Sunday, July 13, 2008

Interesting Quotation

"Freud...Jung...Adler.... Lurking behind all theories of how the mind works is a greater theory: Darwin's. In Freud's vocabulary, the idea of survival as the prime directive is expressed by the concept of the id. In Jung's, by the rather grander idea of blood consciousness. Neither man, I think, would argue with the idea that if all conscious thought, all memory, all ratiocinative ability, were to be stripped from a human mind in a moment, what would remain would be pure and terrible....

"Although neither the Freudians nor the Jungians come right out and say it, they strongly suggest that we may have a core, a single basic carrier wave...a single line of written code which cannot be stripped.

"At bottom, you see, we are not Homo sapiens at all. Our core is madness. The prime directive is murder."

Interesting to me to think of survival as the core of one's being. As the author continues to write, the plaque on the moon that says, 'We came in peace for all mankind' has Richard Nixon's name on it. And "for every Michelangleo there's a Marquis de Sade, for every Ghandi an Eichmann, for every Martin Luther King an Osama bin Laden...." Of course, it could be the other way around. Then there's that nasty little survival of the fittest thing.

As I said, interesting thoughts. What do you think?

1 comment:

Eric said...

I actually wrote about Darwinian Evolutionary Psychology (and why I hate it) in my blog last week. (on and on Myspace.)

I've been watching all of the TED videos for the past few weeks (from the TED Conference - and it is amazing to me how "natural selection" is now so revered, so believed in, so utterly and wholeheartedly clung to, that it could be replaced with "God" and it would still make total sense. "Natural Selection" has become it's own sentient force in the eyes of these people. It's almost funny to hear them talking about how religion is so wrong, using ideas, phrases, and gestures that completely mirror Christian fundamentalists. And so it at least looks like it all boils down to semantics. There are just soooooooo many assumptions being made in the "scientific method" or process that it renders the system fatally flawed.

I do really like the ideas behind Lamarckian Evolution, though, and I am grateful to see more and more respected scientists revisiting his ideas. It's a much more hopeful scenario. And even further, I love Bruce Lipton's interpretation of Lamarckism.