Affective Development (2)

In the previous blog entry, I showed that though Bands 1 and Bands 2 are indeed vitally necessary for the differentiated conscious development of both the cognitive and affective modes, that considerable problems are however associated with this form of understanding.

Though in experience both modes are necessarily related to a degree, we are concentrating here mainly on the affective mode.

As we have seen the key problem with the conscious development of the affective mode, is that it screens out to a considerable degree the holistic nature of the unconscious.

And insofar as the unconscious then does operate it is frequently projected in an immature fashion into consciousness whereby it is directly confused with conscious symbols.

As we have seen earlier development involves the gradual separation of the three fundamental polarities.

Whereas this is necessary for initial differentiation, for successful integration it is then necessary to discover the complementarity - and ultimate identity - of these same polarities entailing the mature development of the unconscious.  

In the absence of this unconscious development, differentiated experience is destined to be of a somewhat fragmentary nature that cannot provide true fulfilment.

So we will now investigate more clearly the limitations of conventional experience with respect to the affective mode.

And once more it is convenient to do this through looking at the three key polarity sets where both (conscious) differentiation and (unconscious) integration are involved.

In relation to the external/internal polarities - which are the last to be properly developed during Band 1 - substantial separation takes place as between the objective world of phenomena and the subjective world of the self.

Therefore with respect to phenomenal objects one largely believes that qualities - both positive and negative - are intrinsic to the objects themselves. This then creates a rigid form of attachment with the consequent wish to possess those objects whose qualities are perceived as positive and to avoid and even eliminate those objects with qualities perceived as negative.

And this unfortunately this tendency likewise applies to human relationships which become objectified to a considerable extent.

This can be seen clearly with respect to modern society where the acquisition of “desirable” objects (devoid of a true personal relationship) is misleadingly believed to ensure happiness and fulfilment.

                                                                                                                     

In truth however it represents an unhealthy form of enslavement and is a recipe for growing alienation. For if the (subjective) self is considered as essentially separate from (objective) phenomena, then an authentic relationship thereby cannot develop between both aspects.       

In relation to the second set of whole/part polarities, during Band 1 - and especially at Band 2 - substantial separation likewise occurs with respect to the whole and part nature of phenomena so that wholes largely lose their qualitative identity in being treated in substantially reduced terms as representing the (quantitative) sum of their constituent parts.

Now whereas this reductionism especially relates to the cognitive aspect in the manner that wholes and parts are interpreted in mathematical and scientific terms, it also significantly affects the affective aspect.

So again in this context, qualities are believed to be associated with the distinct localised objects of experience without reference to an overall context, whereby they are understood as sharing a relationship of interdependence - ultimately - with all objects.

This then leads to a greatly fragmented notion of the whole with respect to all affective relationships, whereby again it is believed that happiness can be successfully achieved through the ever greater accumulation of fragmentary type qualitative experiences.

Finally in relation to the third set of form/emptiness polarities, during Band 1 and 2 again substantial separation takes place between these polarities so that (material) form can be clearly distinguished from (spiritual) emptiness.

However when this tendency is carried to extremes - as in present society - it can readily lead to a situation where reality is solely understood in terms of phenomena of form.

Again this is dramatically evident in the present scientific approach to reality that allows for no spiritual dimension. However it also is greatly evidence in relation to modern secular culture generally, where affective experience, as for example in artistic expression, has been rendered largely devoid of any necessary spiritual element.

So the huge underlying problem is that in so successfully enabling the differentiated expression with respect to the three main polarity sets to a highly specialised degree, modern society has largely lost sight of the corresponding means for true integration with respect to these same polarity sets.

And such integration cannot be understood as some kind of consolidation of activity (based on a differentiated mind-set). In fact it requires an utterly distinctive type of understanding that in many ways runs counter to all the assumptions on which our modern world is built.

Therefore despite the - admitted - enormous technological advances in society we are now reaching an exceedingly dangerous point, which nothing less than a massive conversion to an entirely distinctive form of understanding can remedy.

Put simply the way we presently attempt to understand reality is so hugely unbalanced that we have significantly lost touch with the very meaning of integration.