THE PARADOX IN MASS FORMATION THEORY
An interview by Maurice de Hond with James Roolvink author of the book 'The paradox in mass formation theory'. Also check: 'THE PARADOX IN MASS FORMATION THEORY' DESERVES A PLACE AT THE STAKE TO BE BURNT! | LinkedIn
This is a translation (via the translation machine DeepL) of an interview that appeared on ‘https://www.maurice.nl/2023/05/20/paradox-theorie-massavorming/’. I made a few adjustsments in the AI generated translation. Take a note on the fact that with a ‘mass human being’ or ‘mass man’ is meant a type of self-awareness in wich self-awareness is the effect of an awareness of the masses, thus a self-awareness that is mediated by the masses.
?
On the making of this interview
This interview was conducted in the following way. Maurice de Hond and James Roolvink, author of the book 'The paradox in mass formation theory' (Aspekt publishing house, De paradox in de theorie over massavorming – Uitgeverij Aspekt), first spoke to each other. In that conversation, Maurice made it clear what his interest is, which is to find an explanation of how it is that people still cannot face the facts, about e.g. the existence of aerosols in the spread of viruses, that mouth caps do not work against viruses, etc.. How to explain that people are unwilling or unable to see the facts now that all fear of the danger of covid seems to be over? Fear is no longer a counsellor and yet not everyone manages to face the facts. From 'The paradox in mass formation theory', what different explanations can be given for this? From this interest, this questioning by Maurice, a number of questions arose, which James then answered in writing.
?
?
Introductory
?
Besides the fact that 'The Paradox in Mass Formation Theory' is a lucid explanation of and critical commentary on Mattias Desmet's 'The Psychology of Totalitarianism', it is a book that goes against intuitions that are self-evident to us in a lot of ways. That makes it an exciting book.
The reason is that the book is written from a whole new teaching, developed by James Roolvink, on how self-awareness arises. That teaching is also outlined in the book. That part is perhaps the most valuable, but in the nature of the matter itself the most difficult to understand, because to describe how the...your...self-consciousness arises you have to describe how 'you' (self-conscious) are before you are (self-conscious). That is like being completely awake in your sleep before you wake up. This is about the art of remembering your dreams. In short, a very interesting AND challenging book that you can't just dream away from. (https://uitgeverijaspekt.nl/boek/de-paradox-in-de-theorie-over-massavorming/ 820 pages).
Also, this interview is challenging because a lot has to be covered in a very short space of time. It is definitely recommended to read the interview several times to really understand the subtle point. For those still interested in reading an introduction to Desmet's book in advance, please refer to the previously published articles:
?
?
What is mass/crowd formation?
?
A tentative definition in the context of this interview could be this: when a large number of people proverbially follow each other in circles, a large number of people think what they think and do what they do, then everyone is a follower and a ‘mass human being’ moderated by the masses themselves. The mass is then not mixed/led, by e.g. a number of conspiracy forging men/leaders. However, that following each other leads, when you look backwards, to the illusion that you have many followers and are very independent. A mass man can only look backwards and believes he can think and act independently. A mass man can even start to think that he himself is mentoring/leading the masses - e.g. because he is high on the social 'food chain'.
By running quickly in circles together, people feel that they exist, that something is happening, that they are independent, but as with ants who keep running in such a circle die of exhaustion, such a mass lifts itself, so it is always a temporary phenomenon. For there is no direction, no real vision. That intrinsically temporary can be hopeful. (For an ant-circle/death spiral, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rup3EdA0kw).
The theory (‘narrative’) of mass formation is set over and against the idea the an elite (of elites) conspires against humanity by forming free human beings that are able to think critically into a collective, a mass of thoughtless masses, via all kinds of propaganda/narratives. In a theory of mass formation the narrative is believed by everyone and made by no one, so even in case of a hierarchy with the masses between the masses and an elite (of elites) the elite, a smaller mass, is itself controlled by the ruling narrative, the effect of an historical process.
?
?
Yet you claim in your book that mass formation is more dangerous than Desmet recognises, can you briefly explain?
?
A man who merges into the masses, a 'mass man', does not lose his self-awareness, but rather finds his self-awareness there in the real sense of being completely independent. The mass man, the man of the masses, is entirely dependent on the masses, the crowd, in terms of thinking and acting, and it is an illusion that the mass man is independent. The conscious feeling of that illusion of independence, of being a self, is real though. You then get a kind of placebo effect of self-awareness, because believing in the illusion does give that illusion a real effect. Just look at how effective feints are in football! Subjective appearances have an objective effect.
Through the masses, therefore, a mass human can only become self-aware for the first time. It is a ghostly self-awareness. So there is no hypnosis to join the masses, because that presupposes an already existing self-awareness that can be hypnotised, but the self-awareness exists precisely only by being self-awareness in and from the masses. The awareness of the masses constitutes self-awareness. In my interpretation, I make an elementary distinction between 'awareness of something' and the self-awareness. An awareness of something is without a self. In a mass man, that something is are masses. That something can e.g. also be the Righteous, but in a mass man that something are the masses. The self, the self-awareness, of someone whose awareness is aware of Justice, as it were, has a completely different colour. That self is not coloured by the masses, but by Justice. 'Awareness' in this context is not a higher awarness, but a cleaner more colourful awareness. A photograph of a photograph is not a higher kind of photograph either. We see that quality, that cleaner, purer, brighter, in the quality of the photograph.???
Anyway Desmet builds his analysis partly from the concept of hypnosis and suggests that joining the masses is a more or less free self-awareness choice. A choice that must be morally tested as well as actions done as a mass person within the masses. He thus fails to make the elementary distinction between 'awareness of something' and 'self-awareness. His analysis of how self-awareness arises is not thorough enough. He already presupposes the existence of self-awareness in that genesis. Therefore, he can only describe the mass man as a mentally disturbed, less self-aware, i.e. somewhat hypnotised, self-awareness that expresses itself in narcissism and neurosis. ?
The narcissist and neurotic have a weaker self that they constantly try to affirm by exercising control. The narcissist in my idea exercises control by wanting to manipulate other people, wanting to dominate them by telling them how to think about themselves and the world. The neurotic mainly exercises control over himself by wanting to manage things. Everything has to be done according to the rules for the neurotic. This is how to wash the dishes, this is how to put things neatly in the cupboard, this is how to behave, etc..
In my view, narcissism and neurosis are merely consequences and not causes of ‘massification of awareness’. Narcissism and neurosis are brain diseases, but they find their cause at a much more physical level than the physical brain. Much more down at let's say still much more 'unconscious' level. The level of the life force, which the Greeks call the psuche, where our word soul (psyche) comes from.
So why, in my view, is mass formation more dangerous? Take it for a moment that a human being can accomplish his self-awareness only through the masses then rationally questioning the truth of the masses, the prevailing 'narrative', is an attack on the masses and a mass person can experience that as an attack on his self-awareness. You attack the masses and thus the awareness of the masses and if there are no masses of which to be aware then there can be no self-awareness. Critically questioning the truth of the masses, assuming the role of 'big drop' in the spread of viruses as the sole cause and therefore believing that mouth caps work against the spread of viruses, the mass man experiences this as an attack on his own self(-awareness).
If you then also take into account that self-awareness is of the body, which is not to say that it is caused by the body, then an attack on that truth, e.g. that mouth caps do not work, is an attack on his or her body - at least that is literally how mass people experience it. They cannot listen to rational arguments because you hit them in their bodily vitality. Then it is not irrational for them to start using violence 'back' in self-defence. You are literally attacking their bodies with your words.
This also explains the terrible murder of Theo van Gogh. Theo van Gogh believed that words could only reverberate and echo in the virtual space of public space and thus could never, ever reach physical physical space. Theo van Gogh believed that words are a virtual thing and did not see that for the killer, that very thing was everything, that which his awareness related to in order to achieve self-awareness. Theo van Gogh was a rationally self-aware person and, like Desmet, was unaware of how this self-awareness arises. This lack of insight cost him dearly.
?
?
How does this violence relate to your claim that mass man is a highly moral human being?
?
领英推荐
Mass people speak of people who go against the narrative of the masses as dissidents and dissidents, who challenge the truth of the narrative of the masses, as disgusting. The disgusting is related to the unclean monstrous. It is immoral not to fight monsters (who claim that vaccines are essentially gene therapy and do not work against stopping infections from a manipulated virus...), because they undermine all life. They destroy not only the lives of others, which would be 'merely' immoral, but also their own, so they are unclean monsters, pure evil in themselves, evil in an eminent sense. Mass human beings no longer see the dissident as human, but as a monster, and it is morally right to fight monsters (with all the horrific consequences that ensue when you see a human being as a monster).
The dissident, in turn, may rightly become afraid of mass human beings and begin to see mass human beings as monstrous, namely as monstrous mass human beings and also become blind to mass human beings' humanity.
So I place morality at the level of self-awareness and I place the terms impure and pure at the level of the awareness of something. If that something is an impure mundane (worldly) mass of swarming creatures running in circles after each other, then the awareness of the impure becomes an impure awareness. The impure awareness leads to a profane moral self-awareness. Morality as the neurotic adherence to rules because it must arise from impurity. When the consciousness of something e.g. is focused on something holy like Justice, then that awareness of justice can be called pure. A pure awareness does not lead to morality, but to virtuous action, i.e. to virtue. A virtue is e.g. courage. If you act courageously you don't act according to a prescription, an a priori always valid rule like 'you must listen to the government when they demand to put on a non-working mouthpiece, because if nobody listens anymore there is total chaos', but you act courageously whatever has to be done in that concrete situation. Act from courage then you will have a chance to act justly.
?
?
In that context, how do you see the framing with words like conspiracy believer, science denier, etc.?
?
While words can also lead to aggression, words like 'mass human', 'conspiracy thinker', 'sheep', 'atomised subject' (the academic name for sheep), etc. actually reduce aggression, in my view. By referring to someone as a 'wimp', you defuse that person by calling that person essentially stupid. By not taking that person seriously, you don't have to resort to atrocities. After all, you do not see that human being as an unclean disgusting monster, but simply as a stupid human being. Those very words show the compassion that exists between people from different camps.
Framing each other is positive in the sense that it is one more 'last' safety mechanism not to go head-to-head with each other.
?
?
What is the paradox in mass formation theory?
?
At least seven paradoxes are presented in the book, but one of the paradoxes, which Desmet is also on to, is that the more a society is controlled by mass formation, the more chances there are for conspiracies to begin. In short the more true the theory of mass formation, as an alternative theory to the theory that there is a global conspiracy going on, to explain totalitarian regimes becomes less true and more true becomes the theory that claims that it is precisely conspiracies that first forge us into a mass and thus lead us into a totalitarian regime or directly sell us a free ticket to become good citizens in such a totalitarian regime.
That way, you get a bit of a chicken-and-egg story: mass formation leads to conspiracies and conspiracies drive mass formation. Incidentally, I myself come up with another theory in the book to explain totalitarianism other than mass formation or human conspiracies. Let's say that the cock is first and foremost.
?
?
What at least would you like readers to get out of your book?
?
First, that readers 'sheepishly' follow the reading guide! Second, that mass formation has nothing to do with a mechanistic worldview, a mechanistic ideology, as Desmet believes. That is really historical nonsense. The worldview of the Nazis was vitalistic and even 'spiritual' (in the sense that it recognised a spiritual aspect in reality) and in any case, it was precisely opposed to the mechanistic worldview. Nevertheless, there was mass formation in Germany. Mass formation cannot be solved by presenting everyone with a true image of man and the world. If you do mean that, you do not fully recognise the danger of mass formation. So then again you believe that everything can be solved with rational arguments, i.e. at the level of self-awareness, after self-awareness has already been formed.
Mass formation, then, has not so much to do with the belief content of what you believe, but how you (yourself) believe. That 'how' involves a dimension that precedes that self-awareness, namely that of the life force, i.e. the awareness of something. We see that 'how' reflected in virtuous action in especially how you do something. Through that 'how', you again encounter the question of what self-awareness is. I hope that question will interest readers in questions surrounding the emergence of self-awareness, the interrelationships between self-awareness, time, appearance, causality and intersubjectivity (the relations with and between other self-awarenesses) and my answers to those questions. These relations are now described for the first time in the Western history of thought. ??
Of course, it is in the nature of the matter itself, the subject of 'the emergence of self-awareness', that the importance of this matter is not seen because the matter itself is not seen. My books cannot even end up on the stake because to see (the value of) the book, you have to be self-aware before you are self-aware, so you have to be able to be awake in your dreams to be awake when you wake up.
?
?
What else can we expect from you on these topics?
?
Firstly, I have since written a booklet entitled 'On appearances and mass formation' and it is about a two thinkers of 500 BC from classical antiquity, Parmeneides and Herakleitos, thought about mass formation. (https://www.amazon.nl/Over-schijn-massavorming-Herakleitos-Parmeneides/dp/B0BTJBY58S/ref=sr_1_8?crid=2ONFVILNKBMG2&keywords=james+paul+roolvink&qid=1684320546&sprefix=%2Caps%2C140&sr=8-8 ). Very nuanced and subtle thought and they too connected the issue of how mass formation arises with the emergence of self-awareness. That notion of mass formation and related concepts are much older than the 19de century (as Desmet believes). It is really already of all times. ?
Secondly, I have just finished a book entitled '(The) Remembered Consciousness' in which I expand on the teachings on the origins of self-consciousness by clarifying the differences between: self, individuality, personality, mind, soul, life, I, Ego, unity of awareness, awareness of unity, and so on. Usually, all of that is lumped into one massive heap. Into that masses, that mess, I try to shed light and accurately distinguish one thing from another and put it in the right order. As you can infer above, awareness of oneness precedes the oneness of awareness. That something you are aware of is in fact a unity. The unity of consciousness can be called individual self-awareness.
Much is gained when you come to the awareness that a word like 'self-awareness' that we use or assume all day long is not clear at all. You can drive a car, without understanding how a car works. You can be self-aware, without knowing how self-awareness arises. Will Max Verstappen become a better driver if he also knows how a car works? Maybe not if his knowledge of mechanics would come at the expense of his training hours, but if he already had that knowledge he will also better understand his presentation afterwards, after his career, if he has knowledge of the race car he drove towards victory. That understanding will not lead him to win lost races, but he will understand loss and gain better insight. That understanding sometimes softens the loss and sometimes makes the win shine more brightly.
The point of this heavy theoretical exercise on the emergence of self-awareness and how self-awareness is related to intersubjectivity is, among other things, that it allows me to lay the foundations for a 'community libertarianism', without having to appeal to 'self-aware' morality. Libertarianism is the idea of a society without a state. It is the idea that we are human beings and not citizens. Because of state institutions, we are trained then to immediately think that libertarianism leads to anarchic chaos. The moment that thought immediately occurs to you, you yourself may still be a mass human being. Or human after all?
?
May 2023
?
?
Books by James Roolvink that are translated into English are:
?
The power of Oedipus: A small phenomenology of religion on: appearances, the unclean, the sacrifice, seeing & the wound (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CQYCVKJV?ref_=pe_93986420_774957520). For all those who want to go beyond ‘The Idea of the Holy’ (1917, Rudolf Otto) ‘The sacred and the profane’ (1959, Mircea Eliade).
?
Ways to and of the Qu'ran: A magical reading (https://www.amazon.nl/Ways-Quran-James-Paul-Roolvink/dp/B0C63RYC9X/ref=sr_1_22?crid=2PVEGSDE8NQIX&keywords=james+paul+roolvink&qid=1703191822&sprefix=%2Caps%2C3485&sr=8-22).