Shade of thought

A) Platonic forms

1. This is a description of the Platonic Ideas:

The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a viewpoint attributed to Plato, which holds that non-physical (but substantial) forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate reality. Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only objects of study that can provide knowledge. The theory itself is contested from within Plato’s dialogues, and it is a general point of controversy in philosophy. The early Greek concept of form precedes attested philosophical usage and is represented by a number of words mainly having to do with vision, sight, and appearance. [1]

2. Imagine that the world consists, instead of fundamental particles, of some basic structures, which have some shape, color, function or purpose. That instead of some indistinguishable point-like particles, the world consists of some fundamental entities different one from another, which, apart from the mechanical properties of matter (such as mass, charge, etc.), also give rise to the ‘psychic’ properties of the spirit (such as emotions) and the senses. Such entities can be called archetypes. For example as some particle corresponds to a property of matter (e.g. electron to charge), so an archetype may correspond not only to a material property but also to a psychic property (a color, an idea, an emotion, a sense, a certain purpose).

3. A similar idea comes from the physical theory of strings (a certain vibration mode of a string gives rise to a certain property of matter). But here the vibrating modes of the archetypes will also give rise to mental reality. Such could be a theory of everything (Theory of the Form as we might call it), bringing together material and mental reality. [2]

B) Allegory of the cave

4. This is a description, according to the previous image:

In the allegory of the cave, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see.

Such prisoners would mistake appearance for reality. They would think the things they see on the wall (the shadows) were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the shadows. When the prisoners are released, they can turn their heads and see the real objects. Then they realize their error. What can we do that is analogous to turning our heads and seeing the causes of the shadows? We can come to grasp the Forms with our minds. We may acquire concepts by our perceptual experience of physical objects. But we would be mistaken if we thought that the concepts that we grasp were on the same level as the things we perceive. [3]

5. Imagine that there is a strange and elusive kind of bird flying in the sky. This bird is invisible, transparent like the sky, similar to the clouds, flying very fast and at great height, so that our eyes are never able to see it. But we can see its shadow moving on the ground. By studying the shadow we try to understand the aspects of this elusive entity (shape, speed, position, etc.) This is what modern scientists are trying to do with elementary particles. We never see the particles directly, but we try to understand them by studying the imprints they leave on photographic plates.

6. If the entities of the microcosm are like elusive tiny birds, are those of the macrocosm, or any object we can think of, any different? Take the stars, for example, or the galaxies. While particles are too small to be seen, stars and galaxies are too massive to be grasped. Do you remember the tale of Icarus? He was too arrogant because he wanted to know everything about the Sun. This is why, when he got too close, his wings melted, and he fell down. But is there an end to the universe? Even if we had the perfect wings, the fastest spaceship, would it ever be possible to reach the end of infinity? Is there an end to endlessness? Is there a limit to the universe of our own thought?

C) Prisoner’s dilemma

7. Let’s go back to the allegory of the cave. But here the prisoners are not found in a cave but in a jail. This is a description of the prisoner’s dilemma:

Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other. The prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge, but they have enough to convict both on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to betray the other by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. The offer is:

If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves two years in prison.

If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve three years in prison (and vice versa).

If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve one year in prison (on the lesser charge).

It is implied that the prisoners will have no opportunity to reward or punish their partner other than the prison sentences they get and that their decision will not affect their reputation in the future. Because betraying a partner offers a greater reward than cooperating with them, all purely rational self-interested prisoners will betray the other, meaning the only possible outcome for two purely rational prisoners is for them to betray each other. The interesting part of this result is that pursuing individual reward logically leads both of the prisoners to betray when they would get a better reward if they both kept silent. In reality, humans display a systemic bias towards cooperative behavior in this and similar games despite what is predicted by simple models of ‘rational’ self-interested action. [4]

8. Here instead of a problem of philosophy, we have a problem of game theory. But we can turn the latter problem into another problem of the former. This is how. It was suggested that although rationally each prisoner should betray the other one so that he sets himself free, he finally tends to be cooperative with respect to the other prisoner, so that in most cases both prisoners will stay silent. But how come that we humans tend to be cooperative, thus also altruistic, although we might have had the chance to become rich and famous in the expense of all the rest? Is there some kind of Idea we have about our ultimate future as our own destiny dictates it? After all, when, sooner or later, we die, there is nothing we can take with us. Instead, we have the opportunity to leave something useful behind. Not money nor a bad reputation, but a work of art or some good deeds.

9. If we rethink the purpose and destination of life, we realize that in fact we are all prisoners of our own fate, and that while the cave or prison we live in is invisible, there is no way to escape. Ultimately, to be cooperative and nice to others is not so surprising- if we don’t give away our partner, we may have a place in paradise. Therefore altruism and humanism can equally be seen as a self-oriented and well planned behavior. We are all prisoners, living in the prison of our own body and mind, from which we will never escape- doomed to be pursued forever by the shadows of our deepest fears, and to indulge in some belief in the afterlife.

D) The Shadow

10. This is a definition:

The Shadow is an unconscious part of the Ego, and receptacle for that which we have for one reason or another disowned or wish to remain out of sight and those qualities that one would rather not see in oneself, as well as unrealized potentials. The Shadow is intimately connected to the Id and its structures, Thanatos and Eros that contain the animal instincts. It’s the part of the personality that’s forced out of mental awareness by the Ego’s defense mechanisms. [5]

11. One of the ways Jung described archetypes, the collective unconscious, and the process of individualization, can be found in the 9th volume of his collective Works:

In addition to the purely personal unconscious hypothesized by Freud, a deeper unconscious level is felt to exist. This deeper level manifests itself in universal archaic images expressed in dreams, religious beliefs, myths, and fairytales. The archetypes, as unfiltered psychic experience, appear sometimes in their most primitive and naive forms (in dreams), sometimes in a considerably more complex form due to the operation of conscious elaboration (in myths).

Archetypal images expressed in religious dogma in particular are thoroughly elaborated into formalized structures which, while by expressing the unconscious in a circuitous manner, prevent direct confrontation with it... The search into the unconscious involves confronting the shadow, man’s hidden nature; the anima/animus, a hidden opposite gender in each individual; and beyond, the archetype of meaning. These are archetypes susceptible to personification; the archetypes of transformation, which express the process of individuation itself, are manifested in situations…” [6]

12. According to Jung, the Shadow is an archetype. The Jungian archetypes could be identified with the Platonic Forms, but we had better treat the archetypes as the constituent parts of the Form- in that sense there will be one Form, composed of archetypes, and including all their manifestations, even our own personification.

13. It is true that the physical world would have been practically invisible and imperceptible if our mind wasn’t part of the world. Although this may seem obvious it isn’t, since there are also things which elude our thoughts and our senses. But although such elusive aspects of the world are hidden from our thoughts, we still perceive them as ‘shadows’ lying in the darkest areas of our mind. Such aspects constitute our unconscious mind. Still, while they are difficult to be understood, the same aspects are somehow hinted by our mind as if they were by-products of our own thought.

14. In some sense we may say that while our thought makes the world perceptible, at the same time it ‘coats’  parts of the things our thought elucidates. This also gives us the indication that our thought is formed together with the events it perceives. Even if we have acquired memories which directly connect our thought to well-known facts, there must also be pre-established ‘recollections,’ presumably unconscious, which imply or inform us about events of some reality yet unknown. Such recollections emerge as the actions of the archetypes.

E) Thinking in the Shade of our Mind

“The more light we shed to observe an object, the thicker its shadow grows.”

15. Thought is like a shadow. It is registered on a white piece of paper with black letters. An idea starts spontaneously with a flash of light. But just a while ago there wasn’t any darkness- there wasn’t anything at all. As soon as the bright thought is born, it lightens up some fundamental objects which all other objects consist of. But what we perceive is not the light- which is both invisible and blinding- but the shadow which the light casts on the objects. Similarly our own thought cannot be realized in its pure form, but only indirectly-

16. Thought casts a shadow on some object, while the object reflects the same thought.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms]
[2]: [https://archive.org/details/TheoryOfTheForm]
[3]: [https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm]
[4]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma]
[5]: [http://www.mind-development.eu/jung.html]
[6]: [http://iaap.org/frontpage/50th-anniversary-jung/]

9/29/2018

Image: The allegory of the cave

[https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm]