In Which Jung prewrites AtD's epigraph

[alice wellintown]

> And the favorite kind of consciousness of interest to the three dudes is
> FALSE consciousness
>
> M inability to see self interest
>
> N failure of will to power
>
> F desire for what is feared

Marx mocks our inability to see self interest when he sez:

The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical
and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of
serious examination. Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that
man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, **man’s
consciousness**, changes with every change in the conditions of his
**material** existence, in his social relations and in his social
life? What else does the history of ideas prove, than that
intellectual production changes its character in proportion as
material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever
been the ideas of its ruling class.

Marx, I assume, would have sided with the computer, not, of course,
for its power to think or reason, but because its workings are closer
to a scientific consciousness. Our inability to see self interest, and
our inability or refusal to aknowledge the material causes that shift
ideological ones is an illusion the computer can make go away. But we
love our illusions our ideologies. We prefer them.


> Which is where computers come in (strange but true)
>
> Computers aren't cursed with false consciousnesses, from which one might
> conclude all important decisions should be turned over to them, but of
> course we don't want to do that.
>
> No, our sense is that, although computer may have the advantage, we must
> plod on with our human ideologies, hangups, delusions, neuroses, etc., etc.
> and hope things will turn out fairly OK.
>
> As to the matter of knowledge we must accept the reality that we are not
> omniscient (as God is supposed to be) but are stuck with clunky old
> reason--what we now call language--and reason/language depends on even
> clunkier old concepts or ideas which no two people will agree on the meaning
> of (as if meaning meant anything).
>
> There's so much more to say, but I have to take the dog out.
>
> P
>
>