5. A Tale of Two Pathologies

John Milton observed that, “The mind is its own place and in itself, can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.” Such is the pervasive nature of one’s worldview, which has a lot in common with eye glasses. When looking through glasses we don’t question the quality of the glasses themselves, rather we are only interested in what we can see through them. The difference with worldview is that we have some choice before us at all times, and our decisions have the power to distort or clarify our vision or “glasses”. This incrementally and ultimately renders people obscure to each other. We do not “choose between an image of total freedom or total determinism”, because we “can only choose within the world we can see.” — Iris Murdoch. Incremental and reciprocal expansion (or contraction) between limited choice and the world we can see, determines the extent of our vision and capacity for action.

“This life's dim windows of the soul,
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.”
- William Blake 

Each individual is the sum and sequence of their choices, with initial choices being the most significant as in a nonlinear system adapting to feedback. Because of this, Conservatives ought to strive for T.S. Eliot’s vision of “a society in which the natural end of man—virtue and well-being in community—is acknowledged for all, and the supernatural end of man—beatitude—for those who have eyes to see it.”

How do we go about understanding psychology, especially pathology? I have found insights from Carl Jung’s work (especially ’Psychological Types’) useful here. First, let us acknowledge two initial decisions (or orientations) and thus two paths to the supernatural end of man (or what we’ll call centroversion). This initial choice is between extraversion or introversion. Extraversion refers to an affinity for the object, for impression upon the psyche by the arena (the external world). Introversion refers to an affinity for the subject, for expression upon the arena by the psyche (the internal world). 

Secondly, let us acknowledge three obstacles common to both paths; the persona, the ego and the anima/animus. These are obstacles of representation, and thus of choice. They get their power from the strength of identity, stemming from the mental model of one-self, which determines one’s relationship to self, others and the arena. This representational situation of identity gives rise to the attitudes mentioned in the first chapter. The allocating of Good, Evil or neither to the broadest categories of existence.

Jung details further assumptions which determine the interrelation between four psychological functions. These are basic, disparate and necessary assumptions which give rise to various personality types, and the variation between individuals. All of these fundamental assumptions, when successfully utilised, will converge upon the same endpoint. We shall use Erich Neumann’s term for this endpoint, ‘centroversion’, as Jung’s own ‘circumambulation’ is a tad unwieldy, and ‘beatitude’ unpalatable to the secular. 

Before his student gave rise to the term ‘centroversion’, Jung explained it as “when an almost perfect state has been reached, when in fact the introvert has attained a world of ideas so rich and flexible and capable of expression that it no longer forces the object onto a procrustean bed, and the extrovert an ample knowledge of and respect for the object that it no longer gives rise to caricature when he operates with it in his thinking.”

Jung used Goethe’s own words as an illustration of this state; “As a contemplative man I am an arrant realist, so that I am capable of desiring nothing from all the things that present themselves to me, and wishing nothing added to them. I make no sort of distinction among objects beyond whether they interest me or not. On the other hand, in every sort of activity I am, one might almost say completely idealistic; I ask nothing at all from objects, but instead I demand that everything shall conform to my conceptions.” 

We will return to centroversion and it’s trajectory, but we must now consider the sources of pathology, whereby feedback renders the psyche increasingly less adapted to its function. Returning again to Jung’s key insight, we can see that there must be two types of pathology; extraverted and introverted. Introverted pathology attempts to force objects to fit into the scheme of his worldview. Extraverted pathology single-mindedly attempts to ‘bind himself to joy’, as explained by William Blake in his poem ‘Eternity’.

He who binds to himself a joy
Does the winged life destroy
He who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in eternity’s sunrise.
— William Blake

Thus, in our post-religious era those suffering from introverted pathology produce a secular totalitarianism, whilst those suffering from extraverted pathology produce a hedonistic nihilism. 

The first psychological obstacle is that of identification with the persona, the persona being that which is a product of a dialogue between the Self and the Other, and thus subject to the limitations of consensus. The initial introvert is likely to avoid this obstacle with relative ease, simply due to the location of the Other within the Arena. He is likely to be far more obstructed by his ego (located internally) than will be the extravert, and will fall into the trappings of a Will philosophy. Very often this Will finds itself obstructed by tradition, or Culture which it regards as the comforting conformity of fools.

The extravert is prone to the trappings of persona because the location of the Other is within his beloved Arena. Relativism becomes necessary for their hedonistic aims, which renders them incapable of discernment and apathetic toward anything that does not immediately expedite their satisfaction. Thus they oft reduce non-consensus views to the level of caricature, blind to the fact that fate is not furnished by consensus, but by consent.

“The Copernican Revolution of modern philosophy removed the notion of certainty from the inside to the outside.” — Iris Murdoch. A coalition of secular totalitarianism and hedonistic nihilism has become well established, against Culture and under the banner of relativism; we must stop you from your aim so that we may reach ours.

A great part of Western populations has spent 2020 lurching from one hysteria to the next. The relations between the pathological has become increasingly cult like, whereby participants initiate, indoctrinate and reprogram one another. The pathological have sought consensus at any cost, preventing dissent and appraisal of alternatives. Increasingly they have developed common fears which have spiralled into a panic. Feeding off of each other’s emotional reactions has caused the panic to escalate.

These forms of psychological pathology are best observed in students of our contemporary universities. The representation and represented are kept completely seperate during the course of study, which rapidly results in either hyper-extroversion or hyper-introversion (depending on the original orientation). 

Such forms of hypertrophy are increasingly difficult to escape the longer they persist. I’ve experienced this very phenomenon whilst studying civil engineering by pure theory; I became increasingly resentful of others as I become increasingly hyper-extroverted.

Contemporary students don’t need to demonstrate any mastery over reality, least the minimum required to earn a living, instead subsisting on easy money from parents, taxpayers or banks. Often after completing their studies, they feel most jobs to be beneath their ‘expertise’ and are further placated by a welfare state willing to fund their desperate evasion of productive participation in society.

This sad state of affairs is analysed implicitly in Kevin Carey’s book ‘The End of College’. “It wasn’t until recently that truly damning evidence of the hybrid universities educational shortcomings became widely known. Even then, the alarming findings from the US Department of Educations study of college graduate literacy — the majority of bachelors degree holders are unable to read at an advanced level — so contradicted the popular image of universities as dedicated centres of learning that they seemed unable to penetrate the popular consciousness.” The reason this issue cannot enter popular consciousness is because the persona/ego possessed regard university as a luxury good, much like a Rolex.

What if anything, can be done to deprogram our friends from the cult of Woke and release them for more cheerful occupations? Could a common event - such as a financial collapse - achieve this for most? Possibly. Unfortunately my mind returns to knowledge of incremental choice and the momentum in falling downward. Perhaps a common experience could offer up a powerful enough choice to those long wrong, however this deep hope emphasises the importance of our containment efforts outlined in the prior section.

Any event powerful enough to provide such a remedy would have to be economic. It would necessarily require the collapse of the current fiat monetary system, which sustains false hierarchies. Without such a monetary system, the pathological will be unable to sustain their personas, nor their egos. They would be forced into a reckoning through pure scarcity. It seems that the false pursuits of man contain the seeds of their own remedy as required decades, even centuries later.

Unfortunately until such time, these “technocrats will continue to assert that their expertise, credentials, and merit (false hierarchies) make them the morally legitimate power in the West.” — George Friedman. We must resist them through the implicit power of centroversion, and then directly if necessary. For “if we lose this culture war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, History will record with the greatest astonishment that those with the most to lose did the least to prevent it happening.” — Ronald Reagan. Let’s leave pathology and return to centroversion of the individual.

Whilst this conflict may appear to be political, it is in fact religious. Many religious differences have their seed in the choice between discrete truths and truths that form part of the whole. The metaphysical realisation is that the whole is evolving. That is to say that things are not fixed in Nature, that things are created. That there is a reservoir of potential, and a destination for all that is actualised. The ontological realisation is that the whole (or absolute unity) drives the process of actualisation (creation or destruction) by acting through persons (the particular). Creation begins in a vision of unity, whilst destruction has its origins in relativism.

One may rightly ask what are the steps to toward the greatest of realisations, and I can only hope to be right so far as my limited age permits. I cannot make incremental choices for anyone, nor would I want to remove the mystery from the lives of others.

Return again to the levels of our causal pyramid mentioned in the prior chapter. Starting with the base: praxeology, axiology, epistemology, politics (cosmology of Persons), economics (cosmology of Nature), metaphysics and ontology. Consider these definitions for now:

Praxeology — the individual’s arrangement of external objects toward his own ends.

Axiology — the individual’s arrangement of internal representations toward his own ends, i.e. values.

Epistemology — the individual’s capacity to create an overlap between the external and internal worlds, i.e. psychology.

Cosmology of people (Politics) — the universally applicable pivot between creation and destruction.

Nature (economics) — universally applicable, eternal laws unalterable by mankind.

Metaphysics — the existence of a reservoir of potential, and movement toward actualisation, i.e. Aristotle and Plotinus.

Ontology — the absolute unity, as a destination, and which acts through persons, giving rise to ‘Petersonian’ hierarchies. That is the realisation that the potential works in us, even as the actual works on us, i.e. Religion/Christianity.

One must nest prior levels of experience within each new level of realisation. That is the prior levels must become automatic whilst remaining effective. That is we must achieve our external needs while satisfying our values. These values must not upset our psychology and so on. I must remind you “that ‘all is one’ is a dangerous falsehood at any level except the highest.” — Iris Murdoch. The centroverted must remember that “you and I have the ability, dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.” — Ronald Reagan.

You move from one knowledge structure to the next one which includes the previous one and it is better. And it’s better because it covers more territory.
— Jordan B Peterson

‍