Apologies to Hyatt
I was browsing in a bookshop the other day, and happened across the latest edition of Christopher Hyatt’s Undoing Yourself (2002). I flicked very briefly through it, but immediately came across a section that very pointedly overturned some of my recent inferences about Hyatt’s Reichian model for removing fucked-up human conditioning.
I implied that Hyatt resonated with a very American current of utopianism, and of course I was being a bit simplistic. I knew already that Hyatt was deeply steeped in Nietzsche, and you don’t take Nietzsche’s worldview on board without shedding most utopian delusions and Edenic yearnings. Still, it’s instructive to have found something in this new edition of Undoing Yourself that so directly addresses my criticisms:
What is the fallacy of the Garden of Eden (original sin)?
The idea of perfection.
The idea of a once upon a time story mumbled by a bearded mom—newscaster by day—
The idea of non-conflict.
The idea of only love.Now, here it is you bearded, blond bitch.
You can’t return to something that never was.
This simple but horrid fact puts an end to all experts who are calculating formulas to create a perfect world… instead of sleeping.
All politicians, social “scientists” and whining blond bitches—are out of work.What is the truth?
Perfection never existed.
Therefore, there is nothing to return to—nothing.
Nothing to fix.
Nothing to repair.
No socks to mend.
There’s Hyatt’s usual odd style, and you have to bear in mind this is taken out of a section that I didn’t read in full (I’m not sure what he’s got against blond bitches).
But, a great twist. Perfection never existed, therefore there’s no “repairs” to be made. Redemption is unnecessary because there’s a crack in everything. As it is, so be it.
Interesting and attractive thought, unless “…there’s a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in” (L. Cohen).
It is said by some that Compassion is part of the structure of the Universe.
Dai Owen - 29th January 2008 @ 22:26
Hmmm. Gotta disagree on this one.
Firstly, and most obviously, the claim that something can’t be made perfect doesn’t say anything about whether or not it can be repaired. Broken things can be made serviceable, even if not perfect. The impossibility of perfection does not preclude the possibility of improvement.
Secondly though, I’m wondering whether or not the notion of “perfection”, although tyrannical, isn’t an essential part of the human psyche. Essential in the sense that it is part of the essence of human psychology; but also in the sense that it is necessary. Without idealism, where would we be? Possibly a more peaceful and balanced place. But it wouldn’t be recognisably human.
I’m actually starting to significantly rethink Plato’s metaphysics (yeah, yeah, you can blame Jung for that). When applied to external reality, they’re pretty kooky I grant you. But as a map of the psyche they make an awful lot of sense.
Jim Bliss - 30th January 2008 @ 0:33
I guess on the first point, the idea is more about an emotional attitude towards things rather than a logically worked-out assessment of them. At least, I take it that way.
Second point is totally fair. John Gray, in Black Mass, acknowledges that he’s painted himself into a bit of a corner by railing against utopian idealism, implicitly or explicitly arguing that we should do away with it. He pauses at one point to say the hope for a world without the kind of utopian idealism that is ultimately more destructive than constructive is itself idealistic in a utopian kind of way. There’s an abyss of logical recursion there that’s obviously a good idea to avoid. Again, I think the key is to appreciate how much we’re dealing with the dynamic, arational vicissitudes of feelings and unconscious attitudes than with the abstracted, wholly graspable plans and models of logic. The idea that perfection never existed and that there’s nothing to repair can be the perfect tonic for a certain person at a certain time (or a certain culture at a certain time), if it’s allowed to just sink in and dissolve hardened idealism that’s actually grinding them down. If they try to immediately “fix” this new, contrary idea into a new rigid model of the world, of course we just get more hassle and confusion.
I do think there’s something to be said for essentialist ideas (if only because they piss of current orthodoxy so much :-). Again, if they’re taken with the attitude of modern positivism, they’re pretty, as you say, kooky. But without monovision, with an approach that knows there are many different levels to reality (and thus many approaches are needed), they work, at a certain level.
Gyrus - 30th January 2008 @ 11:22
What is perfection anyway? Something that can’t be improved? Everything can be improved, but often if you keep on improving something you make it worse than it was before. I think unless you have a workable definition of what perfection actually is, then how can you know what you are talking about? As for a former state, well that in itself suggests a former state to that. We may as well shut up, since we don’t know what was before the Big Bang, or even whether there was a Big Bang anyway.
A good one for late-night student-bedroom conversations (which are just a prelude for sex). I remember talking about whether the green of my potted plant was the same green as the green that she was seeing. But really I just wanted to fuck her.
Joel - 30th January 2008 @ 17:06
What & where is an ‘idea’?
‘Your’ idea of ‘perfection’, beauty’, ‘justice’ etc only exists from ‘your’ position -
and ‘your position’ is right in the centre of ‘your universe’, where you stand with an East, South, West, North, Above, Below and especially a ‘Within’.
The question is whether perception can , therefore, ever really be proved to be shared?
Dai Owen - 6th February 2008 @ 1:01
Wittgenstein reckoned language has no underlying/fundamental meaning, that essentially it is tautological. We can convey some ideas but many we can’t, including (in his view) ones that have a subjective value component, such as ‘perfection’. W. came to regard most philosophical speculation as a waste of effort. I’m not sure I’d go that far but I think some perceptions are better described via metaphor.
Caroline - 7th February 2008 @ 17:00