Bluevolution: an archetypal fantasia while washing the body of a dead system

Evolution is firmly established in the contemporary imagination, both in the scientific and factual sense and as a pervasive mythological presence, often more scientism than careful science. As a mythology, evolution-flavored thinking is borrowed by self- and society-improvement projects in order to secure the attribution of power that comes from riding on the same proverbial bandwagon in the parade of Progress. Technological (Mechanical/E-lectronic) Advance waves its imperial hand to the gathered throng of believers who continue to be moved by the regalia of the Singular Systemic Savior. But the king is dead, and naked in denial, and wounded, and reeking of ill-gotten gains, and the people starve and suffer. This is the part of Progress which cannot any longer be called progressive. What was whitewashed and foolish in golden promises of evolutionary improvement is cracking, splitting, and thus revealed makes us blue.

Evolutionary belief, like all Big Ideas, is not fact or fiction. It is an alchemical (non-literal) mixture of both, and personal and political choices are moved by partly conscious belief, adherence to persistent cultural narratives, at least as much as by reason. This is to say that psychology is mythological, and vice versa. Especially in a crisis, forthcoming transitions and endings are better (more widely) understood in terms of archetypal narrative that speaks to the motivating imagination with which psychology is concerned, psyche, or soul. There we hear from what is dying, missing, failing, what makes one “blue,” as in soul music and soulful reflection, than by way of the inflated and upward straining, progressive, bright, “white” spirit.

Those primarily in control of resources certainly include criminals, single-minded crusaders, and the voluntarily senseless who know not what they do. Whether or not to forgive or seek forgiveness will be a retrospective project, but it is clear from global collapses that elites no longer know what they are doing when it comes to making "improvements," or are willing to sacrifice the many for the few and take refuge in consolidating even more desperate control, frequently setting the possibility of sustainable community upon the altar-fire of self-interest.

There is an alternative to mutually assured self-destruction that is archetypal in nature—Grief. It is wrenching beyond description to hold the dead infant of treasured hopes in one’s arms and truly give up, but anyone who can lose an imagined future to death and live again thereafter has access to a watery edge. There the turning of fate twists the spirit into a hidden center like the whorls of a spiraling gastropodal shell. This turning drives awareness to a center that has essential information about the depth and complexity of life and of human experience, such that denial of the consequences of living simply cannot be sustained, no matter the pressure to continue functioning as usual. The blue of swirling water about the corpse of what we had hoped has the power to wash away our resistance to the changes that can give new life in a new shape.

“Bluevolution” then is a behavioral recognition of the spiraling down into honest grief over the passing of the mechano-industrial utopian mythology in which contemporary humanity lives. We now know, or are coming to know, that All will not be Well through endless growth, increased consumption, and greater manufactured efficiency. That is why our shared consciousness, as revealed by Media, is attending the school of Survivor, Lemony Snicket, and Lost. We are preparing for one disappointment after another, growing into an adulthood of death and hardship, as we let go of the things that we treasured but which now are killing us as a species. This is the end, but of what precisely remains to be imagined.

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Archetypal Studies wrote:

Hi Brandon,

My name is Chris. I'm the co-editor for the Journal of Archetypal Studies, and I'd like to thank you for the submitted abstract. I've read over the proposal a few times, and I must say that I particularly enjoy the final paragraph in the proposal. Admittedly, I am slightly confused by the introductory paragraphs, but perhaps with more space than what's allotted in an abstract you could elaborate on and specify what it is you think is "killing us as a species."

For instance, I'm unclear as to why there is mention of evolution (for the sake of clarity, as well, I'd be cautious in the claims you make regarding evolution, as there is a large portion of America's population that doesn't believe in evolution)--how does evolution, and it's "mythological" underpinnings lead us to "killing us as a species" (if it's due to the Death drive, then this needs rethought...)? Furthermore, I'm not clear on why psychology as mythology, and vice versa, is included.

I definitely think this proposal is befitting for our upcoming issue. If could you elaborate on the first couple of paragraphs, I think I might be able to offer more nuanced suggestions. Also, what do you mean by the "mechano-industrial utopian mythology in which contemporary humanity lives"--in much of the "developed" world, we are in a post-industrial utopia where the majority of people don't have to work in factories anymore (we let East Asians do that for us...I'm joking here :) ).

So, yea, I really like your proposal. Let's converse about what you're thinking...if you could clarify the above mentioned topics, I think we could really make this an excellent contribution. Hope to hear from you soon!

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Brandon WilliamsCraig

Date: Sat, May 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Subject: Re: [Fwd: from Brandon Williamscraig - Bluevolution for the Journal of Archetypal Studies - abstract]

To: Archetypal Studies

Thanks for your response, Chris.

The challenge of the piece will be allowing it to be a "fantasia" and still have it make sense as an argument. I may have to give up a bit of the former to make it work as the latter. Reaching for metaphorical dilemmas with literal tools in hand is killing us. We discover, factually, that the industrial consumption cycle has become a social disease which will lead to a scarcity of essential resources and likely result in war and widespread human die-off, and we cannot respond with grief and rage, fear and change because Progress must continue. There are more examples than any one treatment can contain of the effects of large-scale natural and human-made disasters multiplied by "failures of imagination," which is to say a denial of mytho-psychological realities, or psychology as mythology, and vice versa.

Evolutionism is chosen as an example both to serve as a trope which sets up "bluevolution" and also because it is a clear case of a deeply rooted mythology delimiting the thinking that is possible in the public sphere. Even the people you say "don't believe" in evolution aren't really talking about the science that is the only legitimate referent of the term. They are using it as a fetish only, wielding it as though they knew what they are objecting to, but allowing it to operate as code for all manner of Bad Things of which they have been encouraged to disapprove, like the Anti-God Liberal/Socialist/Whatever Agenda, while still pushing forward "progressive" industrial "development" based on evolutionary improvement-of-humanity claims. A metaphorical/philosophical dilemma, Do We Get Better Just Because We Adapt Over Time?, is engaged with literal tools in hand: This legislation is Good because it makes for more consumption/Higher GDP which is Progress and will help us evolve into ever greater strength! This is killing us because we believe the framing rather than thinking about the consequences of the ideas, and then we enact the narrative in public policy investments and pass the behavior on to our children as values.

My "mechano-industrial utopian mythology in which contemporary humanity lives" is precisely your "post-industrial utopia where the majority of people don't have to work in factories anymore." Your assumption defines the "developed" "majority", actually a considerable minority, as People (Them That Matter), when, by far, the majority of people in the world do not live in a post-industrial utopia. Even those of us who have escaped the factories in this generation have not freed our soul from the grip of the factorial imagination.

Hoping this will serve as clarification, for the moment,

B

  --Brandon WilliamsCraig.....Sat May 12 22:01:49 +0000 2012

Hey Brandon,

I must admit I am not quite sure I understand your objective... Your explanatory explication for Chris helped a bit to clarify things, but I cannot say that I have understood either aim or argument of your planned paper. Nor am I quite clear about the role that evolutionary biology may play in it. If I understand the explanation for Chris correctly, you are proposing that evolution in public discourse is used more as a proxy for all sorts of political and social ideas against which some react (or which others support). That in itself is indeed a problem, and one that is quite dangerous in many ways.

You also seem to be arguing that evolutionary biology is abused by those who are looking for ways to improve society according to their own value system. Here, evolutionary biology is used in order to lend opinions and political views authority and convince people that the approach to changing society is valid and valuable. This, of course, can only work because "evolution" as proxy is a myth that has pervaded our science-bias culture. This myth, if I understand you correctly, is to be carefully distinguished from the theory of evolution as it is used in the biological sciences. Such an abuse of evolutionary theory and use of the evolution-myth, you seem to say, is killing us.

If I got it more or less right, I think that is indeed an interesting theme to explore. You would not be the first one to do so, so there could be conversation partners for you to whom you might want to respond or on whose ideas you may choose to reflect. Either way, it would be an interesting paper from where I am standing.

In your abstract you are saying nothing about the theory of evolution per se. Hence, I have nothing to say as a biologist. If there were one thing I would point out it would be the cautious distinction between terms like "evolutionism" and "evolution". Personally, I would find it helpful if these terms were clearly defined to avoid misunderstandings.

I am afraid this is of little help for you. Good luck with the paper.

Oliver

  --Oliver Putz.....Sun May 13 04:24:17 +0000 2012

On the contrary, Oliver, this is very helpful, and just what I was hoping for. Would you be willing to reproduce the points Huston raised at PCTS last year, and your rather concise responses as well? He has asked if I can remember them and, I must confess, I cannot. I would also like to know of any conversation partners you feel are particularly worthy of note, especially if they might slip my notice as I cast about.

  --Brandon WilliamsCraig.....Sun May 13 05:08:54 +0000 2012