“Don’t Give up....
You Mustn’t Give Up....”
MULDER:
Scully? Why would he say that -
"Don't give up"?
Why would he say such a thing to you?
SCULLY:
I think that was clearly meant for you, Mulder.
MULDER:
He didn't say it to me.
He said it to you.
If Father Joe were The Devil, why would he say
the opposite of what The Devil might say?
Maybe that's The Answer.
The Larger Answer.
SCULLY:
What do you mean?
MULDER:
Don't give up.
Personality as Hierarchy —
and Capacity for Transformation
How, then, is the personality that balances respect for social institutions and, equally, creative transformation to be understood? It is not so easy to determine, given the complexity of the problem.
For that reason, we turn to stories.
Stories provide us with a broad template. They outline a pattern specific enough to be of tremendous value, if we can imitate it, but general enough (unlike a particular rule or set of rules) to apply even to new situations.
In stories, we capture observations of the ideal personality.
We tell tales about success and failure in adventure and romance.
Across our narrative universes, success moves us forward to what is better, to the promised land; failure dooms us, and those who become entangled with us, to the abyss.
The Good moves us upward and ahead, and Evil drags us backward and down.
Great stories are about characters in action, and so they mirror the unconscious structures and processes that help us translate the intransigent world of facts into the sustainable, functional, reciprocal social world of values.*
The properly embodied hierarchy of values — including the value of conservatism and its twin, creative transformation — finds its expression as a personality, in narrative — an ideal personality. Every hierarchy has something at its pinnacle.
It is for this reason that a story, which is a description of the action of a personality, has A Hero (and even if that someone is The Antihero, it does not matter : The Antihero serves the function of identifying The Hero through contrast, as The Hero is what The Antihero is most decidedly not).
The Hero is The Individual at The Peak, The Victor, The Champion, The Wit, The Eventually Successful and DeservingUnderdog, The Speaker of Truth Under Perilous Circumstances, and more.
[Cyberlab]
(The Chess Board is in place.)
Mr. CLEVER :
There. That was easy.
The Game has just started.
Doctor, why is there NO record of You
ANYWHERE in the databanks of
The Cyberiad?
Oh, you're good.
Oh, you've been eliminating
Yourself from History.
You know you could
be reconstructed by
The HOLE YOU’VE LEFT.
[Ten Forward]
(Data is about to speak, then changes his mind)
WORF:
Wait. What is it, Commander?
DATA:
I am sorry to bother you,
but I have a question of a personal nature.
Do you have a moment?
WORF:
...A Moment.
DATA:
I have heard you mention that you once experienced A Vision.
WORF:
Yes. When I was young my adoptive parents
arranged for me to partake in
The Rite of MajQa.
DATA:
I understand it involves deep meditation
in the lava caves of No'Mat.
That prolonged exposure to the heat
induces a hallucinatory effect.
WORF:
Why are you asking me about this?
DATA:
I have recently had an unusual experience,
which might be described as A Vision.
WORF:
What happened?
DATA:
An accident in Engineering shut down my cognitive functions
for a short period of time,
yet I seemed to remain conscious.
I saw My Father.
WORF:
You are very fortunate.
That is a powerful vision.
DATA:
If it was A Vision,
I do not know how to proceed.
WORF:
You must find its Meaning.
If it has anything to do with Your Father,
you must learn all you can about it.
In the Klingon MajQa ritual,
there is nothing more important
than receiving a revelation
about Your Father.
Your Father is a Part of You, always.
Learning about him
teaches you about yourself.
That is why no matter
Where He Is or What He Has Done,
you must find him.
DATA:
....but I am not looking for My Father(?)
WORF:
.....Yes, of course.
Do not stop until you have
The Answer.
DATA :
Thank you, Worf.
We know what it looks like --
We can make one.
[Zeos computer room]
(M.E.N.T.A.L.I.S. is a wreck of molten plastic.)
DOCTOR:
That was close.
ROMANA:
How did they manage to miss?
DOCTOR:
They weren't aiming at me,
they were aiming at that, the control centre,
like a scorpion stinging itself to death.
As soon as it sensed I was trying to interfere with the sequence,
it destroyed its own control centre.
It's mindless now,
clicking toward oblivion.
How long, K9?
K9:
Damage renders data unavailable.
DOCTOR:
(Thinks….)
The TARDIS!
ROMANA:
Come on, K9!
(They run for their lives.)
[Marshal's module]
PILOT:
Within range, sir.
MARSHAL:
Go in closer. As close as you dare.
(The Doctor, Romana and K9 enter the Shadow's lair and enter The TARDIS.)
[TARDIS]
The Doctor enters with
Five of The Six Pieces of The Key to Time.
DOCTOR:
Here, take a look at this.
ROMANA:
Ah, you put the five pieces together. Good.
DOCTOR:
Have you got the tracer?
ROMANA:
Yes.
DOCTOR:
Lock it in. Lock it.
ROMANA:
Now what?
DOCTOR:
Well, it was just an idea --
I thought if we had Five-Sixths
of the pieces it might give us
some power —
Obviously Guardian Technology
doesn't work that way.
ROMANA:
If only we had The Sixth Piece.
DOCTOR:
Yeah — !!
Or a Sixth Piece...!!
ROMANA:
What do you mean?
Pointing --
DOCTOR:
What do you see there?
ROMANA:
A Gap.
DOCTOR:
Exactly. A GAP —
The exact shape of The Sixth Piece.
ROMANA:
Oh!
DOCTOR:
We know what it looks like —
We can make one.
The Necessity of Balance
Because doing what others do and have always done so often works, and because, sometimes, radical action can produce success beyond measure, the conservative and the creative attitudes and actions constantly propagate themselves.
A functional social institution — a hierarchy devoted to producing something of value, beyond the mere insurance of its own survival — can utilize the conservative types to carefully implement processes of tried-and-true value, and the creative, liberal types to determine how what is old and out of date might be replaced by something new and more valuable.
The balance between conservatism and originality might therefore be properly struck, socially, by bringing the two types of persons together. But someone must determine how best to do that, and that requires a wisdom that transcends mere temperamental proclivity.
Because the traits associated with creativity, on the one hand, and comfort with the status quo, on the other, tend to be mutually exclusive, it is difficult to find a single person who has balanced both properly, who is therefore comfortable working with each type, and who can attend, in an unbiased manner, to the necessity for capitalizing on the respective forms of talent and proclivity. But the development of that ability can at least begin with an expansion of conscious wisdom: the articulated realization that conservatism is good (with a set of associated dangers), and that creative transformation—even of the radical sort—is also good (with a set of associated dangers).
Learning this deeply—truly appreciating the need for both viewpoints—means at least the possibility of valuing what truly diverse people have to offer, and of being able to recognize when the balance has swung too far in one direction.
The same is true of the knowledge of the shadow side of both. To manage complex affairs properly, it is necessary to be cold enough in vision to separate the power hungry and self-serving pseudoadvocate of the status quo from the genuine conservative; and the self-deceptive, irresponsible rebel without a cause from the truly creative. And to manage this means to separate those factors within the confines of one’s own soul, as well as among other people.
And how might this be accomplished? First, we might come to understand consciously that these two modes of being are integrally interdependent. One cannot truly exist without the other, although they exist in genuine tension. This means, first, for example, that discipline—subordination to the status quo, in one form or another—needs to be understood as a necessary precursor to creative transformation, rather than its enemy. Thus, just as the hierarchy of assumptions that make up the structure that organizes society and individual perceptions is shaped by, and integrally dependent on, restrictions, so too is creative transformation. It must strain against limits. It has no use and cannot be called forth unless it is struggling against something.
It is for this reason that The Great Genie, The Granter of Wishes — God, in a microcosm — is archetypally trapped in the tiny confines of a lamp and subject, as well, to the will of The Lamp’s current holder. Genie — genius — is the combination of possibility and potential, and extreme constraint.
Limitations, constraints, arbitrary boundaries — rules, dread rules, themselves — therefore not only ensure social harmony and psychological stability, they make the creativity that renews order possible. What lurks, therefore, under the explicitly stated desire for complete freedom — as expressed, say, by the anarchist, or the nihilist — is not a positive desire, striving for enhanced creative expression, as in the romanticized caricature of the artist. It is instead a negative desire — a desire for the complete absence of responsibility, which is simply not commensurate with genuine freedom.
This is the lie of objections to the rules.
But “Down with Responsibility” does not make for a compelling slogan — being sufficiently narcissistic to negate itself self-evidently — while the corresponding “Down with the Rules” can be dressed up like a heroic corpse.
Alongside the wisdom of true conservatism is the danger that the status quo might become corrupt and its corruption self-servingly exploited. Alongside the brilliance of creative endeavor is the false heroism of the resentful ideologue, who wears the clothes of the original rebel while undeservedly claiming the upper moral hand and rejecting all genuine responsibility. Intelligent and cautious conservatism and careful and incisive change keep the world in order.
But each has its dark aspect, and it is crucial, once this has been realized, to pose the question to yourself:
Are you the real thing, or its opposite?
And the answer is, inevitably, that you are some of both — and perhaps far more of what is shadowy than you might like to realize.
That is all part of understanding the complexity we each carry within us.
