Thanks for sharing,

Ramona

We both know, to be in, as you say, the morass of shadow, is not to experience it as such. So, it’s an observation that goes along with noting when it appears a ’subject’ is magnetized or charmed or is a magical participant in a particularly one-sided collective idea/idealization. Thus, I reprise here how we–you and me–would put it in the surface terms of the analytic psychology.

(Key reference for this is Thomas Kirsch’s concept of the Collective Complex. I’ll note the resource in a blog post.)

However, in noting this, I would say for myself that none of this is hard to understand. I wouldn’t firstly appeal to Analytic Psychology. For me, from the perspective of social psychology, especially via the subset of social cognition, it’s fairly straight forward to suppose what factors of personality, cognition, and cognitive complexity, are (in effect) given by certain manifestations of belief, and, more importantly and more primary, manifestations of specific problematic sensemaking and social constructions of reality. However, “twas ever thus.” (See the post, C.I.N.O. Also, ponder the problem in sensemaking as a religious problem in the Jungian sense.)

This is one reason why introduced the idiosyncratic idea about ’second order’ apprehension. This is a novel way of of describing a generalization about a ‘type’ of personality coming to be vulnerable to having his or her sense of reality programmed without any further adaptation possible.

This further adaptation may refer to all sorts of critical cognitive capabilities, but in the broadest sense we know it as having that “good bullshit detector.”

It’s understood that belief in something being true is the same as its being true for the believer.

They jockey with each other for prime positioning, perhaps hoping reality will reinforce the confirmation bias built in to their models!

Economic reality, in all its messiness, could serve as the raw stuff of good realistic models. But, it’s the code of ideology in the ‘programs’ that twist the models away from actuality.

I’m not sure what you mean in your closing suggestion. “when any question is attacked as unpatriotic, fear becomes the operating principle”

There are fearful people. Implicit in my suggestions is that fear and anger often converge on singular beliefs and views. But, those aren’t usually the people I’d be directing to questions about economics.

Then, if you were able to do so, I’d consider how it is necessarily ramified.

Since I know of zero evidence in favor of any facts contrary of happenstance, I would be open to learning about such evidence.

First of all, as context, I would give weight to “knowing” as the product of a more rich view of human experience that integrates reasoning-feeling-imagining-creating. (plus more)

Here, for me, the vastly reduced categories given by, for example, Dr. Jung, predate the cognitive revolution, so they under specify the complexity.

Be that as it may, to vastly reduce my own sense, given (perhaps) turgid form in the post, is that activism might best be integrated with knowledgeable forming of accurate context. This act of knowing what are the features of the context–not necessarily only mechanics–is always incomplete.

There is so much evidence of collective acts counting, that I understand you to be valorizing certain acts of individuals.

Back to Dr.Jung. He just didn’t understand how consciousness is amplified in collaborative environments. For example, he couldn’t comment on how musical and creative consciousness is amplified within a symphony orchestra. This is obviously an extremely concrete example.

What he missed, and what his phenomenology missed, is what could be termed the “horizontal” dimension. He put individual consciousness at the top of his vertical chain-of-consciousness, and put the shadow of collective consciousness close to the bottom.

Then, Jung basically ended his inquiry, because–presumably–the nature of group consciousness was held by him always to reflect some suppression of the most conscious individual in the group.

This is wrong, and is falsified by the simple example of the musical ensemble. What he missed was that group consciousness could attend to “high” goals that individual consciousness cannot attend to.

The horizontal dimension is that dimension that supports the unfolding of actual living in and through the requirements of life itself, rather than the vertical and aspirational climb to realize who one really is to be in only vertical terms. (In modern terms, Jung had a modal bias, didn’t truly get the yin and soul of being in its soulful, non-aspirational, not moralist enactment.)

This noted, the shadow of activism includes the propensity to not also activate the higher nature of the ‘ensemble of activists.’ In my opinion, the hallmark of this is: self-satisfaction.

Not caring to really know the context goes along with this; supports it.