PART THREE:
DIALOGUES
*
A CHANGING WORLD
DONALD: I
have always been puzzled by the uncertainty that exists - and has long existed
- in philosophical circles about the extent to which external reality is
actually there, outside ourselves, and the extent to which our appreciation of
it is conditioned by consciousness - in other words, about the extent to which
objective reality is really objective and not partly a creation of our
subjective minds.
MATTHEW:
You have good reason to be puzzled about this matter, since it isn't one that
permits of a straightforward, eternally unchangeable answer. Rather, one has to answer it provisionally by
saying that the respective ingredients in the determination of
objective/subjective reality will vary according to the evolutionary position
of the psyche in any given age, so that no fixed ratio of objective to
subjective is possible.
DONALD: You
therefore agree that our awareness of the external world is partly conditioned
by consciousness.
MATTHEW: Of
course! Reality isn't just 'out
there'. It is also in the mind, and
consequently external reality depends, to a certain extent, on the
applicability of this mind for its elucidation - as, indeed, philosophers have
known for quite some time! And not only
philosophers but also scientists, who, like Konrad
Lorenz, would never dream of completely detaching external reality from the
internal world.
DONALD: Yet
the doubt apparently lies with the extent to which the one conditions or is
conditioned by the other?
MATTHEW:
Yes, and not altogether surprisingly since, as already remarked, the extent
varies from age to age, as from individual to individual. Let me attempt to clarify this point by
dividing the history of the human psyche into three distinct stages, viz. a
pre-dualistic, a dualistic, and a post-dualistic. The psyche, it should be remembered, is
divisible into a subconscious and a superconscious
mind, with consciousness being the product of a fusion of these two minds in
the ego, or in-between realm of the psyche.
If you accept this proposition, we can continue.
DONALD: I
think I can accept it.
MATTHEW:
Good! Now the first, or pre-dualistic
stage will be one in which the subconscious predominates over the superconscious in the ratio of approximately 3:1, since at
that juncture in time man is dominated by nature and insufficiently civilized,
in consequence, to lead an independent spiritual existence beyond it. The ego, or conscious mind, of pagan man will
therefore be relatively dark, as befits the psychic ratio just described, and,
accordingly, the ratio of the external objective world to the internal
subjective one will also be in the region of 3:1, which is to say, his
consciousness of the external world will be very little affected by internal
subjective reality, since that reality will be insufficiently evolved to colour
or condition it to any significant extent.
Rather, the subconsciously-oriented objective psyche will cause him to
invest nature with hidden and usually malevolent powers, including demons. But the external world will appear to him
basically as it is - a materialistic world at no great remove from himself.
DONALD:
Hence we get animism or pantheism at this primitive stage of evolution?
MATTHEW:
Precisely! But the next, or dualistic,
stage reflects a psyche more-or-less balanced between the subconscious and the superconscious, in which consciousness comes to reflect a
kind of twilight state and, by dint of environmental progress away from nature,
man is in a position to distinguish between the mundane world and a
transcendent one separate from it, which he invests with supernatural and
usually benevolent powers, including angels.
Now because the ratio of subconscious to superconscious
mind is approximately 2:2, it follows that the external objective world will be
conditioned by the internal subjective one to a greater extent than formerly,
so that man inclines to distinguish himself from nature (to the extent that he
previously identified with it) and thereby ceases to fear it.
DONALD:
Thus the demons or whatever that formerly infested nature are transformed into
angels and other benevolent powers who belong to a separate transcendent realm,
as determined by the growth of superconscious mind?
MATTHEW:
Yes, though not entirely! For some
malevolent powers are still associated with nature, in accordance with the
dualistic criteria of this stage of partly subjective psychic evolution. But, fortunately, human progress in the face
of nature eventually leads to a situation, such as we find today, in which the superconscious is getting the upper-hand over the
subconscious and a psychic ratio emerges which is the converse of the
pre-dualistic one. In this
post-dualistic age, the ego of transcendental man is relatively light,
reflecting three times as much superconscious as
subconscious influence, and so the external world is accordingly coloured by
the internal one to a greater extent than ever before, which makes for a
complete reversal of pagan criteria in an assessment of nature and matter in
terms of the transcendent rather than the mundane, the divine rather than the
diabolic. Indeed, we cannot now speak of
an external objective world and of an internal objective one, as formerly, but
are obliged to reverse the qualities of these worlds in response to the superconsciously-biased subjective nature of the modern
psyche. Hence it is the external world
that becomes subjective and the internal one that is seen to represent the
higher, truer reality of the spirit.
What we see outside ourselves is conditioned by our transcendent psyche
to a greater extent than ever before, becoming, in the course of time, but pale
abstractions of palpable materiality, which are to be explained away in terms
of mystical generalizations stemming from our internal subjectivity. For instead of being brute matter now, nature
must conform to our spiritual bias and display a similarly-biased
constitution. To make it do this or, at
any rate, appear to do this ... we invent machines like the Bubble Chamber and
ideas such as the quantum theory, which goad nature into conforming, seemingly,
to our wishes. A people without a
spiritual bias would never have got around to it. But we impose our bias on the external world
as a matter of course, quite happy to deceive ourselves as to its actual
nature. Thus from being a reality to
which our ancestors applied idealistic theories involving demons and evil
spirits, nature has become a repository for an idealism abstracted from the
higher reality of our superconsciously-biased
psyche. Where, formerly, we abstracted
from materialistic objectivity, we now abstract from spiritualistic
subjectivity, and accordingly bend nature to our desires. To speak of an objective internal world now
would be an anachronism or, at best, a partial truth applying to that part of
the psyche which conforms to the subconscious.
Consequently there is no justification for our using the expression
'objective' vis-à-vis the internal world.
For now it is the external, traditionally objective world which becomes
subjective reality for us, and it does so because the subjective reality of the
post-egocentric psyche stands to it in the ratio of approximately 3:1, making
our interpretations of it correspondingly biased on the side of internal
subjective reality, which is to say, on the side of mysticism ... with a
spiritualistic integrity. It is as
though, at some propitious future occasion, matter will dissolve altogether if
only we stare at it long enough from our superconsciously-biased
psyche. But, in reality, matter hasn't
changed one iota since our distant ancestors encountered it under pressure of
subconscious, objective domination and invested it with demonic powers. Only we have changed and so drawn away from
it, in accordance with evolutionary progress.
DONALD:
This is incredible! Are you really
saying that the external world isn't literally what our foremost scientists
would have us believe?
MATTHEW:
Absolutely! And I am saying this in camera,
to the chosen few who can be trusted to appreciate and respect the fact. Not for a moment would I wish things to be
any different - don't think otherwise!
But I am too much a man of truth to be wholly satisfied with the
relative 'truths' of scientific idealism.
I can now see why they should exist and am thus in a better position to
uphold them. For it is no good imagining
that a return can be made to scientific realism in the objective spirit of
Newtonian man.
The age necessarily belongs to Einstein and must continue to do so in
the future, whatever the extremism of scientific subjectivity may happen to be
and, needless to say, irrespective of any Marxist materialist opposition in the
short term. For the psyche cannot now be
expected to regress to a predominantly objective status, but must continue to
grow ever more subjective as the superconscious is
developed further.
DONALD: And thus we must oppose purely materialist interpretations
of the external world which, though literal, are obsolescent from a
transcendent standpoint?
MATTHEW:
Indeed, and which, if upheld, would constitute a grave obstacle to our
spiritual aspirations. But, of course,
such materialistic interpretations can only be upheld in a materialist state
where, under Marxist-Leninist influence, transcendentalism is supposed not to
exist. Hence in the former Soviet Union,
traditionally, it wasn't so much curved space ... as force and mass that
explained the workings of the Solar System from an orthodox, or Newtonian,
point-of-view. Perfectly
correct, of course, from an objective angle, but on a lower evolutionary plane
than the Einsteinian subjectivity which was to
characterize Western science in the twentieth century. Yet such subjectivity is only relevant to a
society that to some extent acknowledges transcendentalism, not to one that
outlaws it. In other words, such
subjectivity is relevant to civilization, which is politics plus religion, not
just politics! More specifically, it is
relevant to the transitional (dualistic/post-dualistic) civilization which the
leading Western countries, including
DONALD:
But, presumably, we have seen the last of spiritualistic
idealism, the religious idealism of our ancestors, who were under subconscious
domination to an extent which made religious realism impossible.
MATTHEW:
Yes, there can't be too many people left in the more-advanced parts of the
world, these days, who believe everything recorded in the Bible, even though
the Bible still officially prevails in the West. What might be defined as lower mysticism, in
which objective interpretations of and abstractions from external reality
apply, is increasingly being superseded by the higher, subjective mysticism
which has conditioned the findings of modern science. Religious objectivity isn't particularly
influential in intellectual circles these days, whether scientific or literary.
DONALD: So
you don't subscribe to the Fall of Man, which is essentially a pagan concept?
MATTHEW:
No, although I do respect the doctrine of Original Sin, which is a Christian
one. The Fall
of Man, however, could only apply to a pre-dualistic context, in which a guilt
complex exists as a consequence of the development from animal to man which
evolutionary progress imposed upon man in the face of nature. With the advent of man, the close
identification with nature, peculiar to the animal world, is lost, and so the
distinction he then feels between nature and himself is interpreted as a fall -
it being remembered that, at such an early stage of psychic evolution, the
subconscious predominates ... with its naturalistic affiliation. To have fallen out of nature's bosom is
regarded as more of a curse than a blessing, since pagan man lacked an evolutionary
sense corresponding to the transcendent and, in consequence, could only regard
his fate in terms of his immediate circumstances. Only with the advent of dualism was it
possible for man to look towards the transcendent for his (future) salvation, rather
than simply to regret that he had fallen out of nature. And in an incipiently post-dualistic age it
should be obvious that man is on the rise towards the supernatural and
therefore towards his transformation, in due course, into the Superman, as a life
form one stage closer than man to the ultimate Oneness of the heavenly Beyond.
DONALD: And
what of Original Sin?
MATTHEW:
That is destined to be left behind with the future transformation of man. Not that I adopt an orthodox attitude to it,
as if one should avoid sexual contact altogether. For, after all, it is only through sexual
contact, resulting in propagation, that mankind survives and thereby evolves
towards Heaven. If now, as formerly, sex
is essentially an evil or sensual phenomenon it is nevertheless a necessary
evil which has to be endured for the sake, above all, of evolutionary
continuity. Life abounds in such
necessary evils, and while the odd individual here and there is entitled, in
his capacity of saint, to rebel against them to the extent he can, the majority
of people must bow to them in the interests of survival. These days, however, the justification for
sainthood is more fragile than at any former time in the history of civilized
man. For whereas the majority of
Christian saints firmly believed they would be rewarded for their mundane
hardships in a transcendent afterlife, living as we do, in a more-advanced age,
we lack this incentive and can only take a more realistic, down-to-earth
attitude to salvation in consequence.
Like it or not, salvation will only come about with spiritual
transcendence at some more fortunate future age, not happen following
death. And knowing this, we would be
extremely foolish to starve ourselves of sensual needs for the mere sake of
starvation. The Christian saints were at
least wise enough to starve themselves or, more correctly, eat only the most
frugal meals ... for an ulterior purpose, which is something we oughtn't to
forget! They may have been deluded to
expect a posthumous salvation, but at least they acted in accordance with the
logic of their times.
DONALD:
Which is also, I believe, the official logic of the contemporary Christian West
or, at any rate, of Christian officialdom in the West.
MATTHEW:
Yes, up to a point. But, as I said
before, it is only the unofficial logic which is truly contemporary and which,
in infiltrating the decadent dualistic and transitional civilizations, has
ennobled them with a transcendentally objective bias. We may be a long way, at present, from the
official transcendental civilization of universal man, but we are certainly
tending in its direction, whatever the upholders of religious objectivity may
happen to think of the fact.
DONALD:
Yes, I can only agree!
