Continuing my discussion of "European psychology"...(please comment)
Time and again, the argument is brought forth that the Middle Ages represents darkness, while the Enlightenment represents a freeing of the mind from its imprisonment in church dogmas, etc. I am tired of hearing this argument. In fact, the Middle Ages is the egg from which the Enlightenment hatched. Medieval times is the Mother of the Enlightenment, not its antagonist. It is the introverted standpoint of the Middle Ages that has fostered our 'inner locus of control', a capacity often lacking in non-European ethnicities.
http://tinyurl.com/6aqyv4y
Medieval people fostered their souls and mind. They were more interested in the spirit and less interested in worldly matters. This has given to us our supreme capacity of focusing our minds, our self-control, and our capacity to withstand impulses. We are still very interested in the intellectual, the systematic, the conceptual, like no other people on earth, especially not Third World people. This is why we are here discussing intellectual matters, much like the disputations of medieval scholastics and monks. They gave us this ability. It was their work on their souls, and their work in philosophy, theology, science and medicine, that gave rise to the Enlightenment. It did not drop down on earth from out of the blue. Enlightenment came about as the fruit of a long development.
During antiquity, a portion of the people were quite advanced, while the populace had a primitive worldview, and were quite superstitious. On average, I think the antique dweller had a decidedly lower conscious level than the medieval dweller. Just because there were brilliant philosophers, doctors, and engineers in ancient antiquity, doesn't mean that this knowledge belonged to everyone. In the Middle Ages knowledge was better distributed, and they certainly knew that the earth is round. It is an illusion that modern society would have come about faster if it weren't for the Middle Ages. Modern Europeans are shaped by both the Middle Ages and classical antiquity. I think we are much different from the antique dweller. On the surface we are similar, but on the inside, modern Europeans have a medieval frame of mind.
So what is the origin of the modern myth that Christianity and the Middle Ages have stood in stark opposition to science and development? Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers say that two works from the 19th century are responsible for many of the misconceptions, namely John William Draper, "History of the Conflict between Religion and Science" (1876) and Andrew Dickson White, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" (1896). Draper is responsible for the notorious disinformation that medievals thought the earth was flat. These authors created the metaphor of war between science and faith, and many of the misconceptions that propagate to this day. Witch-hunting is predominantly a pre-medieval and post-medieval phenomenon. Nevertheless, the notion of witch-hunts sticks to the Middle Ages as glue.
Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo were indebted to medieval scientists like Jean Buridan (1300-1360), William Heytesbury (ca. 1313-1372), Nikolas Oersme (dead 1382), and Nicolaus of Cusa (1401-1464). Galileo, who was a believing Christian, did not oppose Christianity or the church. He criticized the theories of the earliest scientist, namely Aristotle. Many keystones of modern science were created during medieval times, such as Heytesbury's description of accelerating objects and Buridan's impetus theory on movement. Important inventions made life easier, which increased productivity and improved the standards of living, such as the iron plough, spectacles, and the horse shoe.
Historian of science, James Hannam, argues that the Middle Ages provided the foundation of modern science. The university, a medieval invention, played an important role. So did belief in a rational and faithful God who had created laws of nature that didn't change erratically, and which it was possible to study. That's why the church has always supported the study of nature. By studying God's creation we learn about God's thoughts. Even Einstein was fond of this notion. So the ardent belief in laws of nature derives from Christian theology and its view of God and creation. What is not generally known is that the Big Bang theory was invented by theorists at the Vatican. They tried to convince Einstein of its validity, who rejected the theory out of hand, until empirical evidence proved it correct (Edwin Hubble's discovery of an expanding universe).
The Japanese Middle Ages was no less introverted than the European, to the effect that a garden with a few stones and gravel, or the serving of a cup of tea, could be experienced as sensational. Accordingly, the Japanese have learnt to focus their minds and to exercise self-control to the utmost. Japanese have a tendency of working themselves to death, a phenomenon known as 'Karoshi'. The Japanese held out as long as possible against modernity. Still today, many Japanese remain true to the medieval traditions. Paradoxically, many Westerners think that this aspect is the only interesting thing about Japan. So why are they so contemptuous about European Middle Ages? I suppose it has to with indoctrination and the ceaselessly repeated story about Galileo versus the oppressive Catholic church. Interestingly, the English, much like the Japanese, experience the serving of a cup of tea as perfectly sensational, which underpins my thesis that they are like introverted medievals inside. The English also devote a lot of time to gardening.
The notorious underestimation of the Middle Ages depends on the fact that we are repressing the inner medieval aspect of ourselves. We do not want to admit that we are medievals inside. Westerners wish to adjust to modern ideals of materialistic advancement and success, to say yes to innovation, space exploration, and all that. That's why I always get to hear this appraisal of the glorious Enlightenment and all the "good things" that it has brought us. Communism, Nazism, catastrophes like Holocaust, the World Wars, deforestation, etc., are conveniently forgotten.
Our civilisation has opted for a collective neurosis that builds on the repression of feeling. We aim to be rational in all quarters of life. We follow principles instead of listening to our heart. Canadian author John Ralston Saul says that society today suffers from a conflict between democracy as an institution, and "rational" government. Modern rationalism has been reduced to a system of management and administration, but it is at bottom incapable of guiding human affairs. This is something that David Brooks has noted, too:
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_brooks_the_social_animal.html
The acute economical crises that have befallen us, since Saul wrote this, are facts that bolster his argument. It is becoming more and more evident that politicians are subordinated to the "market forces".
Modern rationalism throws a very long shadow. Political ideologies, Fascism, Communism, and Nazism, is modernity wreaking havoc. I think it represents an amputation of the medieval mind-set, with a resultant regress to an antique frame of mind. It means the reawakening of Imperium Romanum. So it came to pass what all the modern proponents of the antique ideals always have wished, namely the reawakening of ancient antiquity and its marble statues, its ideals of power and beauty. Out through the window went the medieval ideals of interiority, and all the Christian virtues. It is modernity that provokes this development, by its constant hammering of all the medieval virtues in our psychology and in history.
References
Hannam, J. (2011). The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution.
Lindberg,D. & Numbers, R. (1986). God and Nature - Historical essays on the encounter between Christianity and Science.
Lindberg, D. Galileo (2009). Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion.
Saul, J. R. (1993). Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West.
Draper, J. W, (1876). History of the Conflict between Religion and Science.
White, A. D. (1896). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.
Mats Winther
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/
--- In sociology_today@yahoogroups.com, "Mats Winther" <mlwi@...> wrote:
>
> "European Psychology and its Rooting in the Interiority of the Middle Ages"
>
> Some people appreciate the freshness of the "naive realism" of the Africans, and other Third World ethnicities. It contrasts starkly with the restrained persona of the ethnic Swede or Englishman, whose attitude of reservedness derives from a constant occupation with the inner world. We are still looking inwards, an attitude which the medievals instilled in us. However, as I will point out in the following lines, a psychology of "naive realism" will cause great social damage, and in the end pose a threat to the democratic order. Therefore it is imperative that the Western world remains true to the perspective of interiority. The notorious propaganda against the "Dark Ages" must cease. We must begin to appreciate the enormous impact of European Middle Ages in our lives today. In fact, in a sense, we need to go back to the source, to reawaken the Middle Ages, to replenish interiority.
>
> As Westerners have slowly begun to understand, Muslims moving to the West have a curiously anti-Western way of looking at things. Sharia is very much about regulating reality. For instance, this curious idea that women must always hide themselves behind large sheets of fabric - what's all that about? The focus on ego-protection is very central to the phallic-narcissistic level of culture. If women are allowed to show how attractive they are, the male is gripped by desire - he wants to own that woman who happens to pass him. But as he cannot have her, he experiences this as a violation of his ego. His ego must needs suffer constant narcissistic injury in a society which has not been adjusted according to very strict norms of control.
>
> This deep feeling of offence is difficult to comprehend for Westerners who do not suffer from a narcissistic syndrome themselves. Such a psychology has much in common with the chronic neurotic type. These people experience it as a violation of their ego if there exists another person in a discussion group who surpasses them intellectually, but who refrains from mutual narcissistic reinforcement (vulg. "butt-licking"). The latter ritual is very common among neurotics, and they seem to enjoy it as it is very gratifying to their ego.
>
> It is interesting to discuss the neurotic type as an atavistic phenomenon, a throwback to the phallic-narcissistic stage, perhaps influenced by genetic factors. In the Muslim world and elsewhere, women who reject their suitor sometimes gets acid thrown in their face. This is another way of destroying their attractive power and thus healing the ego of the offender. Those who, for instance, have power of intellect or beauty, and who won't lower themselves to mutual narcissistic reinforcement, are experienced as deadly threats to the weak ego. This could help to explain the unthinking nature of the phallic-narcissistic societies, and their cultural inferiority in everything that concerns the intellect.
>
> Arguably, the idea is to remove everything from society that risks harming the ego, thereby creating a harmonious society. As people at the phallic-narcissistic level are extremely prone to suffer narcissistic injury, society must be built on very strict control; rules, rules, rules, control, control, control. Beautiful women must be imprisoned behind four walls or their faces scorched, intelligent people must be removed, one way or the other. This will create an orderly society without incessant injury to the ego and adherent narcissistic explosions of rage.
>
> Arguably, the Islamic ban on iconic representation, especially of the human form, is predicated on the very same ego defensive tactic, to remove that which stirs the acquisitiveness of the ego. At this cultural level, the personality lacks the powers of control present at the Western level. Therefore, control must remain *external*, in the form of 'sharia' law, for instance. The "locus of control" is different. To Western man, with the exception of the neurotic type, "desire", "beauty", "fear", etc., are experiences that derive from the inside. To dwellers of the Third World, it's the other way round.
>
> Most notably, Africans experience that fear comes from without. If a black man passes a stranger he might experience a sudden fright. This means that he has been hit by something from *outside*, namely a form of evil emitted by that stranger. From this moment, he knows that the stranger is evil, some way or the other, and he has to take measures to defend himself. In Europe today, black people think they can return the evil spirit, and make it bounce back, by staring at the person who evoked their fright. They return the effects of the "evil eye" by reflecting it back as a mirror, they believe. In this way disease can be avoided, etc. The president of the Association of African-Swedes stated publicly that "-I see evil in the eyes of Swedes". For the same reason it is common to spit after Swedes, similar to the practice of spitting at black cats.
>
> To the Westerner the locus of control is different as we are endowed with the capacity of "projection". A characteristic of projection is that it can be withdrawn. If something evokes a feeling of fear, we are capable of withdrawing it immediately. So, yet again it is decided that a projection has emerged from the inside. As control has thus been internalized, there is less need for control on the outside. There is no need for the primitive ritual defenses that are so damaging to the social situation. I contend that the capacity of interiority is a necessary condition for the establishment of democratic society. There is an underlying expectation that the individual can take charge of himself.
>
> A Westerner who sees an attractive woman wearing a short skirt knows, in the general case, that the sexual attraction he experiences comes from the inside. It is his own sexuality which is stirred and he can therefore control it. In fact, his feeling of attraction has nothing to do with her. That woman likes to be beautiful and attractive because it strengthens her well-being. To a man lacking in interiority, however, that woman has emitted her sexual power which has hit him from the outside, and that's what causes his sexual arousal. It is tantamount to a sexual invitation. This psychological discrepancy creates immense social problems in Europe, today. It is also the reason why many immigrants experience European women as "whores".
>
> The capacity of interiority was cultivated during the European Middle Ages, when it decidedly took root in the human soul. The interior psychological perspective has its roots in Antiquity. It began to take shape around 600 BC(?) with the introverted ascetic traditions. Via pre-Christian Gnosticism, Stoicism, and Platonism, it blossomed out as Christianity, as formulated by Jesus, St Paul, St Augustine, etc. In history books, it is again and again pointed out how "inferior" Europe was during the "Golden Age" of Islam. The "ignorant" Europeans took recourse in faith, while the Muslims successfully cured many ills thanks to the teachings of Avicenna.
>
> It is a correct observation that Europe was lagging behind in the area of external knowledge. But this is a necessary consequence of the strong focus on interiority. This capacity, largely an effect of the strong devotion of the medievals, is what underlies European psychology today; our internal control locus, our democratic mentality, our capacity of not rushing to conclusion, but methodically to extract the truth. The Third World has never undergone such an era of interiority, which partly explains their backwardness today. Although medieval Europe is portrayed as inferior, in reality it was superior in terms of interiority, undergoing great suffering from the plague, etc., learning to withdraw projections from the world.
>
> Thus, faith became firmly rooted in the soul, as well as all other passions. When there exists no inner faith, there is a call to establish it on the outside, i.e., to institutionalize and regulate faith according to religious law. When passions grip the ego from outside, there is a call to create a perfectly regulated and undemocratic society, to take control of the demons.
>
> In this context it is relevant to discuss European-American cultural clashes. Ethnic Europeans can have projections and swiftly withdraw them, without even noticing that they occurred. They expect this capacity of the Americans, too. But it seems like the Americans (in very general terms, of course) have started to move away from the perspective of interiority. They expect other people to make them feel good, i.e. not to brusquely tell them the truth, but rather to make a false pretense, smiling when you ought to say what's on your heart, etc. Europeans, for their part, like to "tell it to your face" without much ado. Should the other party experience it as "evil", we expect him to withdraw the projection within a second. As a consequence, Americans can experience Europeans as overly frank and lacking in esteem.
>
> European businessmen experience the American attitude of pretense as extremely frustrating. They travel back to Europe and wonder why the order never arrives. In fact, the Americans only wanted him to feel good, they never intended to place an order. In fact, this very attitude is very outspoken among primitives. To the frustration of the anthropologists primitives tend to say the things they believe that the researcher wants to hear, in order to make him happy.
>
> This movement away from interiority is a worrying development. We begin to see a similar pattern in Europe, today. I have observed that some people have taken to smiling at every black person they meet, to convince him that he is not an evil demon, i.e. a racist. Traditionally, this is known as a false smile as it is just a mask of pretense. However, to the African-Swedish person there is no such thing as false pretense since reality is what the outside impresses on you. If a person smiles at you it will make you happy, and this means that something good has come from the outside. It is a wholly uncritical and unthinking attitude, completely foreign to the European consciousness. If we are going to handle the looming social problems of society it is high time to discard the homologous view of humanity. A good understanding of the varieties of human nature will aid us in confronting future problems. Psychological understanding, in itself, has a good therapeutic effect on people who suffer the consequences of the disrupted psychosocial patterns of society.
>
> Mats Winther
> http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/
>
No comments:
Post a Comment