The Human Condition
Many people have asked the question: Are we basically good or are we basically evil? Almost everyone wants to answer both, but almost no one investigates as to why. We give our opinion, the answer we believe in, and then walk away content.
I would contend that our basic nature is extremely obvious, and it stems from both our place in the earth as finite animals and our place in evolution as the only such animal to have conscious thought.
Man is paradoxical in nature. That is, he is a finite being who will wither and die, but he creates for himself a symbolic identity that does no such thing. Even if we ignore the debate about whether consciousness ends after death, there is no question that the person's identity and character lives on in the people they leave behind.
But these two parts to man don't seem to fit very well, and why would they? We usually end up trying to deny one or the other in sometimes large and sometimes small ways. Many people try to separate the two, and think that the self lies only in the symbolic identity. They become almost disgusted with the physical, as if it is somehow degrading. Others want to deny the identity, and try to lose themselves in physical feelings alone.
Why? At the deepest level, to deny the uncertainty in life, especially the uncertainty surrounding death. Man is the only animal that is consciously aware of the fact that he will die for his entire life. A deer might feel fear in the moments right before an impending doom, but if they survive it, forget until the next time they face danger. The human animal doesn't get that comfort. We *know* we will die, it's just a matter of when. We're like a ticking time bomb. To call it a fear might be a little over the top, but I would definitely say that it is a constant uneasiness that we try to bury and not think about.
The person who hates the physical? They want to deny it so that they don't have to deal with that uneasiness. If the true self is purely symbolic (or spiritual, as many claim), then death does not defeat it.
The person who hates the symbolic? They too want to deny to avoid uneasiness. Without the symbolic identity, we can revert to the same situation as the deer, and not deal with our death until the moment it arrives.
Even though most of us seem to be a mixture of the two types in different combinations, the way we think about ourselves is constructed in such a way as to deny our basic anxiety. We desperately need to control that unpredictable and uneasy feeling in the pit of our stomachs.
And so we build our lives in order to do just that. Our "sin" and selfishness is born from our will to control (our basic denial). Evil is born from the powerless trying to deny their state, and giving themselves the illusion of mastery. We cannot accept our own mortality.
And so where do good acts come from? The exact same place. If we cannot accept our own mortality, then we long for the opposite: immortality. We look for a way to in some way survive our death. If you believe in an afterlife, this is particularly easy. Just be good enough to go to Heaven. But this is a basic need that we *all* share. Most of us try to achieve a different type of immortality. Immortality in the eyes of others. We have to do great deeds, and be good people, and leave a mark on the world. We need to assert that we *do* matter, and that we're more than just tiny blips in the timeline of human history.
We see this all the time in our daily lives. The typical Hollywood romantic comedy, where no matter what, we always get the fairy tale ending. The person who, when something bad happens to them, tries to gloss over it, put it behind them, and think happy thoughts. The person who, when something bad happens to them, convinces themself that this is how the world is, and that they should *expect* bad things to happen to them. But this person is *still* lying. The reason the depressed person wants to expect bad things is to somehow lessen their power over him/her. We *need* to feel in control, especially of the things we have no control over.
The whole of our lives is built upon this denial, this will to control. It is, according to Ernest Becker, the "vital lie of human character." It is a lie because it is built from denial. It is vital because without it, we would have to face the uncertainty and uneasiness, we would have to face nothingness. To give you a mental picture, it's like we are born empty, and we can't stand it. We fill the emptiness with whatever we can find, whatever seems appropriate. We fill the emptiness with a lie.
But if it is a lie, we should try to rid ourselves of it, shouldn't we? If we want to get closer to the truth, we must shed this vital lie no matter the cost, right?
More to come later, perhaps, about what ridding ourselves of the vital lie might look like, and how to go about doing it.
Comments
Origins of Evil
Interesting thoughts.
Lets throw something into the mix here. Evil and Good are both constructs *defined*, albeit loosely, by humans. Furthermore, defined by civilized humanity. They do not exist inherently in nature - everything just Is.
Where do these definitions come from? And since they are not universal, can they be altered, such that good is easier performed than evil? Or evil is eliminated completely?
Instead of agreeing or attempting to counter certain points though, I'll just bring up two things for now:
I don't really see the paradoxical as much as I see the denial. People may believe radically different things, but it's all rooted in denial (if one follows your line of thinking).
Second, if "good" acts come from where you say they do, then they inherently aren't "good." (And, while I agree with the above about good and evil being human constructs, I'm just going with the idea of staying within the boundaries of human ideologies). A good act is done because it's a good act. It's not done to try to be a good person. It's not done to achieve some semblance of immortality. It's not done because it's how you get to Heaven.
I'm trying not to be cliche and throw out, "What is a lie? What is the truth?" . . .
Well, nertz.
(Excellent post by the way Kristen.)
As for what good is, I was thinking in terms of what we generally call good motives. We are motivated to be good (notice the absense of the word only) because of our need for immortality / avoiding death. I still don't find this as strong or as convincing as taking the will to control (without presuming where it comes from) and trying to show how our actions stem from it.
Part of my point was that you cannot call man by nature good nor bad. These things that we call good and bad are consequences of our state of nature, they aren't *the* state of nature.
But the main point that I myself wanted to get across was that we have this lie, this will to control, this avoidance of things that undermine us, and it is an integral part of our behavior and existence. And since it is a lie, we should do our best to try and rid ourselves of it, no matter the cost.
I should point out my two sources. The Denial Of Death by Ernest Becker obviously gave me the material on the denial of death (funny that, huh?). The will to control bit, though present in Becker's work, is best described in The Way of Suffering: A Geography of Crisis by Jerome Miller. I think Miller's book is much easier to understand and much more plainly true.
Besides that, it didn't seem to get into what I am really interested about the human condition. Why do we lie to ourselves, what do the lies look like, how do we rid ourselves of lies, and what will it look like if we succeed? Even with some sort of alien master race, the question still exists, only in regards to them.
This is why I am finding Buddhism so fascinating.
They claim there are 3 levels to consciousness.
The first is self and other - where "I" am the center of the universe. You exist as separate from me, but you aren't really as real to me as I am to myself.
The second is state of the mystic who experience no "I". These are usually the people who have had some sort of experience of "no thing" and so deny the physical. The you I see is a part of me - no differentiation. So it's considered a state beyond the I am me and you are you but I am more me than you are you state.
These people often deny the physical but I wouldn't say it's necessarily because they can't deal with the uneasiness of the physical. It's just a different state of consciousness. They've seen through the physical. But it's only a temporary state.
The third stage is back to self and other but it's totally different than the first. Instead of me being more real than you, you are equally existent as I am existent. Your victory is my victory, even if under the first level of consciousness it might be seen as my loss and under the second as non-existent.
There is a Buddhist saying:
Mountain
No Mountain
Mountain
As far as shedding the vital lie - on one level, it doesn't exist because reality is what it is - reality. The lie is just a mistaken perception. But trying to shed it is like trying to not see pink elephants.
In fact, I think the purpose of Buddhism (and of all religion) is to figure out how to shed the vital lie. We'll never succeed fully, but I do think that each religion gives us a path to walk that will attempt to rid us of our delusions and see reality as it is, rather than how we want to see it. But we shouldn't jump ahead of ourselves, because if we jump into religion too quickly, Stephen won't follow us! ;)
For Stephen: Be patient. Don't try to jump to religion and God too quickly. I'll keep my arguments and secular and scientific as possible, you just see if you agree. ;)
But, that's the question, isn't it? What is our nature?
To run with the mental picture provided (not sure if that was yours or from Becker), if we are born empty, then the removal of this "vital lie" will return us to said emptiness. Then, one can make the argument for either our nature being one of emptiness, or that our nature is actually the entire essence of refusing to be simply nothing, i.e. denial.
If that's the case, then no, I don't think the lie is one that should be destroyed. For no other reason than I think I'd rather be something than literally nothing.
But, I don't really have a solid opinion on anything, yet. I'm mostly trying to perpetuate an interesting conversation and make sure I'm not getting hung up on semantics and terminologies. And, I have a really bad habit of playing devil's advocate. ^_^
And the answer to your question is exactly the one we're looking for. If we're lying to ourselves to try to fill in a gap, then (a) should we try to stop lying, and (b) if we succeed, will we really be left only with a gap?
I used that picture of gap because that's kind of what it feels like to feel helpless. On second thought, I think perhaps a better way to make a picture is one of a shield. Our nature is exposed and relatively helpless, and so we build up our sheilds around us, but the sheilds aren't made of metal, they are made of imaginary metal. We just have to believe that they exist for them to do their job of letting us forget how exposed we are.
A quote posted by mystico_tala the discussion in our book/movie club:
Ah, well, great systems give comfort, and when we feel ourselves slipping into despair, we should devise great schemes of the nothing around us, and then we will not slip but hang on a scaffold of our making, as meaningless as nothing, but too detailed to be so easily dismissed.
This is somewhat what I mean.
Ehhh. If our nature really is to deny our nature, then we are neither the gap, nor something exposed and helpless. Our nature would be the proverbial shield itself.
Is there a difference between what we are and what are natures are?
What we are could be insignificant nothings. Our nature could be the denial of said insignificance.
It feels like we're not tackling what our natures are, so much as we're trying to figure out if our . . . innate defense mechanism of creating elaborate systems of comfort (denial, but approached from the opposite side) is truly for the best.
Unless, you actually are talking about stripping away our nature, which would then be the denial of denying our nature . . . . ow.
I would say that our nature is not necessarily insignificant nothings, but of exposed and relatively powerless somethings. It can be debated whether or not being exposed and powerless means being insignificant nothings, but that remains to be seen.
I do want to figure out if our innate defense mechanism (that arises as a consequence of our nature) is truly for the best. That is exactly the question that I want to ask.
I'm going to tentatively say . . . I think denial is wrong, but refusal is alright.
Denial is a false belief. We're creating something so that we don't have to look at the reality.
Refusal, however, is simply saying no.
It's more, "Yes, I know I'm exposed and powerless, but I want to be more," versus, "I'm not powerless . . . I'm not powerless . . . I'm not powerless . . ."
Then again, wanting to be more than what you are could simply be a positive spin on denying your nature. But, I do think it sounds nice.
I propose we try it (theoretically of course), and see what happens. I'm considering putting out a series of posts that generally correspond to Jerome Miller's The Way of Suffering. I think it is the best book on the subject, but we'll see. :)
Maybe at the end of the rainbow we'll encounter nothingness, or maybe we'll encounter something else...
I've been partial to this method of thinking/living, as it helps prevent me from latching on to something because I like it or think it's cool. The conundrum of, "Do I believe this because I believe it? Or simply because I want to believe it?" I'm not yet honest enough with myself to ever truly answer that.
For some reason, this feels like sleeping without a night light for the very first time . . . .
Speaking as a tiny blip in the timeline of human history, I think we just are. Some are connected, some are not.
Good and evil is subjective. I can do something I consider very good while you consider it very evil. Within ourselves, even when we do "evil" we justify it. We can be against killing yet see a state execution as just. We can kill in the name of our country, faith or self defense.
The "lie" as you call it, is becoming invested in desire and an inability to accept those things over which we have no power. It causes unnecessary suffering.
I think world religions point to the 3rd level of consciousness through the second, but most people only recognize the first and second. Buddha taught that we can be free of suffering and Jesus taught the good news. The lie doesn't exist - it's simply a misperception of the egoic mind. It's not our human condition, but rather the condition of an ego-centered reality and we are capable of transcending our ego. Most of us have had experiences of this transcendence whether we are religious or not. We don't cease to be human by doing this - just slightly more aware of what is around us.
Buddha didn't say all of life is suffering - just that all of unenlightened life is suffering. Likewise, the news Jesus preached was the good news - one of liberation. We aren't stuck. All we have to do is shift our awareness toward reality and away from denial and we are free.
Which would be easy to do except we tend to put far more faith in our ego-centered realities than in our actual reality. But, as long as it is our aim, then we can create it. It's up to us. It's evolutionary - not magic mumbo jumbo.
Isnt it a bit tricky to define something subjective in terms of another subjective concept? Ive yet to see a universal definition of good, or love.
In terms of good and love being related, the idea run the risk of falling to the same problem as stated above - the matter of perception and relativity.
To combat this, it might be interesting to borrow a notion from basic physics - step one of any proof or problem is to define a point of reference, or scope. If you first limit the scope of good (or love) to *only* the relevant parties involved, then it likely becomes a much more trivial task to define good (or love).
But we might find that if we stop running, what we thought would be so horrible isn't horrible at all. The emptieness and vulnerabilitly are not things we should hide from or deny. The (true?) religious life is about exposing the lie and living in truth. But I'll get to that in later posts. I'm trying to discuss this in non-religious terms, even though it is so easy to fall back on them. If I don't build up the right base though, certain people won't follow my line of thought. ;)
A good foundation in metaphysics (ontology) will definitely lead to conclusions that will clarify a lot of problems that are dwelled upon only on the level of what appears.
I can't remember the exact words of Dr. Knasas but he was talking to us about being and goodness and basically says that it is good to be. But that's only the starting point, the goodness of being is not something static but is actually enriched by activity and for the human person, this cannot be simply just any activity out there but activit which properly affirms his being person = a being who is good who is also oriented towards the good as guided by the light of truth.
Originally I was doing so in order to show this existentially & psychologically, without trying to bring religion into it only because my end goal is to show that religion's purpose and meaning is to do that very thing, and it contains tools and lessons that help us stop running from our fears and reduce the will to control.
Basically, I'm trying to show the main usefulness of religion, but I don't want to move too quickly to it, as it might be more easily dismissed by those who think it more of a harm than a good.
I do think we are drawn towards goodness, at least subjectively. I don't think anyone really *wants* to think of themself as a bad person, and will generally try to do what they think is right (even if they are just rationalizing to themselves about something that is wrong). We *try* to be good, but we are weak and often fail miserably. But even in our darkest moments, we try *so* hard.
This is going to sound contradictory coming from me but I don't think religion or faith is necessary in this process. A person can eventually come to the point where they desire peace more than they desire warring against themselves and the natural order of things. We all have the tools already. It's simply a matter of looking at certain undeniable truths and accepting them. Putting them into practice is difficult but with practice you can move closer to your goal.
I've known several people who have believed they have entered into enlightenment but a truly enlightened person would never have the need or desire to display their "superior" vision. Simply by the definition, you can't "be it" and suggest you're reached "it".
I personally know of no one who has reached it but I know many who have found a degree of peace, at least as much peace as is humanly possible.
My main goal was to show the alternate purpose of religion, since most think of it as a form of mind-control (which it most definitely is when treated wrongly) or a source of infallible truth (also treated wrongly). I want to sort of change the image of religion that people have in their heads.
my end goal is to show that religion's purpose and meaning is to do that very thing, and it contains tools and lessons that help us stop running from our fears and reduce the will to control.
I think religion's main purpose (at least the institution of religion) is crowd control and therefore seeks to limit our consciousness rather than to expand it so as to remain power over it. But I'm interested to see where you steer this. :)
I think we do have to figure it out from scratch. Other than pure science, which still changes from one generation to the next, our true wisdom is experiential and can't be taught from the experiences or teachings of another. We are all two year olds who don't quite believe fire is hot until we touch it. Knowing something and incorporating it into one's life are two entirely different things. They involve different processes. Everyone knows terrible things happen yet time and again, you hear victims saying, "I never thought this would happen to me". We have to be willing to face a certain amount of pain and discovery, (and most of it is personal discovery imo) in order to force ourselves to let go of earlier held beliefs.
I would have to disagree with changing the idea of religion people have in their heads. To do so would assume my truth is the truth for all and it's not necessarily so. It would also not tell someone else that my truth is greater than theirs, which is what I would be doing if I approached it from believing it was fallable when they believed it was infallible. If for no other reason than it being something they hold as sacred. I will respect that. I knew a girl in college who carried a bone of one of her ancestors and prayed to it. It was foreign concept and seemed unreasonable to me but I would fight to the death to protect that bone simply because it was holy to her.
I did say many people have reached as much peace as humanly possible. That doesn't mean I believe there is not a greater divine peace.
I don't mind exploring ideas and thoughts but to become invested in changing hearts and minds to my way of thinking is becoming invested in another untruth. Faith can not be changed or moulded by the philosophies of another. If that were the case, the Jewish faith would have been gone eons ago. There is an inner sanctum in each of us, our holy of holies if you will, that no one else should enter.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
I agree with you 100% Laura. I interpret what you're saying is the difference between religion, which is man's attempt to reach god, and communing with the creator and divine light which is god's attempt to reach us. One can be twisted beyond recognition by the whims of man. The other is eternal and completely incorruptible. One takes place in the mind, the other takes place in the deepest parts of our hearts.
Forgive me if I misinterpreted but it's what it seems to me.
I agree that much of life's wisdom must come from experience. That is very true. What religion (and philosophy, literature, science, etc) does is give you a framework for looking at and dealing with those experiences.
As for changing people's minds: What if the truth you're trying to convince them of is that everyone has a bit of the truth? The way that I want to approach religion is very individual and personal. It would be about trying to make yourself as aware as possible of yourself and who you want to be. So in telling them the truth, I wouldn't try to push my ideas on them, but help them to discover their own ideas. The only truth I would push is that not pushing (and not controlling) is the way. Unfortunately, this sometimes has very real consequences that we often may not like. But even then, the key is compassion and humility. ;)
Hmm... I guess from my perspective human nature is not reducible to any one component... instead to me it is a spectrum of possibilities that are extremely hard to define and classify (especially since our need to define and classify is also a part of this spectrum). This being said I do agree that the existential divide between our transcendant conscious imaginations and our temporary fleshy beings creates a tension that leads often to denial. Even when we think we have accepted the hardships of life through acknowledgement we often find ourselves dazzled and amazed when we actually confront the things that we thought we had readied ourselves to face. In many ways saying that you have accepted that you will die is itself a delusion designed to ready yourself for this event that you can't be ready for since you never know how its going to feel or how things will transpire until you face it...
Personally, I think that there are many insights into the human condition (in religious perspectives, poetry, philosophy, science, music, art etc etc), however none of them provide an absolute solution... for life isn't a puzzle. It doesn't have a solution, except maybe for death in a morbid sort of sense. Life is an open system... it changes and evolves... it takes in energy to function and maintains itself in a stable disequilibrium. Death is when this state breaks down to stasis and what was once living then becomes innert.
Any answer or solution is itself innert, yet change and struggle are essential to life.
We human things seem to swing between security and insecurity, comfort and discomfort, the ordinary and the amazing, the yin and the yang, female and male, light and dark, good and evil etc...
Yet these are only really words that describe the tension of living reflecting the changing nature of life. No matter the goal that we aim for, when we acheive it, unless we die, we wake up another day and face the same struggles over again.
To me, this is simply a part of life. I often quote this line from the Tao Te Ching (and I look heavenwards as I do so again for one must poke fun at themselves), "The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao." In consequence, I aim for compassion, humility, faith and acceptance... yet it would be foolish of me to ever think that I had found a solution, for tomorrow I will again face unknowns and I will be challenged by things that I couldn't conceive.
Mayhap life is innately mysterious from the human perspective while at the same time it probably also 'just is,' and the seeming paradox of this might simply be how it is...
Hmm... have i gone off on an extreme tangent... oops :)
ps. Our experiences are never taken passively... our perceptions and persepctives also shape the way that we experience. The world is not received as pure data that we then have to interrupt... instead mayhap the world is 'malleable but firm'... it is shaped by our vision of it while at the same time its existance resists so that we can't simply see it any way we like. Yes, we do learn by our experiences, yet the perspectives we choose remain important for the shaping of what we experience (thus questioning is also important).
pss. There is probably several clerical and consistency errors herein somewhere... for I wrote it just now in a rush...
psss. Religion can be many things and can be seen in many ways and I don't think that theres any harm in reinterrupting theological musings... in fact, i find it more worrying when religious thought is not reinterrupted and is spouted as gospel (this is usually described as an act of control and subjugation).
pssss. hmm... gotta run, got an appointment with beer and trivia YAY! Thanks Kirsten for another thought provoking post. :)
On your first PS...stay tuned...I think the idea of how we see things and how we construct meaning will be a big topic in the book club as we read The Unbearable Lightness of Being...also when we end up reading Annie Dillard's Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. You have some great ideas about seeing also being a combination of what's out there and what's in our heads. Stay tuned!