Information: Figure or Ground?

"The media are not the holders of power, but they constitute by and large the space where power is decided."― Manuel Castells, Communication Power (2009)

We are told that we live in the “Information Age.” We are offered a boiling hot soup-bowl of “information” every day. Despite (or because of) what has been called a “meaning crisis,” we have never had so much “information,” well beyond our ability to consume. So, we deploy A.I. – that understands nothing but can crunch “information” at the speed of light – to gather and interpret our “information.” What’s wrong with us?

There is no agreed upon definition of “information.” Or, for that matter, even an agreed upon methodology to classify or measure it. Is it thermodynamic – giving us the entropic “night when all cows are black”? Or is it “information theoretic,” ala Claude Shannon? Can it be analyzed “mathematically” (and is “negentropy” just a matter of reversing the sign from plus to minus in the formula)? Or, as suggested by Oxford, is information simply a matter of “facts”? How does the “truth” get involved? What is wrong with us?

Etymologically, “information” comes from “inform,” which, in turn, comes from the Latin verb informare. Roughly translated, this comes from the active sense of “formation of the mind,” or perhaps “education.” Do we know how our “mind” is formed? Do we care? Do we take charge of that process, or do we let something else, which we don’t really understand “shape” us and our attitudes? Indeed, what is wrong with us?

In[Form]ation

During WW I, warfare became “psychological.” Yes, Sun Tzu can certainly be read that way, but in the West, it required that the Psyche be “re-discovered” so that it could be targeted. Controlled. Manipulated. Whether Behaviorist or Psychoanalytic, Western psychology became a weapon-of-war. The Germans became the “Huns.” Freud became the go-to for many geopoliticians and strategists. Or, for the more adventurous, Jung filled the same shoes. Harvard’s Henry Murray, a Jungian complete with his own Bollingen castle-in-the-woods, gave us the Unabomber. How many more wonders could we generate!

Today we routinely speak of “Psy-Ops” as widely recognized hoaxes. As usual, in the “mediascape” of our lives, when something becomes obvious it loses its impact. Some suggest that advertising is losing its clout. Common ad-industry anecdotes recount how “50% of advertising works; we just don’t know which 50%.” What if we’re now at 25%? What happens to GDP at 10%? Economists still haven’t figured out what that might mean but it doesn’t bode well for Milton Friedman’s “Consumption Function.”

During WW II, the Tavistock Clinic (recently closed for controversy over “Gender Identity”) in London became a well-organized weapons factory. Psychological weapons. Deeply integrated into the British military, aimed at colonial populations and worker’s organizations &c, Tavistock has itself now become (a rather clumsy) “meme” for “mind control.” Japanese factory life. Synthetic religions. Anti-hierarchy campaigns. Leaderless groups. Tavistock’s Medical Director, John Rawlings Rees (1890-1969, Brigadier, and Consulting ,Psychiatrist to the British Army), spelled it out in his 1945 “The Shaping of Psychiatry by War.” War had become deeply Psychological.

Rees headed the team that examined the imprisoned Rudolf Hess (emissary to the British ruling-class and co-author of Mein Kampf), and went on to found the Tavistock Institute, with funding by the Rockefeller Foundation. He thought of himself as a prominent member of the so-called “Invisible College.” He went on to head the World Federation of Mental Health, a key to “shaping” the post-war psychiatric profession, which also engaged intelligence-linked anthropologist Margret Mead. Now we just call this the “Deep State.”

In his 1974 “Tavistock Grin” essays, Trotskyist researcher Michael Minnicino, documented these relationships and their (presumed) political ramifications. In his words –

“This network is designed, fundamentally, to maintain class rule, to whatever level of viciousness demanded by capitalist economic necessity, by means of mass persuasive techniques capable of the irreversible destruction of the creativity of the working class and the re-shaping of worker’s behavior into the appropriate machine-like patterns, without the development of new ideological forms like fascism . . .” (The Campaigner, NCLC, April 1974, p. 37).

Minnicino subtitled this essay, “Low Intensity Operations: The Reesian Theory of War.” Another term would be “counterinsurgency” (sometimes shortened to COIN or “action against revolutionaries”). In a parallel and more famous work, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman published their Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of Mass Media (1988). Earlier, French sociologist, Jacques Ellul (1912-94), published his Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1962 French, 1965 English), building on the previous work of Edward Bernays, Leonard Doob &al. However, what is missing in all of these accounts is a “causality” for these developments. Crude “maintain class rule” may have been adequate for Minnicino’s 70s audience but it won’t work today. What is really going on here?

Figure & Ground

In general, we don’t want to answer that question. Particularly in a situation where there’s little that you can do, so “ignorance is bliss.” Gestalt Psychology suggested that we “attend” to the world in two very different ways: Figure & Ground. Figure is the “bright, shiny object” from which we can’t divert our glaze. Superficial. Tantalizing. Dynamic. And Safe. Ground is dangerous. Ground is reality. Not suitable for “small talk.”

Or, as Marshall McLuhan put it –

“There is deep-seated repugnance in the human breast against understanding the processes in which we are involved [i.e. the Ground of our experience]. Such understanding implies far too much responsibility for our actions . . . “ (Letters, 1987, 1969 correspondence with Jacques Maritian, p. 370)

McLuhan (1911-80) used Gestalt because the Catholic Church (to which he converted at age 24) had no “canonical” approach to Psychology. He rejected the various Psy-war approaches, so Gestalt was the best he could manage. Intuitively, McLuhan knew better, but Gestalt was a handy force fit. Nonetheless, his personal library (now at the Univ. of Toronto Rare Books collection) is filled with the marginal notation “f/g” – indicating that the author had neglected to move past the Figure into the Ground view. Exactly where most people leave things. Safely.

Gestalt suggested that humans want to stay out of trouble - especially when they are causing it -- so Figure does the trick. Deeper reflection could become a challenge. Maybe even seriously threatening. What is sometimes phrased as “speaking truth to power” is rarely either truthful or dealing effectively with power. Rather, it’s just more opinion. If it was effective, then “what to do now?” becomes the pressing question. “Free speech” often simply means that what you say doesn’t really matter. Water off the duck’s back. And those places that limit such speech tend to be zones where hiding the Ground, in plain sight, is supposed to be left unspoken. Indeed, our atomized/negative understanding of “freedom” has become a Figure of its own. Or, in today’s parlance, “whatever.”

Clearly, Gestalt isn’t good enough. It doesn’t explore the human Psyche deeply enough. A 20^th-century invention of (mostly) German Jews, as a psychoanalytic “counter-movement,” Gestalt lacks the historic depth and concedes far too much to the “experimentation” in the “modern scientific” approach. It is unaware of the “Two Minds” which occupy the human cranium. Yes, we are clearly “divided” in our approach between “logic” and “analogy.” But, most importantly, Gestalt remained ignorant of the role of technological environments – despite (or maybe because of) McLuhan’s somewhat oblique engagement. And, crucially missing, is how these environments shape humanity though the balance of our “Inner Senses.”

Today’s dominant academic/clinical Psychology is called “Cognitive Science.” It began in earnest in the 1950s, with the intent of “systematizing” what we presume to know about the Psyche. Among its early supporters were the “Mathematical Psychologists” who coined the term “Artificial Intelligence.” It patterns humans on computers, taking off after the initial foray into “Cybernetics” – however, the man who coined that term, Norbert Wiener, wasn’t invited to the party. Most importantly, it doesn’t work. Humans are not machines. Instead, we can do what no A.I. can ever approximate. We generate meaning. Unless we have been “programmed” not to.

No wonder we’re in a “meaning crisis.” No wonder we’re struggling to get A.I. to work for us – while all it “wants to do” is hallucinate. No wonder the drive for A.I. has resulted in so much push-back. Even among its most ardent supporters.

“There’s something happening here; what it is ain’t exactly clear . . . “

Mis/Dis/Mal-Information

We are living through a Paradigm shift of truly historic proportions. The Television environment – which McLuhan identified as the formal cause of “retrieving” the Oral Paradigm (aka “paganism”) -- has collapsed. Just ask all the beautiful people at Cannes. The Digital Paradigm has taken over. Just ask the Screen Actors Guild about non-humans parading around under the Proscenium Arch.

Narratives are as old as civilization. The Axial Age (c. 500BC, plus/minus 200 years) was all about changing the narratives. Sacred texts are narratives. So were the previous Myths. But that Paradigm shift – shifting us from an Oral towards a Scribal sensibility – changed us profoundly. Both are based on narratives, but of a different sort. Julian Jaynes (1920-97) details this shift in his The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (1976). Today’s renewed investigation of the nature of “consciousness” would benefit from studying his work – while noting that he allowed the academy (in his case Princeton) to sharply constrain his interrogations.

Pollsters have noted that public trust – for institutions, individuals &c – has dropped precipitously. The COVID-19 “narrative” is no longer believed and cannot be repeated. Rejection of the “Russia hoax” (and concomitant belief in a “stolen” election) is widespread – perhaps even among a majority. “Gaslighting” (more “psy-ops”) has become a commonly assigned attribute. “Deep fakes” can only lead to not believing anything seen on Television. It's all just “entertainment” – which, btw, is a word that means “entering in the mind” and “holding its attention” (alternately termed “brainwashing”). Yes, so much about our world isn’t so “funny” anymore – as many comedians have noticed.

We’re ready for some new narratives. Perhaps someone should tell George Clooney. His lightly watched CNN Special enacting his Broadway play, “Good Night, and Good Luck,” was widely panned as an “ill-tempered lecture.” He’s no Edward R. Morrow and Sen. Joe McCarthy was no Donald Trump. The analogy flopped – as reflected in the post-show panel on CNN. It was sharply divided between those promoting the old obsolete version of “narrative” (i.e. repetitious and failed “messaging”) and the journalistic “just the facts ma’am” approach. One panelist, Kara Swisher, went out on a limb declaring that this is a “great time” for journalism, with all the independent voices available on podcasts and Substacks (like EXO and hers). She once worked for the Wall Street Journal and speaks with authority. She got no support. Although she got by confessing that she does actually employ a “fact-checker.”

The new narratives will come from the Digital Paradigm. They will be based on a fundamental re-balancing of our Inner Senses. “Imagination” will continue but in a newfound and appropriate balance with “Memory” – two key Inner Senses. Talking raccoons and topless robots will no longer seize the same audience. Not all at once but it’s inevitable, nonetheless. The kids just won’t put up with it.

Rise of Spiritual Civilization

Humans are born with a more-or-less “blank slate” Psyche. Our formation/training is purposefully open-ended. It’s why it takes so long. That’s how we evolved and became the formidable creatures that we are. We are not the “same” as our parents, our ancestors, or our children. We adopt the environment/circumstances in which we are living as the “grammar” of our world and the technological environment has a great deal to do with how this works. As a result, over time, Paradigms develop that reflect the underlying structures, resulting in different attitudes and sensibilities. We are, so to speak, “what we eat.”

We are now in a historically extreme state of flux. Culturally. Economically. Philosophically. Religiously. So, the “kids” in today’s world will – of necessity – both have significant troubles coming to grips with these changes, while entertaining the opportunity to participate in the new world being born. Not out of the projected biases inherited from the grammar of the previous Paradigm (i.e. the hopes of their parents &al), but from the implications of the inherent grammar of this new world.

Today, that grammar is Digital. In Gestalt terms, the Ground of our existence has changed – indeed, with all the turmoil that implies. Wars. Mental breakdowns. In Psychological terms (here using the language of Faculty Psychology, not the hegemonic Cognitive approach), we are experiencing a shifting balance between our Inner Senses. According to St. Thomas Aquinas (ST I;Q 78;A 4), there are four of them: Common Sense, Imagination, Memory, and the Cogitative Power. Under Digital conditions, these senses generate the new grammar of Digital. Unlike the previous grammar of the Television Paradigm – which was based on elaborately engineered make-believe (often requiring us to “suspend our disbelief”) – Digital grammar, like the architecture of the machines involved, is based on Memory. Structurally, Digital favors Memory over Imagination. This is a “ground-shift” of enormous mental and social importance.

Flawed as it might be, advertisers have divided their “targets” into roughly 15-year birth-date cohorts: Gen-X (b. 1965-80, now aged 45-60), Gen-Y (aka “Millennials,” b. 1981-96, aged 29-44), Gen-Z (b. 1997-2013, aged 12-28), the Alpha Generation (b. 2014-2029, aged unborn-11), and the Beta Generation (2030-2045, unborn today). While the “Millennials” are sometimes called “Digital Natives” and Gen-Z gets tagged as the “first digital generation,” the biggest changes will come from the Alpha and Beta generations – now aged unborn to c. 11. They will be the first for whom Television will (mostly have) never be experienced personally. And the behaviors of their “grandparents” will often seem quaint and old-fashioned. As, indeed, it was.

Another important factor is the insertion of deliberate Evil into the mix. Change breeds confusion and imbalance. Evil can take advantage of this seeming groundlessness and promote rejection and despair. In a Machine vs. Human situation, such as today, the anti-human Machinic framework will seem attractive to some – particularly when it is rewarding. Programming computers already invokes this attitude. To “think like a machine” means – to some degree – forgetting what it means to be human. Paraphrasing McLuhan, “The Prince of this World [i.e. Satan] is a very fine Digital [he said Electric] engineer.”

As the fictional Star Trek Borg put it, “Resistance is Futile” – or so it will seem to many. The Print Paradigm (c. 1550-1850) gave birth to both the Reformation (i.e. a technological “reforming” of the human Psyche) and the parallel Witch Trials (e.g. Salem, MA, 1692-93 &c). In addition to declaring the earlier Catholic Scribal sensibilities as originating in the “Whore of Babylon” (i.e. Rome), the Puritans, who founded much of New England, after losing the English Civil War, sharply restricted any attempts to bring Science and Religion together. Their religion was well-defined, so no further discussion was needed/permitted, cutting off Science from its human foundations. This will not be the effect of the Digital Paradigm.

Digital technology is already causing the retrieval of “spirituality.” France is (slowly) returning to the “traditional” liturgies. India is now a “Hindu nation.” China now teaches its own “Classics” – rich in Daoist and Confucian “philosophy” -- alongside an A.I. focused curriculum. A.I. “ethics” has stimulated a more fundamental examination of the underlying “morality” involved. The recent election of Pope Leo XIV retrieves an examination of his namesake’s 19^th-century Catholic Social Teaching (CST) – which was, in turn, driven by the Paradigm shift from Print to Electric (c. 1850-2000). Today’s Paradigm shift from Electric to Digital begs the question of updating the appellation to Digital Catholic Social Teaching (DCST). In many ways, what we are experiencing today is like what Charlemagne faced in the 8^th-century – the conversion of Pagans. In his day, this meant Lombards and Saxons. Today it means much of Electric Western culture.

These “techno-grammatical” changes in society present yet another problem for A.I. Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on human speech. What happens when the language/meanings of earlier generations become obsolete? LLM companies are already complaining that they are running out of training materials. Some worry that the LLM “outputs” are looping back into the “inputs,” further degrading the results, generating “A.I. Slop”. A.I., as we know it, doesn’t “understand” anything, so Paradigm shifts may bring down the whole house-of-cards. “Information” won’t help us anymore. Without human contextualizing, A.I. logic alone can only fail us miserably. Humanity has a massive opportunity because of the Digital shift from Fantasy to Memory. It is up to us to take advantage of this historic gift. We have all the “information” that we need, but are we up to acting on the responsibility that we have been given?