page 86 Split consciousness

This is a scratch pad entry.

Split Conciousness which Jung describes ...

"It's as if two different persons were making statements about the same thing, each from his own point of view."

Jung describes this split between a person divided between faith and knowledge. He speaks of it in a religious context. But it's easy to see in a political context too.

It's an insight which explains a great deal of confusing information about American politics. We're a "good and moral" country. This is faith. It's a statement that can be justified based on definitions perhaps, and comparing actions to definitions of morality. But to say it with any emotion or faith (which is the way it is always said) is plainly meaningless. A obvious "our team" emotional assertion, even if it happens to be true. But to restart the example: Our country is "good" and "moral" and "the best." So, our support of a dictator is ... mostly ignored by us. Or when, for a few minutes, it cannot be ignored, it is justified on the most ridiculously transparent excuse. We had to support the Shah's repressions in order to prevent to prevent the Soviet Union from imposing a dictatorship. Or: We have to support Israel because [fill in the blank], whereas one of the most powerful real reasons has to do with defense spending.

Or in domestic politics: Our "health care system" (not one word of that trinity applies) is the "greatest in the world," (this is faith, nationalism, wishful thinking ) even though millions of Americans are bankrupted by it (this is One Big Fact which shouldn't be ignored. But it is ignored).

Jung's formula of the split consciousness explains much politics which is "fact-challenged". Which is criticized as not reality-based. Which is, quite openly at times, trumpeted by its practitioners as "faith-based." (They mean it in a different sense. They mean they based their practice on their religious faith. In fact, they do. They just don't know how readily they add all kinds of extras to their bag of faith: global warming deniers, etc.)

Finally: interesting to note: how much faith in our day is about denial of fact. The sheer volume of denials in some modern American evangelical's bucket of "faith" overwhelms the positive assertions in his faith by a good deal. A brief list:

biological evolution

global warming

biology of drug addiction

biology of alcohol addiction

biology of depression

geology

astronomy

the legitimate existence of other religions and cultures

and so on.

More on Solzhenitsyn

On the question of Solzhenitsyn's belief in the practical, inevitable, political result of writing, even when in the Soviet gulag.

Obituary published in the Boston Review: http://bostonreview.net/BR34.2/boylan.php Obit from the Boston Review.

Obit from the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-obituaries/2495704/Alexander-Solzhenitsyn.html

Solzhenitsyn appears to have been one of those men who have an unassailable self-confidence. That is wonder at which to focus attention on. And not on his belief that one word of truth could outweigh the whole world.

His belief is neither more nor less interesting than anyone else's opinion about such an unfalsifiable question. It sounds impressive but is as devoid of meaning as any rhetoric could be.

In this case, it's more instructive to observe the finger than the moon at which it points.

Or rather, the man who wields the finger. He is the wonder. He, not his belief, is what we can learn from. The confidence makes the belief. Most certainly it is not the other way around.