Brennan Ch. 1-2

“MAN IS NOT UNITY BUT MULTIPLE”

                Maurice Nicoll is a British psychologist who studied under Jung, Gurdjieff, and Ouspensky. In his piece Simple Explanation of Work Ideas he inadvertently addresses the transmission of affect in a very interesting way. Nicoll discusses the process necessary for one to truly understand one’s self. The point of intrigue, for me, is that he appears to argue that the transmission of affect, as described by Brennan, must be disregarded in order to truly be in touch with one’s self. A significant component to reaching a higher state of consciousness, according to Nicoll, is in direct contrast with Brennan’s notion of the transmission of effect.

                Nicoll acknowledges the transmission of affect in his own way. He says, “When we begin to realize that things speak out of us and actions take place from us without our consciousness, we begin to get a new view of ourselves” (Nicoll: A Simple Explanation of Work Ideas p. 18). He agrees with Brennan that there are, in a sense, intangible influences which can cause us to be a certain way. He also addresses the affect others can have on the individual with their presence alone.  He says “Notice the ‘I’s you are in when you are alone: notice how they change when anyone comes into the room. Try to notice the intonation with which different ‘I’s speak” (Nicoll: A Simple Explanation of Work Ideas p. 32).

                Nicoll and Brennan begin to disagree on their interpretations of the significance and nature of the transmission of effect. Brennan appears to take the stance that the individual is, to an extent, one with its environment. She says, “All this means, indeed the transmission of affect means, that we are not self-contained in terms of our energies. There is no secure distinction between the ‘individual’ and the ‘environment.’ (Brennan p. 6).  Nicoll argues that this type of association is the source of unhappiness and dissatisfaction for human beings. He says, “It is usual to see all our difficulties as being due to causes outside ourselves, because this is all we do see. But if we begin to realise that it is ourselves, our level of being, that attracts our life, and understand the necessity of working on ourselves because our problem lies in ourselves, we can begin to change” (Nicoll: A Simple Explanation of Work Ideas p. 33).

                I begin to question the entirety of Brennan’s argument through her direct agreement with Nicoll. Brennan states, “At the personal level, the transmission of these affects can be resisted, provided they are discerned…” (Brennan p. 23) I feel that the foundation for an existence of the transmission of effect, in some form, has been legitimately established. It is the the direct contradiction between Brannan and Nicoll’s rationalizations of the importance of effect that, for me, leads her argument astray.  She says, “These affects come from the other, but we deny them. Or they come from us, but we pretend (habitually) that they come from the other. Envy, anger, aggression behavior—these are the problems of the other. Overtolerance, overgenerosity—these are our problems” (Brennan p. 13). She discusses negative affects and the internalization of affects as defense mechanisms. Put differently, misinterpretation of affect becomes a way to avoid accepting one’s own undesirable characteristics or negative emotions; affect becomes a way to project the negative onto others, and to embrace the overly positive as one’s own burden.  

                This is where, for me, Nicoll’s idea of man as multiple trumps Brennan’s logic. Nicoll argues that in order to better one’s self one must accept that states of being are in constant flux. One is never the same from one moment to the next. Thus, in order to grow, affect must be observed from outside one’s self. One then becomes capable of not identifying with negative affects. He says, “When we realise we need not go with a mood etc., but can draw the feeling of ‘I’ out of it, we begin to see what not identifying with ourselves means” (Nicoll: A Simple Explanation of Work Ideas p. 55). Brennan’s argument focuses on rationalizing the “I” in terms of convoluted interpretations of affect. She also marginalizes not identifying with one’s self as a surge in people embracing Western individuality.

                Brennan states, “The reality of the increase makes the Western individual especially more concerned with securing a private fortress, personal boundaries, against the unsolicited emotional intrusions of the other” (Brennan p. 15). While I agree with the limitations of Western individuality, I feel that Brennan misses the critical component of disassociation, which in a way is Nicoll’s argument. I find far more functionality and insightfulness in Nicoll’s notion of accepting one’s own variability and observing affect from an outside perspective that naturally becomes introspective. Both Nicoll and Brennan agree on the existence of affect, but Brennan complicates the issue because she ignores the crucial role the individual plays in the extent to which affect can exist. She seems to argue an almost opposite of Nicoll’s stance. Brennan says, “It explains why we are willing to see the other as the origin of negative affects, such as envy and aggression, which we would rather disown in ourselves” (Brennan p. 14). Nicoll claims that others are the source of negative emotion for any particular individual, and by not identifying with the way these negative emotions make one feel one can find solace.

A Side note:

The nature of this material makes it difficult to form a universally coherent argument. I am sure that you would understand what I was saying better had you read Nicoll’s work yourself. The ideas discussed in both Brennan and Nicoll’s works are very abstract. I feel that the transmission affect can be better understood by looking at it from multiple perspectives. I also feel that Brennan overcomplicates the idea as a whole, and also misses a perspective that is necessary for its relevant exploration.