someone in charge of each political unit- one person who embodies and expresses our feelings about the whole. It is not just a job, or an executive position, but a strongly archetypal role, which includes the work of binding us together through speech, or not, as our collective mood dictates. We have just been through an administration dedicated to the destructive power of speech, firing off tweets to cut down friends and enemies, formulating cryptic messages supporting inequality, tribalism, and racism. 

But political speech is hobbled by the vast population it addresses. The movie above spoke to me, perhaps because I felt familiar with many of its themes and dilemmas, or happened to appreciate its artistic approach. But it may not speak to you. Politics is about finding the largest possible audience, using the vaguest possible formulations to which listeners can impute their feelings about the body politic. It is thus necessarily painfully awkward, smothered in platitudes, and minimally communicative. In short, a little autistic. 

A still from the movie, with the main character and his mother in a typical pose.

So we as citizens are all in the position of wanting the collective to satisfy a some very deep needs for connection, security, and self-realization and expression. But we are reading a cryptic body politic and leadership for clues of true intention, hidden beneath what may be a voluble exterior of near-meaningless speech, and at the same time confounded by a lack of transparency and radical lack of personal access to those people who are the leaders. Conversely, those leaders are sequestered in their security and network bubbles, wanting (ideally) to understand and share the feelings of their constituents, but unable, simply by the scale of the enterprise, to do so. And anyhow, seeking the average feeling or attitude in a democracy ends inevitably in a muddled middle. Thus leaders are confined to rhetoric that in recent inaugurations, state of the union addresses, and so forth has been bland and weak, as uninspired as it is uninspiring. 

Our political / psychological needs seem to differ along temperamental / party lines, with Democrats forever searching for the healing leader who can reach out across the divide to bring a larger coalition together to accomplish empathetic ends, for the downtrodden, for the environment, and for the future. On the other hand, Republicans seem, since at least the time of Goldwater, to be unhopeful about change, and the future in general, indeed motivated by fear. Their quest is for a leader who will advocate for the hard truths of the inherent and useful infairnesses of life to restore the social hierarchical order, keep out aliens, and keep down the restive and poorly paid masses. The last administration was unusually forthright about the whole program, thus speaking into an intense rapport with its "base", while foresaking the traditional mincing "compassionate conservative" or "city on a hill" gestures that have in the past served to sugar-coat that message.

But speaking to the base turned out to be a disastrous political strategy, losing the House, Senate, and Presidency in turn. However powerful in expressing, even generating, rare emotional responses in that base, it failed to follow the most basic principle of political math. So we are back now to the anodyne stylings of a new Democratic administration, back to a normal relationship, which is to say not much of a relationship, between the leader and the led. Which is a great relief on the national level, even if it would be maddening and unsatisfying on any personal level.

• Are you on the spectrum?
• That music in our heads.
• The true nature of conservative jurisprudence.
• Myths, magic, and gods- right or wrong?
• Hamsterkauf?
• Bill Mitchell on inflation and other historical matters.
• Some delightful piano.

Tale of an Oncogene

Research on a key oncogene of melanoma, MITF, moves from seeing it as a rheostat to seeing it as a supercomputer.

The war on cancer was declared fifty years ago, yet effective therapies are only now trickling in. And very few of them can be characterized as cures. What has been going on, and why is the fight so slow? Here I discuss one example, of melanoma and one of its drivers and central players, the gene MITF.

Melanocytes are not really skin cells, but neural crest cells, i.e. originating in the the embryonic neural tube and giving rise to various peripheral neural structures in the spine, gut, and head. One sub-population migrates off into the epidermis to become melanocytes, which generate skin pigment in melanosome packets, which they distribute around to local keratinocytes. Evolutionarily, these cells are apparently afterthoughts, after originally having developed as part of photoreceptor systems. This history, of unusual evolution and extensive developmental migration and eventual invasion into foreign tissues, has obvious implications for their capacity to form cancers later in life, if mutations re-activate their youthful propensities.

 

Above is shown a sketch of some genes known to play roles in melanoma, and key pathways in which they act. In red are oncogenes known to suffer activating mutations that promote cancer progression. In grey are shown additional oncogenes, ones whose oncogenic mutations are simpler loss-of function, not gain of function, events. And green marks ancillary proteins in these pathways that have not (yet) been found as oncogenes of any sort. MITF is a transcription regulator that drives many genes needed for  melanocyte development and melanosome formation. It also influences cell cycle control and cytoskeletal and cell surface features relevant to migration and invasion of other tissues. This post is based mostly on reviews of the molecules active in melanoma, and the more focused story of MITF.

MITF binds to DNA near target genes, often in concert with other proteins, and activates transcription of the local gene (in most cases, though it represses some targets as well). The evidence linking MITF with melanoma and melanocytes is mostly genetic. It is an essential gene, so complete deletions are lethal. But a wide variety of "mi" mutations in mice and in humans lead to unusual phenotypes like white hair color, loss of hearing, large head formation, small blue eyes, osteopetrosis, and much else. Originally researchers thought there were several different genes involved, but they all resolved down to one complex locus, now called MITF, for mi transcription factor. Certain hereditary mutations also predispose to melanoma, as do some spontaneous mutations. That the dose of MITF also correlates with how active and aggressive a melanoma is also contributes to the recognition that MITF is central to the melanocyte fate and behavior, and also one of the most central players in the disease of melanoma.

The MITF gene spreads over 229,000 base pairs, though it codes for a protein of only 419 amino acids. The gene contains nine alternate transcription start sites, 18 exons (coding regions), and five alternate translation start sites, as sketched above. This structure allows dozens of different forms of the protein to be produced in different tissues and settings, via alternative splicing. The 1M form (above, bottom) is the main one made in melanocytes. Since the gene is essential, mutations that have the phenotypes mentioned above tend to be very small, affecting one amino acid or one splice site, or perhaps truncating translation near the end of the protein. Upstream of the MITF gene and in some of its introns, there are dozens of DNA sites that bind other regulators, which either activate or repress MITF transcription in response to developmental or environmental cues. For example, a LEF1/TCF site binds the protein LEF1, which receives signals from WNT1, which is a central developmental regulator, driving proliferation and differentiation of melanocytes from the stem neural crest cells.

That is just the beginning of MITF's complexity, however. The protein contains in its sequence codes for a wide array of modifications, by regulatory protein kinases (that attach phosphate groups), and other modifiers like SUMO-ylation and ubiquitination. Key cellular regulators like GSK3, AKT, RSK, ERK2, and TAK kinases each attach phosphates that affect MITF's activity. Additionally, MITF interacts with at least a dozen proteins, some of which also bind DNA and alter its target gene specificity, and others that cooperate to activate or repress transcription. One of the better-known signaling inputs is indirectly from the kinase BRAF1, which is a target of the first precision melanoma-fighting drugs. BRAF1 is mutated in half of melanoma cases, to a hyper-active form. It is a kinase responsive to growth factors, generally, and activates a core growth-inducing (MAP) kinase cascade (as shown above), among other pathways. BRAF1 has several effects on MITF by these pathways, but the dominant one seems to be its phosphorylation and activation of PAX3, which is a DNA-binding regulator that activates the MITF gene (and is, notably, absent from the summary figure above, showing how dynamic this field remains). Thus inhibition of BRAF1, which these precision drugs do, effectively reduces MITF expression, most of the time.

Then there are the gene targets of MITF, of which there are thousands, including dozens known to have significant developmental, cell cycle, pigment synthesis, cytoskeletal, and metabolic effects. All this is to say that this one gene participates in a bewilderingly complex network of activities only some of which are recognized to date, and none of which are understood at the kind of quantitative level that would allow for critical modeling and computation of the system. What has been found to date has led to a "switch", or rheostat hypothesis. One of the maddening aspects of melanoma is its resistance to therapy. This is thought in part to be due to this dynamic rheostat, which allows levels of MITF to vary widely and send individual cancer cells reversibly into several different states. At high levels of MITF, cancer cells are pigmented and proliferative (and sensitive to BRAF1 inhibition). But at medium levels of MITF, they revert more to their early migratory behavior, and become metastatic and invasive. So melanoma benefits from a diversity of cell types and states, dynamically switching between states that are both variable in their susceptibility to therapies like anti-BRAF1, and also maximally damaging in their proliferation and ranging activities (diagrammed below).

The theme that comes out of all this is enormous complexity, a complexity that only deepens the more one studies this field. It is a typical example in biology, however, and can be explained by the fact that we are a product of 4 billion years of evolution. The resulting design is far from intelligent- rather, it is a compendium of messy contraptions, historical compromises, and accreted mechanisms. We are very far from having the data to construct proper models that would critically analyze these systems and provide accurate predictions of their behavior. It is not really a computational issue, but a data issue, given the vast complexity we are faced with. Scientists in these fields are still thinking in cartoons, not in equations. 

But there are shortcuts of various kinds. One promising method is to analyze those patients who respond unusually well to one of the new precision treatments. They typically carry some hereditary alteration in some other pathway that in most people generates resistance or backup activity to the one that was drug-treated. If their genomes are fully sequenced and analyzed in depth, they can provide insight into what other pathway(s) may need to be targeted to achieve effective combination treatment. This is a lesson from the HIV and tuberculosis treatment experiences- that the redundancy and responsiveness of biological systems calls for multiple targets and multiple treatments to meet complex disease challenges.

• Bill Mitchell on the evasions of main stream economists.
• Senate budget committee chair: Bernie.
• Stuttering in high office.
• Amanda Gorman ... complete performance art.
• Cultists feeling lost.

The Parables of Octavia Butler

Review of Parable of the Sower, and Parable of the Talents, about earily familiar dystopias and the religions they call forth.

Octavia Butler is having a moment. The late science fiction author published the parable books in 1993 and 1998, not even knowing of the coming G. W. Bush administration, let alone that of Donald Trump. But her evangelical-supported right wing presidential candidate issues a call to "Make America great again". Her insight and prescience is head-spinning, in books that portray an America much farther gone into division, inequality, corporate power, and chaos (all owing to climate change(!)) than we in actual reality are- yet only by degrees. That is only the window dressing and frame, however. Her real subjects are religion and human purpose. I will try to not give away too much, since these make dramatic and interesting reading.

The books introduce heroine Lauren Olamina, who is totally together and possessed of a mission in life. She grows up in a neighborhood compound walled off from the chaos outside, but quite aware of the desperate conditions there. Her father is a pastor, and both she and her brother become, through the books, preachers as well. The brother in a conventional Christian mode, but Lauren founds a new religion, one maybe tailored for the generally skeptical science fiction audience. God is change. That is it. Lauren emphasizes empathy, usefulness, education, and the shaping of change, but there is no god as traditionally conceived. It is a sort of buddhistic philosophy and educational / communal program rather than a supernaturalist conjuring, and love (or fear), of imaginary beings.

One question is whether such a philosophy would actually gain adherents, form communities and function as a religion. I get the sense that Butler would have dearly loved for her ideas to gain a following, to actually ripen, as did those of fellow science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, into an actual religion (however horrible his escapade actually turned out to be!). But their difference is instructive. Hubbard's Dianetics/Scientology is a floridly imagined narrative of super-beings, secret spiritual powers, and crazy salvation. Absolute catnip to imaginative seekers wanting to feel special and purposeful. On the other hand, Olamina's system is quite arid, with most of the motive force supplied, as the book relates, by her own determination and charisma. Her philosophy is true, and therein lies a big, big problem. Truth does not supply purpose- we already knew that scientifically. Natural selection is all about change, and makes us want to live, flourish, and propagate. Change is everpresent, and while it might be healthy to embrace it and work with it, that is hardly an inspiring and purpose-filling prospect, psychologically. As the books relate in their narrative of Lauren's life, change is also often quite terrible, and to be feared.

But the more important question is what role people such as Lauren play, and why people like her followers exist. People need purpose. Life is intrisically purposeless, and while we have immediate needs and wants, our intelligence and high consciousness demands more- some reason for it all, some reason for existence, collectively and individually. An extra motive force beyond our basic needs. We naturally shape our lives into a narrative, and find it far easier and more compelling if that narrative is dramatic, with significance beyond just the humdrum day-to-day. But such narratives are not always easy to make or find. Classic epics typically revolve around war and heroic deeds, which continue to make up the grist of Hollywood blockbusters. Religion offers something different- a multi-level drama, wrapped up in collective archetypes and usually offering salvation in some form, frequently a hero, if not a militaristic one. Last week's post mentioned the life of Che Guevara, who found purpose in Marxism, and was so fully seized by it that he bent many others, possibly the whole nation of Cuba, to his will / ideology. Lauren Olamina is a similar, special person who has, through her own development and talents, discovered a strong purpose to her life and the world at large that she feels compelled to share, pulling others along on her visionary journey. Are such people "strong"? Are their followers "weak"? 

Human social life is very competitive, with the currency being ability to make others think what you want them to think, and do what you want them to do. Our ideology of freedom was built by a founding class of dominant, slave-holding rich white men who wanted only to come to a reasonable accommodation for political power within their class, not extend freedom to women, blacks, or the poor. This ideology was highly successful as a sort of civic religion, coming down to us in two traditions- the "winning" tradition of native American extermination, ruthless capitalism, and growing international empire- all set within a reasonably stable elitist political system. And the second "freedom" tradition, which gave us abolitionism, the civil rights movement, and the modern Democratic party, which takes Jefferson's ideals at their word, however little he actually meant them.

Religion is a particularly powerful engine of political and social ideology, making people go through ridiculous rituals and abasements to keep on the safe side of whatever the powerful tell them. So yes, domineering social personalities like Lauren and Che, (and Trump), are very powerful, deservedly treated as larger-than-life, charismatic figures. Their powers are archetypal and dangerous, so it falls to skeptics and free-thinkers to offer antidotes, if their charisma goes off the rails. Butler offers a hero who is relentlessly good and positive, as well as charismatic and strong, so the only competition comes from ignorance, conventional wisdom, and from the competing religious powers like traditional Christianity. But the power of artificial purposes, and of the charismatic figures who propound them, is almost uniformly corrupting, so Lauren's opposition is, in the end, far more realistic as a portrayal of what we are facing, now and in the future.

• "China is about to bring 21 gigawatts of coal fired power online."
• Stocks are euphoric, headed for a fall.
• Obstruction of justice, in a continuing saga of impeachable offenses.

Are Attention and Consciousness the Same?

Not really, though what consciousness is in physical terms remains obscure.

A little like fusion power, the quest for a physical explanation of consciousness has been frustratingly unrewarding. The definition of consciousness is fraught to start with, and since it is by all reasonable hypotheses a chemical process well-hidden in the murky, messy, and mysterious processes of the brain, it is also maddeningly fraught in every technical sense. A couple of recent papers provide some views of just how far away the prospect of a solution is, based on analyses of the visual system, one in humans, the other in monkeys.

Vision provides both the most vivid form of consciousness, and a particularly well-analyzed system of neural processing, from retinal input through lower level computation at the back of the brain and onwards through two visual "streams" of processing to conscious perception (the ventral stream in the inferior temporal lobe) and action-oriented processing (in the posterior parietal lobe). It is at the top of this hierarchy that things get a bit vague. Consciousness has not yet been isolated, and how it could be remains unclear. Is attention the same as consciousness, or different? How can related activities like unconscious high-level vision processing, conscious reporting, pressing buttons, etc. be separated from pure consciousness? They all happen in the brain, after all. Or do those activities compose consciousness?

A few landmarks in the streams of visual processing.  V1 is the first level of visual processing, after pre-processing by the retina and lateral geniculate nucleus. Processing then divides into the two streams ending up in the inferotemporal lobe, where consciousness and memory seem to be fed, while the dorsal stream to the inferior parietal lobule and nearby areas feed action guidance in the vicinity of the motor cortex. 

In the first paper, the authors jammed a matrix of electrodes into the brains of macaques, near the "face cells" of the inferotemporal cortex of the ventral stream. The macaques were presented with a classic binocular rivalry test, with a face shown to one eye, and something else shown to the other eye. Nothing was changed on the screen, nor the head orientation of the macaque, but their conscious perception alternated (as would ours) between one image and the other. It is thought to be a clever way to isolate perceptual distinctions from lower level visual processing, which stay largely constant- each eye processes each scene fully, before higher levels make the choice of which one to focus on consciously. (But see here). It has been thought that by the time processing reaches the very high level of the face cells, they only activate when a face is being consciously perceived. But that was not the case here. The authors find that these cells, when tested more densely than has been possible before, show activity corresponding to both images. The face could be read using one filter on these neurons, but a large fraction (1/4 to 1/3) could be read by another filter to represent the non-face image. So by this work, this level of visual processing in the inferotemporal cortex is biased by conscious perception to concentrate on the conscious image, but that is not exclusive- the cells are not entirely representative of consciousness. This suggests that whatever consciousness is takes place somewhere else, or at a selective ensemble level of particular oscillations or other spike coding schemes.

"We trained a linear decoder to distinguish between trial types (A,B) and (A,C). Remarkably, the decoding accuracy for distinguishing the two trial types was 74%. For comparison, the decoding accuracy for distinguishing (A, B) versus (A, C) from the same cell population was 88%. Thus, while the conscious percept can be decoded better than the suppressed stimulus, face cells do encode significant information about the latter. ... This finding challenges the widely-held notion that in IT cortex almost all neurons respond only to the consciously perceived stimulus."

 

The second paper used EEG on human subjects to test their visual and perceptual response to disappearing images and filled-in zones. We have areas in our visual field where we are physically blind, (the fovea), and where higher levels of the visual system "fill in" parts of the visual scene to make our conscious perception seem smooth and continuous. The experimenters came up with a forbiddingly complex visual presentation system of calibrated dots and high-frequency snow whose purpose was to oppose visual attention against conscious perception. When attention is directed to the blind spot, that is precisely when the absence of an image there becomes apparent. This allowed the experimenters to ask whether the typical neural signatures of high-level visual processing (the steady-state visually evoked potential, or SSVEP) reflect conscious perception, as believed, or attention or other phenomena. They presented and removed image features all over the scene, including blind spot areas. What they found was that the EEG signal of SSVEP was heightened as attention was directed to the invisible areas, exactly the opposite of what they hypothesized if the signal was tied to actual visual conscious perception. This suggested that this particular signal is not a neural correlate of consciousness, but one of attention and perhaps surprise / contrast instead.

So where are the elusive neural correlates of consciousness? Papers like these refine what and where it might not be. It seems increasingly unlikely that "where" is the right question to ask. Consciousness is graded, episodic, extinguishable in sleep, heightened and lowered by various experiences and drugs. So it seems more like a dynamic but persistent pattern of activity than a locus, let alone an homunculus. And what exactly that activity is.. a Nobel prize surely awaits someone on that quest.

• Unions are not a good thing ... sometimes.
• Just another debt con.
• Incompetent hacks and bullies. An administration ends in character.
• Covid and the superspreader event.
• Outgoing Secretary of State is also a deluded and pathetic loser.
• But others are getting on board.
• Bill Mitchell on social capital, third-way-ism, "empowerment", dogs, bones, etc.
• Chart of the week: just how divided can we be?

The Gift

How to be thankful, without anyone to be thankful to.

Remember back when Barack Obama told business leaders that "you didn't build that"? He meant that they didn't build all the public goods that their businesses relied on- the roads, the legal system, the military defense, the regulatory bodies creating fair playing fields, the educational system. Businesses make it their business to be as myopic as possible, feeding off "business models" that foist as much cost onto others- workers, the government, the environment- as amorally possible. That is the only way to survive.

We all are a little like that, with tunnel vision focused on what we need, what we can get, and what we can do. Sometimes it is all one can do merely to survive in a world that seems so difficult, competitive, even hostile. But at the same time, who and what are "we"? Is our next need the full measure of our place in reality? Our focus on doing and on agency is a highly misleading aspect of consciousness. It presupposes a gazillion things that we have no agency over, couldn't even if we tried, and couldn't understand in any case. We didn't make our bodies, for one thing. This biology that we think we are so familiar with is, to biologists, incredibly inscrutible. The trillions of cells, billions of neurons, gajillions of molecules, all work away in obscurity to make us go. But are we thankful? Rarely. We didn't make them. We don't even understand them, and a century or two ago, we really, really didn't understand them. They are utterly alien. Yet they are also us.

The story goes similarly with everything else about us- the flow of time and fate, the universe we live in. All these are, at a fundamental level, still hardly understood. Where did all the energy of the big bang come from? What did it expand into? Why did it cool into the particles of physics? Are there other universes? No idea. And even if we had an idea, we weren't there and didn't make it happen. We are recipients, not actors, in this most vast drama. We should not be distracted by the competitive social systems we live in, and the pressing difficulties of life, to forget that we, as the conscious "I" of an individual human, are mysterious feathers floating on rivers of unplumbed unconscious depths, in a rich forest of abundance, on a planet mild and pleasant, in a universe that rendered these provisions in fantastic plentitude, to us and possibly to countless other worlds as well.

The lilies of the field, well, they toil quite hard, actually, in their own way. But that may not be apparent to the homilist, and took some science to figure out.

There needn't have been an intention behind all this- to conjure a cosmos, and evolve life. Indeed, it is rather unlikely given the little we do know. At any rate, we have speculated long and hard enough to know that more speculation isn't going to get us very far, or obtain any brownie points. We are, regardless, the benificiaries of these gifts. This is a, perhaps the, fundamental religious feeling- thankfulness for the infinite powers and entities that we embody, experience, and rely on, yet have precious little understanding of- the mysterium tremendum.

Does this all imply god? No. God is a rather pathetically inferred solution to, or better yet, an anthropomorphization of, this mystery. As social beings, and products of families, we in a primitive state might naturally ascribe the vast mysteries that undergird our existence and far outstrip our conceptions to a personified father figure (or mother, if one's society happens to be matriarchial). No error could be more obvious. Science has served to push the boundaries of mystery a little farther out, from a choking fog where virtually everything is obscure, to a view that goes billions of light-years across the universe. What all this has shown is, that as far as we can see, mechanism is the rule. Our bodies are mechanisms. The universe is a mechanism. Diseases are not the vengeance of jealous gods, nor is the weather. The inference of god has not held up well over time- not well at all. Yet that does not mean that we shouldn't be thankful for the gifts we receive, which are so rich on our life-giving planet. Nor that we shouldn't strive to pass them on rather than destroying them in the current moment of greed, by our thoughtless overpopulation and immiseration of this world.

• Another soul eaten by the president.
• And his base... the truly demented.
• The ideology of business naturally shoots itself in the foot.
• Failure of public management angers some.

Atlas of Political Correctness

An appreciation of Cloud Atlas. (Spoiler alert!)

I recently happened across the 2012 film "Cloud Atlas", which must be one of the baggiest films ever made. Even reading the plot on the Wikipedia page leaves one befuddled. Yet it was great fun to watch, clearly an actor's feast and treasury of tropes and cultural references, six films packed into one. It is typical for science fiction films now to have huge ambitions and let plots go wild, sacrificing coherence for short-term motivation and effects. No reference to 2001 here- that would have been a harsh comparison, and overly optimistic.

The ensemble of actors get to play many roles, some have parts in each of the six stories set in different time periods. But no one crosses type. The good characters are always played by one set of actors, the bad guys by the other set. Nurse Noakes of the prison-like nursing home, in an inspired bit of cross-dressing, is played by Hugo Weaving, who also plays the killer Bill Smoke and the future executioner Boardman Mephi, among others. This helpfully keeps at least the good-guy/bad guy valence coherent, even as the rest of stories hop-scotch about wildly in time and place.

And what places! There is a matrix-like high-tech future dystopia, and even more dystopian low-tech lord-of-the-flies future beyond that, a seventies streets-of-San Francisco, Victorian shipping, wartime England, and the present. A grab-bag of well-worn settings, vivified by enthusiastic acting and propulsive, if perforated, plots.

Everything is confused. This DVD cover hints at the sprawling mess the Wachowski brothers attempted to bring to the screen.

So what is it about? Each story has a basic good versus bad armature, whether of vast world-spanning oppression countered by a Zion/Keanu Reeves-style resistance, an oil industry plot to blow up a nuclear reactor, countered by a journalist, or an evil Hugh Grant who tries to lock up his brother in a nursing home, which the latter escapes in a crazy escape and chase sequence. The various worlds / times are tenuously linked by readings from their respective pasts. The farthest future uses a climactic speech from the Zion-like resistance as its scripture. The Zion resistance watches the nursing home caper for entertainment. And so forth. The real connections, however, are the politically correct tropes of contemporary movie making. The heroes are all good, the villains are all bad, and each is ready identified (cue music) whatever the age we may be in.

The relentlessness of this good/bad dichotomy easily knits the whole thing together even without an identifiable plot, yet is also a glaring philosophical weakness. We watch movies to be uplifted and gain some hope in a difficult world, and generally expect and deserve a happy ending. But films such as these prompt the question of why... Why are bad people so common throughout the ages? Why do they dominate epoch after epoch, world after world, when every single person in the audience is cheering for the good characters, not the bad? Isn't there something deeper to be said? Indeed, isn't this easy, Zoroastrian / Manichean dramatic dichotomy damaging to a mature understanding of the world and of ourselves?

If we simply cheer for the good, and from such flacid moral exercises believe we are good, doesn't that lead right to the moral blindness that these movies try so strenuously and earnestly to "address"? Doesn't it contribute to various unwoke blindnesses like white priviledge and American exceptionalism? Unless we interrogate our own involvement in evil, the needs and compromises we routinely make, which lead through the many white-washed, green-washed, and theo-washed institutions of greed and tribalism to all the bad effects we decry in the world around us, we have not gotten very far.

• Language of fascism.
• Our position as most feudal country in the developed world.
• Lessons in Ebonics.

Atheism, or Archetype?

Religion is built on a series of inborn archetypes and intuitions. Does that mean it is inevitable?

Religion is natural, but is it right? Increasing numbers of people in the US are giving up the practice and belief, if polls are to be believed. Hellfire and damnation is sure to follow, according to those left in the pews, at least those of the farthest evangelical congregations. As a student of Carl Jung, I appreciate the psychology of religion, seeing its processes as deeply reflective of our individual and communal psychologies, as well as the consequence of a complex evolutionary process whose aim has been as much social solidarity and reproduction as much, or more than, philosophical truth. At base, we are not rational beings, and follow a variety of themes and images, termed archetypes in the Jungian system, which persistently guide our dreams,  motivations, and cultures. We are not just economic units driven by profit and loss, but have richer dramatic lives and needs.

Father

What could be more obvious? We grow up in households with father figures who are unimaginably powerful. Food just appears, housing, furniture, love, care, and power and discipline. It is no wonder that, once we grow up, there is a father-shaped hole in our view of the world. In the usual patriarchial culture, the father stands alone, at the top, as both creator and moral disciplinarian, in an archetype that is expressed over and over again in cultures throughout the world, from Zeus to Allah, as it is in our political systems naturally as well. But the mother archetype is also in play, especially in Catholic and Hindu cultures, in the Marys and various powerful devas. Is it possible to see the world without using these instinctive lenses? That is what the scientific revolution and enlightenment attempted, in a cognitive revolution that remains, evidently, incomplete. Take prayer. In the form of requesting something from the father in the sky, it is pathetically immature and retrograde, however understandable in primitive conditions of complete existential mystery. On the other hand, some meditation, joy, and gratitude for the wonders of existence are surely healthy and consistent with mature knowledge of where we stand in the universe. Involvement with this archetype reflects quite directly how far one has gotten along the developmental road from childhood to maturity.

Heaven

The afterlife used to be a rather drab, depressing affair, in the classical Greek and Jewish systems. Then it was progressively gussied up into a lottery jackpot, in the Islamic and Christian systems. Buddhists and Hindus also find life after death, in the form of reincarnation, to be absolutely central to their philosophies. The magic of consciousness is incredibly hard to give up, and hard to get rational perspective on. It takes stringent dedication to naturalism and the evident facts of the world to accept, deep down, that death is really going to be the end- of everything. One need only think about animals- they are obviously conscious, and there are levels of consciousness all the way down the scale of evolution, to infinitesimal, then finally to nothing at all. How does that work, other than in direct proportion to their physical, brain-based endowments? What could be more clear, and in stark contravention of our intuitive and (weirdly) hopeful dream of life after death?

Tribe

We are not just endowed with intellect, but with a social nature, which focuses our striving and loyalty on the tribe. Our tribe is right and good, theirs is bad and wrong. Tribalism founds and plagues every new religious sect or philosophical school, which strains to show how it is right and its predecessors wrong. Jung vs Freud, Analytical vs Continental, Shiite vs Sunni, in endless profusion. Religions lack even the veneer of factual basis which characterize other divides like political polarizations or academic disputes. Doctrine, orthodoxy, and heresy are freely defined by whoever has social power. If one's village is Evangelical, woe to Catholics. If one's family is Seventh-Day Adventist, mere contact with outsiders is forbidden. Tribes have totemic symbols and artistic traditions as part of their identification / bonding apparatus, tokens of the archetypal processes at work.

Magical or zodiacal symbols in an Islamic Book of Wonders, circa 1400. 

Magic

Living in an enchanted word is natural, and wonderful. We all start there in childhood and treasure the dramatic, humanistic power of seeing the world through archetypal lenses- in animals with special totemic powers, crystals that heal, trees that listen. This is truly where traffic with archetypes is most fluid and explicit- bringing dreams to narrative life. Religious superstition raises this drama to existential levels, putting the magic on a celestial level of god(s), all-powerful father figures, and alternatives of eternal hell-fire or bliss. The chances of all this actually describing any kind of reality is nil- we are talking total fantasy. But its evident grip on billions of people shows just how powerful magical thinking is and how far we are from being rational.

Truth

All claim truth, but few prove it. Religions are notorious for splitting into sects, each possessing the final truth, the real story. Interestingly, atheists do not splinter in this way. There is plenty of bickering, about what humanism entails or is, how liberal humanists should be, etc., but there are no Seventh-Day atheists, or Twelver atheists, or other miscelleneous schools. Communism was atheistic, but was in truth a quasi-religious, authoritarian cult all its own. Once one has discarded attachment to these archetypes and the theologies they underpin, and to the need for truth as a matter of self-identification, why then it is easier to agree on what is actually true, as well as on the many areas where we just don't know, without the need to make up stories. This need, a dire need, for answers, especially to "big" questions, is a tipoff that we are dealing with archetypal energies, not with a rational level of thought.

One could compare atheism to the concept of nirvana in Buddhism and Hinduism- the release from the cycle of rebirth, from attachment to the archetypes, and escape to a level of intellectual / emotional freedom. Escape from rebirth is implicit, since the atheist doesn't believe in rebirth, heaven or afterlife at all. It focuses attention on this life, this moment, and compassion here rather than later. But to escape the causes of suffering, (especially the infliction of suffering upon others!), by regarding the archetypes intellectually and skeptically, and by distancing one's self from them, is far more important. To leave behind the seductive entanglements of archetypal belief and the often-abusive social relations they entail is personally momentous, and a healing balm for a planet full to the brim with faithful dogmatists.

• One moving, harrowing, story of escape.
• Viral data dump from a skeptic.
• Administration cut funding for surveillance before outbreak.
• Graph for New York.
• Unemployment-ocolypse.

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.

On the Origin of Facts

Bruno Latour tours the Salk Institute, finds science taking place, and has a hard time deconstructing it.

There is a production process in science, by which the educational background, institutional setting, funding decisions, social accidents, and happenstances that form directions of research, hunches, hypotheses, and insights are stripped away, intentionally and systematically, to produce "facts" in a form ready for publication. This de- / re-contextualization serves to obfuscate the process and shamanize the practitioners, but more importantly it serves to generalize the resulting fact and put it into its scientific rather than social context. And it is the scientific context- the fact's objective existence- not the social context, that makes it powerful and useful for further construction of other facts. The social context forms part of the essential background / input, but the produced facts and insights are not by nature social, nor should they be received as such.

Experiments are instrumental in this transformation process, which goes from a hunch, to a collegial suggestion, to an hypothesis, to a testable hypothesis, to the hunt for alternative hypotheses and thus for experiments designed to exclude them and to support the main hypothesis, (if true), followed by group presentations and critique, outside peer review that adduces more alternative hypotheses and possible experiments, and finally to publication and collegial acceptance (or rejection and refutation). When all this is done, the murky origins of the hunch necessarily fall away and become trivially unimportant, (other than in memoirs and reminiscences), and the fact stands alone as supported with all the armament that science can bring to bear, both in its technical testing capabilities and its social structure of critique. It thence, if lucky, becomes a sentence in a textbook. In Bruno Latour's words, it is "freed from the circumstances of its production"

The above was a recounting of the conventional (and scientist's) perspective on the evolution of scientific facts. Whether this is the case is contested by social constructivism, a movement in philosophy that adheres to antirealism, which is to say that all of what we regard as outside "reality" is socially constructed, and thus science is likewise a social institution that generates conventions that by its social power it is able to foist onto a naive public, who in turn, like sheep, contribute their taxes to keep the scientific community wallowing in money and social power, cranking out yet more obscure and artificial "facts". Indeed, the very status of truth that is given to facts is fundamentally a social construct made up of a community of believing people, whatever their reasons and supposed evidence.

A few of Latour's works over the years. He declines to be post-modern, because he disagrees with the whole frame of modernity, as being somehow different from or non-continuous with the rest of history. And this attitude comes back to his dismissive attitude towards science and the enlightenment as being a break in kind from prior ways of understanding the world. It has just been fetishes all the way down.

Bruno Latour (along with his co-writer Steve Woolgar) waded into this controversy back in the 1970s with a French philosophical and anthropological background, to investigate what really goes on in a laboratory. He embedded himself into a leading laboratory and learned how it operated, informally and formally. This is recounted in the book "Laboratory Life" (1979; recent review), which, as usual for continental philosophers, is challenging to make sense of. The authors tend to straddle the two perspectives, both respecting and recounting the normal scientific activities and perspectives, (if rather laboriously), and then also persistently suggesting their contrary viewpoint and program that they bring to the project.

"Despite the fact that our scientists held the belief that the inscriptions could be representations or indicators of some entity with an independent existence 'out there', we have argued that such entities were constituted solely through the use of these inscriptions. ... By contrast, we do not conceive of scientists using various strategies as pulling back the curtain on pregiven, but hitherto concealed, truths. Rather, objects (in this case substances) are constituted through the artful creativity of scientists. Interestingly, attempts to avoid the use of terminology which implies the preexistence of objects subsequently revealed by scientists has led us into certain sylistic difficulties. This, we suggest, is precisely because of the prevalence of a certain form of discourse in the description of process. We have therefore found it extremely difficult to formulate descriptions of scientific activity which do not yield to the misleading impression that science is about discovery (rather than creativity and construction). It is not just that a change of emphasis is required; rather, the formulations which characterize historical descriptions of scientific practice require exorcism before the nature of this practice can best be understood."

Exorcism indeed! One might posit a simpler explanation- that science is, in fact, in the business of discovery, though with the caveat that what is to be dis-covered is never fully known beforehand, sometimes not even suspected, and thus there is a great deal of intutition, creativity, variation, and social construction involved in the process, and uneven and unpredictable results coming out. While the status of the resulting fact is never perfectly secure, and is supported by another social process of conventional agreement, that agreement is routinely granted once the preceeding critical hoops have been surmounted and leads generally to the vast pool of factual and "objective" information that finds its home in the academic literature, textbooks, college instruction, Wikipedia, etc. A pool that is further confirmed routinely by succeeding work and technical developments that depend on its objective factuality.

Latour does not, in the end, adhere to the hard program of social construction, for the simple fact that the object of the scientific story he recounts, the thyrotropin releasing hormone (TRF), was found, was found to be a specific and real substance, and went on to a respected place in medical practice and the textbooks, not to mention later earning a Nobel prize. There is real comedy in the attempt, however, as the anthropologist takes on the scientists at their own game, analyzing and plumbing their depths for structures and paradigms that they themselves hardly suspect, complete with diagrams of the laboratory, pictures of the roof and other apparatus, graphs of publication trends, and verbatim interviews with protagonists, underlings, etc. It is a sort of depth-psychology of one laboratory.

"But it would be incorrect to conclude that the TRF story only exhibits the partial influence of sociological features. instead, we claim that TRF is a thoroughly social construction. By maintaining the sense in which we use social, we hope to be able to pursue the strong programme at a level apparently beyond traditional sociological grasp. In Knorr's terms, we want to demonstrate the idiosyncratic, local, heteregeneous, contextual, and multifaceted character of scientific practices. We suggest that the apparently logical character of reasoning is only part of a much more complex phenomenon that Auge calls 'practices of interpretation' and which comprises local, tacit negotiation, constantly changing evaluations, and unconscious or institutionalized gestures. ... In short, we observe how difference between the logic of scientific and non-scientific practices of interpretation are created and sustained within the laboratory."

Granted, most of this is overwrought, but the true worth of this work was that these observers came into an eminent lab and paid minute attention to what was going on, and emphasized that what comes out of the sausage machine in publication and other products is far different than the materials that go in. While the conventional approach would emphasize the preceeding scientific observations and technical developments that led the leader of this lab to even contemplate that the purification of TRF from millions of dissected brains was possible and desirable, Latour emphasizes instead, and with some success, the social contingencies that surrounded the original uncertainties, the slow progress, the false leads and constantly discarded "bad results", the huge amount of money and effort required, and other nitty-gritty that forms the day-today of laboratory life. The latter emphasis is useful in accounting for how science gets done, but discards other crucial inputs, and is ultimately not at all convincing as a general theory of what science accomplishes or is.

I think the confusion arises fundamentally (apart from professional jealousy) from the fact that social constructivism is perfectly valid for some areas of our lives, such as arts, fashion, religion, morality, and to some extent, politics. Many problems do not have an objective criterion, and are socially constructed on an ongoing basis with criteria that boil down to what and who is thought good, whether for the individual, family, collective, etc. And the insistant denial of the total social construction of one's own field- as is understandably routine among scientists- is particularly vehement (and unfounded) in the case of religion and has lent the latter bizarre and extraordinary power through the centuries, which the deconstructivist project is entirely appropriate and well-prepared to investigate. And it should be said that many forms of primitive and pseudo-science partake of this form as well, if not of outright fraud. So the line is hardly stable or absolute. But when it comes to science as practiced in the enlightnement tradition, with a variety of safeguards and institutional practices that feature competition, peer review at multiple levels, and final public transparency, the approach falls flat.

• A contemporary accounting of this scientific race, last of a 3-part series.
• TRF is one of a series of "releasing hormones", operating between the hypothalamus and pituitary. Or should the word "is" be put in quotes?
• A critique of the critique.
• Mankiw takes on MMT, and obsesses about inflation, along mainstream lines.
• MMT replies.
• Limited liberty at Liberty University.
• Notes from the Taliban.
• Birds: who cares?
• A cult is exposed.

Success is an Elixir

We are besotted by success. For very obvious evolutionary reasons, but with problematic consequences.

Why is the James Bond franchise so compelling? It got more cartoonish over the years, but the old Sean Connery embodied a heady archetype of the completely successful hero. A man as skilled in vetting wines as in flying planes, as debonair with the ladies as he was in fighting hand-to-hand, all while outwitting the most malevolent and brilliant criminal minds. Handsome, witty, and brutally effective in all he turned his hand to, there was little complexity, just relentless perfection, other than an inexplicable penchant for getting himself into dramatic situations, from which he then suavely extricated himself.

We worship success, for understandable reasons, but sometimes a little too much. As Reagan said, nothing succeeds like success. It is fundamental to our growth from childhood to adulthood, to demonstrate and be recognized for some kind of effectiveness- passing tests, graduating from school, becoming skilled in some art or profession, which is socially recognized as useful, maybe through the medium of money. The ancient rites of passage recognized this, by setting a key test, such as killing the bear, or withstanding some brutal austerity. Only through effectiveness in life can we justify that life to ourselves and to others. The role can take many forms- extroverts tend to focus on social power- the capability of bending others to their will, while introverts may focus more on other skills like making tools or interpreting the natural world.

The Darwinian case is clear enough- each life is a hero's quest to express one's inner gifts and capabilities, in order to succeed not only in thriving in the given environment, but in replicating, creating more successful versions of one's self which do so all over again. Women naturally fall for successful men, as James Bond so amply demonstrated, but as is seen in so many fields, from basketball to finance.

But all this creates some strong cognitive biases that have some influences that are not always positive. Junior high school is the most obvious realm where these play out. Children are getting used to the idea that life is not fair, and that they can communally form social standards and decisions about what constitutes success, which then victimize those on the losing end- what is cool, what is lame, who is a loser, etc. Popularity contests, like politics and the stock market, are notorious for following fashions that valorize what one generation may believe is success, only to have the next generation look back in horror and redefine success as something else. In these cases, success is little more than a commonly held opinion about success, which leads to the success of con men like our current president, who insists that everything he does is perfectly successful, and who inspires sufficient fear, or confidence, or suspension of disbelief, or is so ably assisted by the propaganda of his allies, that many take him seriously. Indeed, it is exactly the unaccountable support of his allies who surely know better that force others in the wider circles of the society to take seriously what no rational or decent person would believe for a second.

The status of minorities is typically a "loser" status, since by definition their beliefs and practices, and perhaps their very existence, are not popular. While this may be a mark of true Darwinian lack of success, it is far more likely to be an accident of, or an even less innocent consequence of, history. In any case, our worship of success frequently blinds us to the value of minorities and minority perspectives, and is a large reason why such enormous effort has been expended over millennia, on religious, legal, constitutional, and cultural planes, to remedy this bias and promote such things as democracy, diversity, due process, and respect for contrasting perspectives.

We are victimized in many other ways by our mania for success- by advertisers, by the gambling industry, by war mongers, among many others, who peddle easy success while causing incalculable damage. While it is hard to insulate ourselves from these social influences and judgements, which are, after all, the soul of evaluating success; as with any other cognitive bias, being in our guard is essential to avoiding cults, traps, and, ultimately, expensive failure.

• The news from Chris Hedges.
• Who produces value, where is the money going?
• History repeats itself.
• A look back, at Afghanistan.
• Life on earth is suffering.

Meritocracy

Is meritocracy intrinsically bad, or good for some things, not so good for others?

A recent book review in the New Yorker ruminated on the progress and defects of the meritocracy, a word born in sarcasm, now become an ideology and platitude. I am not sure that the review really touched on the deeper issues involved, so am motivated to offer a followup. The term was coined by a British sociologist, which is significant, as it describes a fundamental shift from the preceding system, the class system, as a way of allocating educational opportunity, professional work, military grades, and social status in general. It would be natural for someone of the British upper class to decry such a change, though the coiner, Michael Young, was generally a socialist and egalitarian, though eventually made into a Baron for his services ... ironically.

The book review focused mostly on the educational establishment, where the greatest sea change has occurred. Where elite schools used to lazily accept their students from elite prep academies, from certain rich families and class backgrounds, now they make a science of student selection, searching far and wide, high and low, for the most meritorious candidates. Are SAT scores useful? Not very, the new consensus has it, especially as such tests unconsciously reproduce various cultural biases, instead of rendering the true grail- a score of merit, whatever that really might be. But anyhow the slicing is done, higher education is now an intense, mostly meritocratic sorting process, granting opportunities and education on the basis of qualifications, intent on funneling the most capable people into the higher rungs of the ladder of professional activities and status.

One question is whether all this laborious sorting of students has been a good thing, overall. Do we get better staffed hospitals, better filled jobs throughout the economic system by virtue of this exquisitely and remorselessly selective weeding system? Yes we do, perhaps at the cost of some social serendipity, of finding CEO material in the mailroom, and the like.

But the deeper question is whether all this selection has been good for our society at large. There is answer has to be more guarded. If economic efficiency is the only goal, then sure. But it isn't, and some of our social atomization, and creeping class-ism and despair in the lower rungs of society comes from the intensification of meritocratic selection, which spills over to many other areas of society, directly through income and wealth, and indirectly through many other mechanisms of status, particularly politics. Much of Trump's support comes from people sick of the "elites"- those selected by SAT scores, course grades, and the like to rule over the working class. It is not clear that grubbing for grades and mastering standardized exams have done such a good job at selecting a ruling political class. That class has not done a very good job, and that poor performance has sapped our social solidarity. The crisis is most glaring in the stark cost of losing out- homelessness and destitution- the appalling conditions that are the mirror of billionaires also produced by this Darwinian system.

The problem is that we need areas of our lives that are not plugged into the rat race, for both psychological and sociological reasons. Such areas are increasingly scarce as this new gilded age gobbles up all our social relations under the rubric of the market, paticularly with its newly internet-extended capabilities. Religion has traditionally been a social locus where every one is worth the same- many classes come together to share some profound feelings, and occasionally explicit anti-establishment messages, (though also often a message of exalted status vs some other sect, faith, or unbelievers). But religion is dying, for good reason.

A town meeting

Civic associations and volunteer life have in the US been a frequent antidote to class-ism, with people of all classes coming together to make each others' lives better. But modern transportation has enabled the definitive sorting of classes by socioeconomic level, rendering civic activity, even when it occurs, poor at social mixing. No longer does a geographic community have to include those of all professions and walks of life to be viable. We can have lilly-white suburbs and gated communities, and have any tradespeople and retail employees commute in from far away. That is a problem, one caused ultimately by fossil fuels and the freedom that they bring. The civic sector has also been invaded by an army of vanity foundations sponsored by the rich- a patronizing and typically futile approach to social betterment. Volunteerism has also been sapped by lack of time and money, as employees throughout the economic system are lashed ever more tightly to their jobs, stores kept open at all hours, and wages for most stagnate. Unions are another form of civic association that have withered.

All this has frayed the local civic and social connections, which are the ultimate safety net and source of civic solidarity. While Republicans bray about how terrible government is at replacing these services with top-down programs, (with some justification), they have at the same time carried out a decades-long battle to weaken both government and civic life, leaving a smoldering ruin in the name of a new feudal overlordship of the "job-creators"- the business class. That is the ultimate problem with meritocracy, and while appreciating its role in spreading social justice in the distribution of educational and professional opportunity, (a promise that is far from fully realized), we need to realize its cost in other areas of our national culture, and work to restore community diversity, community institutions, and community solidarity.

• Are corporations amoral and evil?
• Is market manipulation part of the story?
• Don't go to the hospital.
• Japan vs MMT.
• Amazing Chopin.
• Quote of the week:

Where love rules, there is no will to power; where power predominates, there love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other. – Carl Jung

The Participation Mystique

How we relate to others, things, environments.

We are all wrapped up in the impeachment drama now, wondering what could be going on with a White House full of people who have lost their moral compasses, their minds. Such drama is an exquisite example of participation mystique, on our part as we look on in horror as the not very bright officials change their stories by the day, rats start to leave the sinking ship, and the president twists in the wind. We might not sympathize, but we recognize, and voyeuristically participate in, the emotions running and the gears turning.

Carl Jung took the term, participation mystique, from the anthropologist Lucien Levy Bruhl. The original conception was a rather derogotory concept about the animism common among primitive people, that they project anthropomorphic and social characters to objects in the landscape, thus setting up mystical connections with rocks, mountains, streams, etc. Are such involvements characteristic of children and primitive people, but not of us moderns? Hardly. Modern people have distancing and deadening mechanisms to manage our mental involvement with projected symbologies, foremost among which is the scientific mindset. But our most important and moving experiences partake of identification with another- thing or person, joining our mental projection with their charisma, whatever that might be.

Participation mystique remains difficult to define and use as a concept, despite books being written about it. But I would take it as any empathetic or identification feelings we have toward things and people, by which the boundaries in between become blurred. We have a tremendous mental power to enter into other's feelings, and we naturally extend such participation (or anthropomorphism) far beyond its proper remit, to clouds, weather events, ritual objects, etc. This is as true today with new age religions and the branding relationships that every company seeks to benefit from, as it is in the more natural setting of imputing healing powers to special pools of water, or standing in awe of a magnificent tree. Such feelings in relation to animals has had an interesting history, swinging from intense identification on the part of typical hunters and cave painters, to an absurd dismissal of any soul or feeling by scientistic philosophers like Descartes, and back to a rather enthusiastic nature worship, nature film-making, and a growing scientific and philosophical appreciation of the feelings and moral status of animals in the present day.

Participation mystique is most directly manipulated and experienced in the theater, where a drama is specifically constructed to draw our sympathetic feeings into its world, which may have nothing to do with our reality, or with any reality, but is drenched in the elements of social drama- tension, conflict, heroic motivations, obstacles. If you don't feel for and with Jane Eyre as she grows from abused child, to struggling adult, to lover, to lost soul, and finally to triumphant partner, your heart is made of stone. We lend our ears, but putting it psychologically, we lend a great deal more, with mirror neurons hard at work.

All this is involuntary and unconscious. Not that it does not affect our conscious experience, but the participation mystique arises as an automatic response from brain levels that we doubtless share with many other animals. Seeing squirrels chase each other around a tree gives an impression of mutual involvement and drama that is inescapable. Being a social animal requires this kind of participation in each other's feelings. So what of the psychopath? He seems to get these participatory insights, indeed quite sensitively, but seems unaffected- his own feelings don't mirror, but rather remain self-centered. He uses his capabilities not to sympathise with, but to manipulate, others around him or her. His version of participation mystique is a truncated half-experience, ultimately lonely and alienating.

And what of science, philosophy and other ways we systematically try to escape the psychology of subjective identification and participation? As mentioned above in the case of animal studies, a rigid attitude in this regard has significantly retarded scientific progress. Trying to re-establish objectively what is so obvious subjectively is terribly slow, painstaking work. Jane Goodall's work with chimpanzees stands as a landmark here, showing the productive balance of using both approaches at once. But then when it comes to physics and the wide variety of other exotic phenomena that can not be plausibly anthropomorphized or participated in via our subjective identification, the policy of rigorously discarding all projections and identifications pays off handsomely, and it is logic alone that can tell us what reality is.

• The Democratic candidates on worker rights.
• Was it trade or automation? Now that everything is made in China, the answer should be pretty clear.
• On science.
• Turns out that Google is evil, after all.
• Back when some Republicans had some principles.
• If all else fails, how about a some nice culture war?
• What is the IMF for?
• #DeleteFacebook
• Graphic: who is going to tax the rich? Who is pushing a fairer tax system overall? Compare Biden with Warren carefully.