Humanity reduced to pixels

As many images have been captured in the past 6 months, as have been taken in the history of humanity to-date (paintings, drawings, films, photos etc).

Donald Winnicott proposed that the mother establishes the sense of reality, of existence, in her infant by adapting herself to his internal world of sensation, and by acting as a mirror; reflecting back through her face – the baby’s internal sensations. (‘The Mirror-Role of Mother and Family in Child Development 1967).

On the other hand – Jacques Lacan  observed (Le stade du Miroir 1949) that “when a child looks in the mirror he sees a unified image of his own disarray”. An actual mirror – presenting back to us, as it does, a unified visual image of ourselves – is a challenge. We don’t feel ourselves to be one single unified being as represented by the image.

The point is that our sense of Self has throughout millions of years of evolution been established by social reflection – first of our interior sensation in the face of our mother and then others. The actual visible reflection of our image is an entirely new challenge to the richness of who we really are or can be.

What then is the impact of so many images, captured  by all of our mobile phones and then “tagged” and replayed to us constantly?

The self that is created in a social mirror -our sense of who we are as a sum of how we are perceived by those around – must surely be entirely different from a simple visual image. The image of our face has no bearing on the image of our person – in all its multiple facets. Is this not Lacan’s point from his 1949 paper? Now, however, we are deluged with this visual imagery – and increasingly also confronted with our ageing – because we have the record of our image from the past. Does this mean that we now construct our sense of self from the outside in – from multiple images back to who we are inside? Is this not a recipe for a plague of narcissim; and does the impact of the photograph not only steal from our other senses – but also usurp our very being?

Lacan and Winnicott were writing in the age before Facebook, YouTube,  Pinterest and the mobile phone. Is anyone investigating the change to our species of this aspect of our technological – “progress”?

As Adam Phillips puts it, the maternal mirroring process that creates the Self that is each of us…

“He (an infant) can only discover what he feels by seeing it reflected back. If the infant is seen in a way that makes him feel he exists, in a way that confirms him”

What impoverishment to have this reduced to the pixels on an iPhone..

Carpe Diem

A day is like a lifetime

A lifetime like a day

But night contains the lifeline

That runs through death, decay

 

As darkness follows life

And night puts light to flight

So black is just the shoreline

Of new existence bright

 

From it’s grandest height

Life on its axis spins

With God’s benign design

The next new day begins

 

Our day is like a lifetime

Whose flight is like the may

evanescent paradigm

of life fill-fulled each day

 

 

 

 

 

Phoebe

You join up the dots of the stars my love

With your patterned impassionate being

Reflecting below what’s mirrored above

Rich-sequined your fabric of feeling

Casually spendthrift the joy that you’ve sewn

Causally spindrift, engagingly freed

Harvesting concepts, organically grown

Wittily warm anthropological creed

The gilded arpeggio of moonlight

Which butterfly soft-wings your thinking

Fritillary froth-daffled the insight

Of your Mesopotamian a-musing

disarmingly charmingly, conspiring

In a furnace of creative inquiring

The Clyde

The Clyde

Up-bubbling in the mountains

As stream of silver hue

Over bright pebbles rippling

As fresh as morning dew:

She thunders over boulders

In clouds of rainbow spray

Through dear, green meadows winding

Inviting on the way

All horses, birds and creatures

To come and bathe and drink;

With highland cows who, munching

Crop flowers at the brink;

While fishes dart, and gleaming

Like moonbeams gone astray

They dive and leap and glitter

And in the water play.

 

But the Irish sea approaches

To turn her waters grey;

Haunts of men come into sight

And night is merged with day

For in the air there hangs

A heavy pall of smoke

The scent of salt and sweat

And coasters carrying coke

But she flows on regardless;

Her glory has not gone

For in the starlit evening

When gloomy day is done

Her wide and silent waters

Flow through a coloured maze

Of winking lights that dazzle

A million tinted rays

 

Men line with dock her banksides

This is the dear-green place

That they have built around her

The haunt of lowland race

But she remains majestic

Indifferent as to praise

And she will last when over are

St Giles and Mungo’s days

 

(adapted from a poem by Lilian Peel)

Social thermodynamics

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

This applies to societies. The internal construct, what holds society together, has an external resonance. This sets up a chain of reactions which in turn impact on and shape society. It matters how groups are born and what holds them together.

Nationalism is always, in the end, corrosive. This is why. Societies, like the individual, are shaped in the mirror of those outside them. The other. The internal character is a reflection of the external reference. Whatever the start point, nationalism ends up by defining itself by reference to “the enemy” – which is of course only other ordinary men and women – but externalised and dehumanised. Made other. We project out  all that is negative.  It is the politician’s cheapest trick; to set up the reviled “other”, blame them for anything that is wrong and consequently draw “us” together.

How then can just society arise?

If the impulse that draws us together as community is love, then this will lead to a projection of good on to others. This com-passion with and for others –  in all their glorious differentiation is reflected back, bonding and reinforcing a sense of our greater human community. Simple. First love your enemy.

But loving one’s enemy is HARD. It takes an overwhelming outside force. I personally struggle with it. It is possible though, but only with outside help. One definition of God might be just that. The force of love as an external agency. And the opposite is also a truth. All and any love is God, by whatever name. Only by reference to this external and eternal force can a just lasting and joyful society hope to work. All else is illusion. Strip away any preconceptions about organised religion and focus on what makes for a just society.

You arrive at something like this:

Love other as we love ourselves. Love Love above all. Keep responding with love not war even after 490 provocations. Judge what is right by results not words.

This is of course has been said before, by someone who lived the words.

Truth paraphrased

Meaning is relative; that is, there is no sense except in counter poise to an external reference. This the utility of boundary; separation creates perspective. This is (in my view) the fundamental purpose of our lives, only by separation can we witness the universe and therefore confirm it, thereafter reuniting with it. This latter occurs via reflection from the “other” resulting from schism. Integration is the counterpoint to differentiation. If a definition of God is that whence existence flows, then this is God’s calculus. We are created, born as we separate; but it is the nature of our relationship with the “other”, that is ours to build and which in turn defines us.

This applies equally to societies. They arise (the process of birth for emergent realities) by separation. They do not exist except by reference to the other, that from which they are differentiated. This might be individuals or other groups. It matters how and where boundaries arise. The means defines the end. It’s true that you can’t make an omelette without cracking eggs, but it’s also not the way to hatch chicks. Whilst the start matters, so does the path then taken. Societies, like the individual, are shaped in the mirror of those outside. The other. The internal character is a reflection of the external reference. I hold that society based on “nationalism” is dangerous, corrosive. Society is all too often defined by reference to “the enemy” – which is of course only other ordinary men and women – but externalised and dehumanised. Made other. Here lies the politician’s cheapest trick; set up the reviled “other” and draw “us” together. I hold that nationalism is always based on this premise. It is corrosive and destructive. Suicidal even. Enmity begetting hatred mirrored and intensified between groups.

How then does just society arise?

If we are able to love the other -especially in all their difference from us – then compassion will be reflected, bonding and reinforcing love. Love is always an integrating force. It leads to wider deeper community, a sense of the commonwealth of mankind.

But loving one’s enemy is HARD. It takes an overwhelming outside force to come close to it. I personally struggle with it. It is possible though, but only with outside help. Another definition of God might be just that. The force of love. The love that for Teilhard de Chardin suffuses and powers existence.

And the opposite is also a truth. All and any love is God, by whatever name. Only by reference to this external and eternal force can a just lasting and joyful society hope to work.
All else is illusion. Dangerous illusion. Strip away any preconceptions about organised religion and let us focus on the following:

Love other as we love ourselves. Love Love above all. Keep responding with love not war even after 490 provocations. Judge what is right by results not words.

This is of course simply a paraphrase.

Bittersweet studies