Human Mind as a Psychological Fragment


Karl Rove and George Bush Jr. can’t resist tears while being observed by the world. Public tears are public statement even when it’s absolutely sincere. It is a statement when tears cover up the absence or the weakness of the argument (emotions – the absence of thinking and seriousness). As good friends Karl and George identify with one another. They feel as one person. Karl feels mistreated by the monsters – democratic politicians. And George sympathizes with him. This kind of mutual bond without any (individualistic) distance is not rare between people of the same group. Even Nazi soldiers had the same male bonding, the same unconditional dedication to each other, pre-reflective ties to their country, and unanimity without any critical capability. It is much more difficult to develop tolerance toward dissimilar people (this ability demands psychological and spiritual maturity). The emotion of teary and sobbing feeling of being unjustly treated is human enough, though quite narcissistic and childish because it doesn’t include the otherness’ (the opponents’) perspective and dismisses the democratic right to disagree without being psychologically nailed to the cross. Emotionally developed people are less prone to sulking, and more “neutral” in their public self-expression – they have reached a level of differentiation between private and public style of self-expression, and they are less concentrated on how they are personally treated or mistreated by others than on the issues – on the human perspective this or that argument and the idea opens, and on loyalty to objective truth – to facts and correctness/properness of logical procedures of thinking. Karl and George are typical conservatives in a sense that they are over-emotional in their reactions, childishly self-centered in a sentimental way, not manly enough. Being thin-skinned, impulsiveness, cruelty and sentimentality very often cluster together in the same people.


To have a good joke is also quite human, but this level of humanity was achieved by people like Stalin or Mussolini as well. We can easily imagine serious criminal making juicy jokes and be wetly witty at a pub. The point here is how a person behaves outside the jokes or eating or kissing a daughter before she falls asleep. Here we see the difference between the partial humanity of a psychological fragment – of impulsive emotion, common dedication or concentration on a certain task, and the question of the humanity of personality as wholeness. The psychological fragment always looks human because it is a part of human biological and psychological nature – but it is the meaning of the behavior can be inhumane when fragmentary (technical) task or emotion are not balanced by the person’s psychological wholeness (which is more capable to intuitively identify with other human beings as belonging to the same specie in spite of their otherness/dissimilarity). The vision of the psychological fragment is like seeing through the narrow openness of a helmet’s visor while psychological wholeness looks at the world with a positive openness. Karl Rove and Dick Cheney in this photo look like conspirators and plotters, not like statesmen in a democracy – it is easy and pleasant to feel together in an environment that includes otherness that they perceive as dangerous, and share identity vis-à-vis the “suspicious” dissimilar others.


We see that George Bush Jr. and Tony Blair appreciate each other as being buddies and patties of invented and fabricated wars. Their unity is not that of psychologically developed personalities that can always include substantial disagreements without disrespect and the intellectual capacity to bridge them through reaching compromises. But Bush-Blair (Blursh-Blersh twins of invented wars) by eliminating the otherness between them became people with identically functioning imagination – people with pre-democratic mentality who unify with each other through the same prejudices and obsessions. By blindly following the totalitarian style of behavior they project otherness outside their syncretistic togetherness to fight with it and to conquer/eliminate it.


Stara Pearlin (Sara Palin) prepares to shoot (the viewers?). This photo, unintentionally, shows typical characteristic of fragmentary vision (vision of the psychological fragment) – while Starla is shown in the very moment she is ready to shoot (she is not looking at the target with her own eyes – she borrows the vision from an optic device of the weapon: she sees the target by the eye of the weapon), her shooting instructor looks at her target as if with his human eyes while in reality his vision imitates the vision of the weapon. Psychological wholeness (holistic vision of the world) is not participating. That’s how hate (an example of a fragmented emotion) towards human dissimilarity targets the enemy – through the context of eliminating otherness, not collaborating with it. Psychological fragmentation takes place when we allow one or a bunch of strong emotions (hate, fear, love or sexual lust) or particular interests (profit, salary, fame or career) to dominate the human perspective – to neutralize the alternative impressions, critical ability and general tranquility of feeling ourselves as a part of the universe. The cheerful innocence of the shooting instructor is typical for militant conservatives – they feel that their soul is pure because in their view all the evil belongs to otherness as the enemy. These eyes irradiate a purity of soul only because the guy’s mind is not capable of noticing the real condition of his soul. Looking at his shiningly dilated eyes it is possible to think that he sees not the target but his children playing on the lawn. People with such eyes can kill and torture while having coffee or talking about soccer.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

To lose the immanent (natural) ideal of psychological wholeness, to become an appendix to a task, impulse or compulsion, to fight for survival instead of living means to psychologically become a Frankenstein.

People serving particular tasks, beliefs, professions or obsessions are always naïve even when they are crafty and calculating. Because they don’t keep the wider human perspective on the world (that sees the extremes balanced and contradictions reconcilable through rational efforts and wider vision), they become the carriers of narrow and blind emotions. Still, every psychological fragment is located within the psychological substrata and is capable of producing emotions which look quite human and even more human than the more complicated and complex emotions that belong to the psychological wholeness and are less obvious. Simplified representation of human beings in commercial cinema, “trashy” novels and comics hurts our ability to operate perceptually and behaviorally above the level of fragmented emotions.

Animosity and war-making are typical examples of feeling and acting on the level of the psychological fragments. Biblical “seven deadly sins” also refer to the condition of being under the power of particular psychological fragments. These sins are considered to be quite human but they are human only in the first – primitive and obvious sense as belonging to the human substrata, but not in an advanced and sublime sense – they don’t belong to the level of human wholeness. Every human being even when s/he is on a higher developmental level of being closer to psychological wholeness has the impulses and transgressions, but s/he at least try to keep them under relative control. Human beings who are farther from psychological wholeness (who act under the influence of their psychological fragments) – are underdeveloped in their very humanity. They are robotic although not without a human touch. It is these people I call psychological Frankensteins. The neo-conservative politicians are people of fragmentary emotions (they are not in control of their impulses and partial motivations). They are Frankensteins of their goals and obsessions.

These dehumanized fighters for their fragmentary ideas fed by corporate money, are perceived as human while in reality are corporate robots. Their physical survival (depending on their functioning as professionals and/or believers) is more important for them than the wellbeing, health and the future of the human race. That’s why everything they do is destructive – it is not in tune with life in its wholeness. And that’s why hate and other forms of psychological violence is such a big part of their activity. Psychological fragment always asserts itself by rebelling against the wider perspective – it wants power over and against life. Fragment doesn’t understand what life is, it is capable only to enjoy its impulses, possession of things, control over others and life in general. Psychological Frankensteins are destroyers of life without intending to, just by being incongruous with life.