Today is Easter Sunday, the first Sunday after the first Full Moon after the Vernal Equinox, during which, of course, Jews celebrate the Passover, while Christians celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus--both, in my view, metaphorical responses to the miraculous return of new life in the spring. Ann and I celebrated a kind of Gaian Easter by going for a walk in Sandy Bottom Park, looking closely and deeply at the budding leaves, the nesting birds, and the wetlands all around us. A chill, but glorious day.
Despite my general preference for natural religion--that is, for autonomous, freelance, and idiosyncratic spiritual practice--I confess I have always had a certain, often grudging envy and admiration for messianic personalities--charismatic spiritual leaders like the Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Paul, Muhammad--and later, such as St. Francis, Guru Nanak, and St. Ignatius Loyola. People, that is, who created or transformed whole cultures by the force of their personalities and the inspiration of their words. And beyond admiration, I have harbored a recurrent fantasy to emulate them--to launch my own world-transforming Dharma Gaia movement, much on the pattern of St. Ignatius and the Jesuits, creating a self-replicating army of devotees who would first undergo a strenuous spiritual discipline and then "go forth," seeding Gaian wisdom and enlightenment skillfully to the ends of the Earth. I envision my corps of devout, selfless, and confident Gaians insinuating themselves into the corridors of power, or bringing solace and redemption to the poor and desolate, or facing down and disarming dangerous marauders, all by ceaselessly repeating, meditating on, and practicing the Dharma Gaia Mantra--the imperishable "Truffula Seed" they carry with them everywhere they go:
"Breathe-Observe-Let Go; Be well-Do Good Work-Keep in Touch; Learn Gaia, Teach Gaia, Heal Gaia, Create Gaia"
And then, just as surely, the bubble pops. In part, it bursts because I completely lack the force of personality, the sublime self-assurance, and--in a word--the charisma to pull it off. But equally, it pops because I recognize how thin a line there is between a true, enlightened messiah like the Buddha, Jesus, or St. Francis--and the huge host of dangerously vainglorious demagogues who came to believe their own schtick, to see themselves as God's viceregents, and who seduced their followers with their hypnotic, rapturous rants into appalling acts of repression and cruelty toward the "other:" such charismatic psychopaths as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Cromwell, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao...truly dangerous people, who wrought havoc on the world.
In short, one cannot be an aspiring messiah or guru if he is not utterly convinced of his own divine inspiration, yet if he is so convinced, the odds are that he is a dangerous, deluded psychopath. Some, while doing much good, nonetheless were so utterly convinced that their way was the only way that they ended up paving the way for both great good and appalling acts of bigotry and hatred; the two who spring to mind in this respect are Paul of Tarsus and Mohammed--though very likely St. Ignatius falls into this category as well, along with some charismatic political fanatics like Fidel Castro. And maybe (if I were to be generous) Martin Luther as well. (Calvin, however, remains in a lower circle, with Cromwell and Hitler).
While I like to fantasize that my own spawn of awakened, devoted, and impassioned Gaian warriors would be impeccably open-hearted and tolerant of diversity, it is not likely. Few people can manage the trick of being passionately dedicated to a cause or an ideal on one hand, and open-minded, ironic, and tolerant of diversity on the other.
So for now, my vision of a passionate, world-transforming Dharma Gaia movement--my imaginary host of Gaian franciscans bringing aid and organically grown comfort to the poor and destitute, or Gaian jesuits rigorously reforming education and counseling world leaders on sustainability and peacemaking--must remain as it is, a mere fantasy. Nothing, after all, is stopping me from practicing and teaching the Dharma Gaia mantra myself, sowing the seed as I will. But as Gandhi assured us, the heart of enlightenment involves "renouncing the fruits of action"--simply doing what needs to be done, and letting go of attachment to outcomes, and to vainglorious fantasies as well. If my "teachings" (as it were) are to have any influence at all on the evolution of the world, it will emerge. If not, not. The world will just have to muddle through without them. :-)
Quetzal
About Me
- Tom Ellis
- I am a recently retired professor of English at Tidewater Community College, now living in Oregon. I am an avid reader and gardener, a practicing Buddhist, and a Gaian humanist philosopher.
21 comments:
If I see the results of those people you mention, I feel disgust instead of admiration. Apparently, many europeans feel the way I do because the EU finished recently an ellaborate study conceirning religion and it prooves that in West-European nations the vast majority DON'T believe in any kind of deities or saviours of any kind (up to 85% in Scandinavia). Fortunately Europe has evolved away from all this superstitious bullshit.
Hi, Dirk--
It strikes me that your attitude here toward charismatic religious leaders and the movements they have spawned is every bit as intolerant as those you criticize.
Religions are neither an unequivocal force for good or for evil. In my experience, all religions worthy of the name usually consist of some admixture of two elements: Dharma and Identity Politics.
By "Dharma" in this instance, I do not refer to belief in a deity or any such ideology, but rather to a transformative insight into reality itself--an insight that a bit of research will tell you is at the core of every authentic wisdom tradition on the planet, whether theistic or not.
This universal Dharma also corresponds with the view of reality provided by modern science; it consists of 3 insights into reality, all of which have been confirmed experimentally as well:
IMPERMANENCE--that everything changes and nothing lasts. (i.e. the Law of Entropy);
INTERBEING--That everything that exist is inextricably the cause and consequence of everything else that exists (i.e. the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy)
ONENESS--(Therefore) that multiplicity itself is fundamentally an illusion--everything in the universe is (in some sense) a manifestation of the same One Thing--or as the Upanishads put it, "That Thou Art." (This is reflected in Bell's Theorem and many other recent insights of quantum physics, string theory, etc.)
So the worthwhile side of any religious belief system lies in its utility as a reflection of this fundamental, threefold truth of impermanence, interbeing, and oneness--and of the ethical implications thereof (e.g. "Love thy neighbor as thyself.")
Conversely, the pathological potential of any religious belief system lies in identity politics--its potential to divide people into warring ideological factions, each egoically insisting that their own way is the only way, and that all others are frauds, heretics, or agents of evil.
The Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--have been particularly toxic in this respect. The problem is that once you formulate the concept of "One True God" there is a natural inclination for the ego, both personal and collective, to identify with that imagined all-inclusive deity. This yields the toxic pathology shared by all three religions, each of whom claims, in effect, that "There is one God--and he is Ours, not Yours." The consequences of such an ideology are, of course, endless bigotry, intolerance, and bloodshed.
So I agree entirely with your contempt for all such self-serving religious ideologies--they have done an enormous amount of harm and very little good. I just don't wish to throw the baby out with the bath water. So when I encounter a "believer" I don't just dismiss him or her contemptuously; rather I try to engage him or her in compassionate dialogue, in order to discover the Dharma at the core of their belief system, and encourage them to cultivate that, rather than wallowing in self-righteous identity politics.
But dogmatically anti-religious attitudes can be just as intolerant and self-righteous as the worst kinds of fundamentalism.
Well, Tom, I don't agree. If I talk about religion - or organised religion - I mean religion as an instution. That is its social relevance. And there never came anything good out of it, just pure evil. Religion is a power-trip of some criminals who want to gain power to tell the rest of the world how to live and how to die, based on nothing but their stupid and senseless ideas. It's comparible with politics.
What you tell me, in very fancy words, is in fact no more than logical. I sure as hell don't need religion to realise that. Those truths, I can find easily just by using my brain. So, religion isn't needed for anything and organised religion is pure evil.
By the way, that ONENESS is a neutral factor. There is nothing good about it and nothing bad. There are no rules (except of the system itself), no guidelines, no good or bad. There are no rewards for people who led a 'good' life nor are there punishments for people who led a 'wicked' life. There are no sins and everything is allowed. Because the rules of the system itself are chaotic, violent, cruel and totally without compassion. And, in the long run, of no importance at all, because the oneness isn't infinite in time or space. In the end, this universe will die and so will everything in it.
Religion a cause of "pure evil"?
There is no such thing; there is the potential for both good and evil in everything, religion included. That too is simply the way the universe works. As Shakespeare puts it,
"Naught so vile that on the Earth doth live/
But to the Earth some special good doth give;
Nor aught so good that, strained from that fair use/
Revolts from true birth, stumbling on abuse.
Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied;
And vice, sometimes, by action dignified."
I do not know of anything, religion included, to which the above generalizations--the principle of optimality--do not apply. Nothing, that is, for which more is always better, and nothing that is categorically, unequivocally, bad either.
As for your view of the universe itself as cruel and indifferent, devoid of compassion--that too is just one viewpoint, for which obviously you can always find plenty of evidence. But what are the fruits--the behavioral consequences--of such a viewpoint? Obviously, a license for yet more selfishness, cruelty, and violence.
But one could just as easily adopt the polar opposite lens--the one taken by St. Francis, for example, in his "Canticle of the Creatures" (sometimes called "Canticle of the Sun"): that everything he sees is a manifestation of all-pervasive divine love or compassion--"Brother Sun," "Sister Moon" "Brother Wind" "Sister Water," "Mother Earth"--and there is likewise abundant evidence to support that proposition as well. St. Francis lived in a time as wracked by violence and corruption as our own--as did the Buddha. But both, within their own cultural idioms, chose to view the impermanence, interbeing, and oneness of the world they both saw as a lesson in universal compassion.
As George Harrison succinctly put it in the opening line of one of his songs--
"Everyone has the choice/When to or not to raise your voices/It's you that decides."
We decide, that is, how we are going to look at the world, and how that perspective inclines us to behave--there is no one "right" or "wrong" perspective.
I acknowledge only one litmus test for evaluating another person's belief system:
"By their fruits shall ye know them."
Firstly: you didn't answer my fundamental problem with religion.
Secondly: just answer me this. Give three examples of anything good that came ever out of religion as an institution (three concrete things, no theories, 'cause that's all that you do, creating a fancy theory). You won't find one.
Thirdly: all that talk about mother earth and so on, is just human terminology with attached to it a human value system. It has nothing to do with the oneness who just is.
Fourtly: apparently, you live under the impression that you are free to choose. Well, go and ask our scientists who will tell you that you're wrong. Everything in your life is definied in time and space while we live under the illusion of freedom. If Einsteins relativity-theory is right (and it is, no doubt about it, they've prooved it by now a thousand times) I can acces my futur today, right now, if I had the means to do so. So, all that stands in my way to do that, is acces to the right technology.
I'm sorry, my friend, but you'll never convince me of the added value of religion. It's a farce and a con. It's just good for some to give to their life meaning and purpose. Apparently, you're such a guy. Well, allright. But I don't need it to give meaning or purpose to my life.
Your post begs a very interesting question: What do you mean by "organized religion"?
We use the word broadly to refer to at least 4 very distinct phenomena, which should probably not be so conflated:
(1) totalizing, mandatory belief systems, like the three Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--each proclaiming itself the One True Way and offering its believers an eschatological narrative which is held, both to explain everything and to offer all necessary ethical guidance and injunctions. These systems, of course, are mutually exclusive: one cannot, without contradiction be both a Christian and a Jew, or a Christian and a Muslim.
(2) Wisdom traditions, mostly originating in the Far East, and known (in the west) by such labels as Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism (along with many smaller sects such as Jainism and Sikhism). But these "ism" concepts are western designations for these traditions, whose adherents consider them as teaching lineages, not as mutually exclusive belief systems. While there have been petty rivalries among these various teaching lineages, there has never been anything resembling a western-style "holy war" between them--at least, that is, until the totalizing, intolerant Muslims (and later Christians) from the west invaded, brutalized, colonized, and converted people in India and south central Asia. Among these far eastern wisdom traditions themselves, mutual tolerance and interaction is the norm--in fact most Chinese have historically considered themselves as simultaneously Taoist, Confucian, and (later) Buddhist.
Within these wisdom traditions, often called "Dharmic religions" (as opposed to monotheistic, Abrahamic religions), nobody is obligated to "believe" anything at all, much less go around converting other people to their beliefs--the emphasis is rather on various forms of practice--not dogmatic belief.
3. Indigenous Religions: These culture-bound rituals and practices--the most ancient religions of all--are likewise not really comparable to either the Abrahamic nor the Dharmic religions. They simply coevolved with tribal groups throughout the world, as a way of strengthening the cohesiveness and loyalty of kinship groups, conferring ancestral ways of knowing and doing to each new generation, and propitiating, through superstitions and ritual sacrifices to their personified deities, the ecological vicissitudes beyond their control. They had no ethical content beyond simply "Obey the taboos of the ancestors, take care of each other, and destroy your enemies before they destroy you."
(4) The term "religion" has sometime also been applied to unifying social ideologies devoid of reference to either the supernatural (west), transpersonal (east), or the ancestral (south). But they often assume characteristics of any or all of these, such as Nazism, Marxism, or right-wing Free Market libertarianism.
My point, then, is that grouping all of these systems of belief or practice under a single rubric is likely to create more confusion than anything else.
On the free will/determinism debate:
You claim to be a determinist--believing that we have no more choice in our actions than a meteorite or a stone rolling down a hill. But how do you know?
I know from my own experience that unlike that rock, I am constantly altering the course of my life through the decisions I make. You can claim, of course, that my sensation of making decisions is entirely illusory--that it is based on a complex and subtle array of causes and conditions going right back to the Big Bang, and thus forever predetermined like everything else. And I would not be able to refute you.
But equally, you cannot refute my experiential claim that--moment to moment--I make choices, and that some choices work better than others.
And (most importantly) since I took up a more-or-less consistent Buddhist practice some 10-15 years ago (note that I do not say I was "converted" because "conversion" is language appropriate to the Abrahamic, not the Dharmic religions)--my choices have been, on the whole, more adaptive and less self-destructive or mean-spirited than they had been in the past. This is simply because meditation practice has made me less impulsive, more deliberate, in making decisions about what to do or say.
You could argue, of course, that all of this likewise was as pre-ordained by necessity as a meteor streaking through the cosmos--and again I would not be able to refute you. But then--as human beings, who share the experience, illusory or not, of choice--what would there be left to talk about? If everything is predetermined, why talk at all?
Sorry. I choose to believe in free choice, not because I can prove it (nor can I disprove my own lived experience thereof) but because, as a human being living in the world, I feel that such a belief is more useful than the obverse. If there is no free choice at all, why even bother to choose anything other than the most ego-gratifying, vicious, self-indulgent thing of the moment? At which point what is the difference between me and a cockroach?
Since we can neither prove nor disprove determinism or the existence of free will, I choose to opt for the latter simply--again--because of its demonstrable consequences on my own behavior.
Hi Tom, :)
To answer your first comment, organised religion or religion as an institution means everything that has to do with the official churches, no matter wich one. The churches are supposed to help humanity. But, the contrary happens time after time again. They keep people dumb, ignorant, prescribe a lot of idiotic rules, send inquisition to people - or funny things like that - they organise religious wars and so on. In short, they do NOTHING but hurting and harming the people where they're responsible for. They're filled with criminals of the worst kind - just like our parliaments - and they don't give a fuck about anything at all, except maintaining their disgusting power over people. And this will NOT EVER stop (for example: the way the pope (a silly man with a white hat who knows nothing at all about life) speaks about condoms in HIV-infected Africa.
I'm not completely unaware of religions in the far-east. My nephew lives in one of the monestaries in China, because he's interested in karate (he has obtained a black belt and a third dan). Let's just say that I have difficulties with religions who teach the art of warfare (like the Shaolin monks do). And, your explanation of an peaceful far-east religion is incomplete. You forget to mention the 16th century in Japan where a lot of monestaries broke away from the centralized powers, which led to many battles in Japan between forces of the centralized power and the monestaries who taught the art of warfare and in many cases won the battles just by sheer fanatism. And, with hinduism it's just the same. How many people died as a consequence of religious hatred between muslims and hindus when India broke away from the English Empire? Over 2 million. And, it was certainly not the first time that those two religions were at war. They've been at war ever since the Islam (the worst of all religions, and that says a lot) was founded and muslims believed (just like they do today) that they had a right to conquer the world. Maybe you don't know it, but if you border an Islamic country, you're in troubles because the muslims wage war against anybody who isn't a muslim. This is not only my opinion; a.o. Samuel Huntington subscribes to it.
Religion is all over the world and everywhere it's accompagnied by a trail of blood and tears. Nothing good came ever out of it. Enslaving people, keeping people dumb and ignorant and committing violence to those people is all religion was ever good for. Religious leaders are, just like politicians, the lowest of the lowest lifeform on this earth. In nobody's name died so many people as in the name of God, Allah and all the rest of these clowns.
To answer your second remark. Well, I don't have to proof anything because it's already been proven a long time ago. The first time that people prooved the relativity-theory was in 1919. And, today, it's woven into the fabric of every day life. Indeed, Tom, if we didn't hold the relativity-theory into account, the GPS-system would deliver you in Manchester in stead of London, as you wanted. The relativity-theory states that time is relative and opens the way of travelling through time by means of a wormhole. So, don't give me any argument as if it's not been proven.
Now, if you want to formulate a theory which stands in contradiction with what our scientists are telling, you're free to do so. But, don't count on me - or anybody else for that matter - to follow that theory because it doesn't take into account the way reality works.
I used to be like you. I used to believe in free choice and all the goodies like that. Untill I stumbled upon the information that said that the way I thought was wrong. I have the flexibility of mind to admit that I am wrong whenever there is scientific proof that tells me so. You, my friend, apparently lack that flexibility. Good, that's your problem. Not mine. But, don't say that it hasn't been proven, because it has been proven a thousand times by now. Go and ask our scientists is all that I can advice. Everything that you do, every choice that you make is definied in time and space. If not, then Einstein was wrong. And, we've proven him right time after time after time again. When science talks, then I shut up and try to follow what's been said.
I am going to abandon any further discussion of religion, or any attempt to distinguish between uses of the word, because obviously the word itself pushes your button, and you have nothing but withering contempt for them all. I can't hope to change that, nor is there any need.
I am more willing than you, however, to acknowledge that there is both a "Cain" and "Abel" side to humanity and all its institutions, including political and religious. You see only Cain--only the most vindictive, hypocritical, self-serving and violence-prone sides of these institutions. But I choose to acknowledge and appreciate the "Abel" side when and where I can--for examples, the innumerable Jewish, Christian, and Muslim charities worldwide and all the good they are doing...The very existence of the US Constitution, or the European Community, is evidence that even political institutions occasionally have their "Abel" side as well.
But going on to free will/determinism, I think you are failing to acknowledge certain complexities.
With regard to what can be proven by physical laws, you are quite right that the universe seems to be unfolding in an entirely deterministic, mechanistic way. And with an understanding of basic biochemistry, it is not hard to extend this determinism to all life as well.
But life is a special case. Consider, for example, the simplest imaginable form of life--a bacterium ascending a glucose gradient--that is, swimming upstream--in pursuit of nutrition.
Why should it give a damn whether it lives or dies? No other clump of molecules does. They'd all, without complaint, be washed downstream, away from the source of nutrition (since they don't need any nutrition at all), and would not complain in the slightest if pulverized and transformed into something else.
Obviously, even the simplest form of life differs dramatically from nonliving matter, in that it has an agenda--it "chooses" to seek nutrition, to reproduce, to keep on keepin' on, even in the face of adversity. And all that we call human choice is simply a ramification of that simple agenda shared by all life and absent from all nonliving matter--to make decisions which will maximize our chances of getting to the next moment intact. There is no real contradiction between this and a deterministic universe but there is an added, nonmaterial ingredient that can be summed up in the question, Why Bother?
Hence when I make any given decision, I, like the bacterium, have an agenda in doing so--to keep on keepin' on...to promote my health, competence, and adaptive flexibility, but also that of all the larger systems on which I depend--my family, my employer, my city, state, and nation, and finally--crucially, the only living planet I will ever know. And in this way the bacterium and I have something in common--an agenda, and hence the disposition to make choices--that is utterly absent from the rest of the (nonliving) universe.
I never claimed that there came nothing good out of religion on an individual scale. That would be a very foolish claim. You just have to take father Damian, for instance, to realise that. All I stated that there never came anything good out of organised religion or religion as an institution. There exists a major difference between those two aspects of religion. What did the church (any church) ever did for humanity? Nothing at all, while they had plenty of opportunity in the past to do so (= your Cain-side). What did that or that priest do for you? Well, depending on what kind of man that priest is, he can really make a difference to a lot of people (= your Abel- side).
Now, concerning the bacterium and his search for food, it is a fact that each organism is driven by an instinct. You claim that a bacterium 'chooses' to search for food and therefor 'swims upstream' if it has to. That are a lot of assumptions, you know? First of all: a bacterium doesn't swim, but lets itself float passively on the currents. It doesn't choose a thing, it gets governed by an instinct (shared by all living-creatures). Or, are we supposed to believe that a salmon 'chooses' to die whenever they begin their voyage upstream? No, it's his instict to mate which leads directly to its death. If the salmon had any sence at all, it would refuse to listen to its instinct which leads him straight to its death. But, the fact remains that the salmon has very little to say in the matter. That's the power of an instinct.
Besides that, there's DNA and biochemistry. There are a lot of scientists who claim that all our behavior depends on the DNA (you'd be suprised how many). I'm sorry to say this, but in general they're better placed to talk about these matters (because it's their specialism) than a professor in the English language. No offence intended. So, you don't have to convince me. Go and convince them, although you'll have a very difficult time in doing so.
For the rest, I wish you nothing but luck with your 'agenda' which you 'share with a bacterium'. :)))
Define "instinct" please.
Although I doubt very much that you don't know the meaning of 'instinct', I can transluate the definition according to VanDale for you, a Dutch dictionary. There it says: instict = a drive of nature, more exactly a drive to subconscious effective acting, an inherent disposition of behaviour (instinct = natuurdrift met name aandrift tot onbewust doeltreffend handelen, een aangeboren gedragsdispositie). I'm sorry if some of the meaning got lost in translation. But, if you want a better definition of it, you don't have to ask me. Just go and ask any biologist or zoologist. After all, it's their specialism.
In Dutch, we have a saying that goes like this: one fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer. So, it isn't the case that you proove your point just by putting a question mark behind everything. :)
With your definition, you feel squarely into the trap that I set with my question. Your definition explains nothing at all. But I did not expect it to anyway.
"Instinct" is what Gregory Bateson called "an explanatory concept"--that is, a concept we use to fill up a gap in our understanding, without actually shedding any light on that gap. It is our easy, pat answer to a question we really don't understand at all: why do animals behave as they do--sometimes predictably, sometimes unpredictably? Why, in fact, do we behave as we do--predictably, sometimes unpredictably? And what, if anything, is the difference between our behavior and that of other animals?
The jury is out, I'm afraid, and will likely remain out for quite a while. We have habitually assumed that our unique human attribute of language and the self-reflection that language makes possible distinguishes us absolutely from the rest of the natural world. It does distinguish us--that I'll grant--just as an elephant's prehensile trunk distinguishes it categorically from other mammals.
But we flatter ourselves by claiming that we alone act according to "reason" while animals act according to "instinct" (whatever that is). But I'm not so sure that animals cannot reason, nor am I sure at all that humans are free of instinctive behavior.
To cite a simple example-when a cat is on a branch, jumping to another branch, that cat will often raise and lower its head before it jumps.
Why? Any student of geometry can tell you: the cat is triangulating to measure the distance--calculating the distance it will have to jump by comparing two different perspectives on the target. Is this reason or instinct? My answer is, "both."
It is "instinct" because it is an innate genetic endowment of felines and other arboreal mammals (including our own simian ancestors) to be able to assess the distance between two branches and calibrate the energy it will have to exert and the vector of that exertion in order to land in the right place. But it is "reason" at the same time because sometimes a cat will do this triangulating behavior--and then judge, or decide, that his chances of making it are not worth the risk. I quite simply do not see any significant difference between this behavior pattern and that of any human solving a problem, mathematical or otherwise.
Some will say "but rational beings do this consciously--with words or numbers." But I doubt very strongly if a soccer player manthematically and consciously calculates the distance and vector he will have to kick the ball in order to get it past the goalie. Like the cat, he does it through a blend of innate talent (i.e. "instinct") and practice. (Kittens routinely fumble their jumps from one place to the other--they too must learn to triangulate).
So your definition of "instinct" is as good--and as empty--as any other. It does not in any way distinguish human behavior from that of other animals. We make choices based on the best information available--so do cats. But we just as often, like cats, act impulsively...on instinct.
Just hold your horses, my friend. :) I didn't fall squarely into any trap.
First of all: you begin a lot of your sentences with 'we' and then an explanation. While you don't know how I think about the matter. Let's just say that this 'we' doesn't reflect on me.
Secondly: an awful lot of words are what you call 'an explanatory concept'. It's also true for words as love, happiness, soul, and so on. After all, what's in a name? But, does this mean that you don't have a clue of where I'm talking about when I say to you: 'I'm in love.'? No, I don't think so. Just like people understand me when I use the word 'instinct'.
Thirdly: where is written that mankind today already knows everything there is to know? According to me, we don't know everything and there's plenty of room for father refinement of our knowledge. So, maybe now it is still the case that we can't predict what a cat will do. But, that doesn't mean that we're doomed never to find the answer. So, maybe our definition of 'instinct' is for the moment still a bit shaky, that doesn't mean that it will remain shaky. We, as humans, learned an awful lot, these past 5000 years. Who knows what we will learn the next 5000 years? And, 5000 years is still nothing in the greater scheme of things.
Fourthly: I never have thought that we, humans, are the only ones who can talk or reason. Neither does any scientist I respect. But, however you want to look at it: we, humans, are the only animal that grows its own food. With other words: we seem to be the only creature with a vision of the future. For the rest, it is quite obvious that we're not the only ones who can reason. All primates can reason. There are strong suspicions that elephants are highly intelligent because they never forget something. Also dolphins and sea-mammels are intelligent. And, I'm sure that this list isn't complete.
But, isn't this logical? Whenever you see the history of life, there's one thing that catches your eye. It is a long journey to the development of the brain. The first creatures didn't have a brain (animals like worms). And, I'm only talking of landcreatures, w.o.w. the most recent animals. One of the first animals on this earth was the sponge. Does a sponge think, chooses or reasons? I don't think so. Because it lacks even the beginning of a brain. Let alone a bacterium, which came on this earth a lot earlier than a sponge. But, slowly, nature specialised and we saw the birth of a brain. Or, atleast the beginning of one. It's what we call the brainstem. It's the home to control all movements or instincts (also with humans this is the case). Now, does a snake (or any other reptile) think, chooses and reasons? No, I don't think so. Because the snake has only a brainstem what lacks every cell needed for conscious thought. Does an insect think, chooses and reasons? No, I don't think so. Because it also lacks the equipment for conscious thought. And with those animals excluded, you have about 90% of all creatures with which we share this planet. But, after building and building a bigger brain over millions of years, nature came so far to invent the frontal lobes. The home of conscious thought. Now, it is the case that a human has the biggest brain of all animals. But, you can do already a lot with a somewhat smaller brain. For instance: the Homo Erectus tamed fire (something not very much animals do). The Homo habilis invented stone tools. And, all these homonids had smaller brains than we do. But, what each and every animal lacks, what makes us humans truelly unique in nature, is that we have imagination. We're the only creature that can pose the question: 'What if?'. This fact generated our culture. And, the fact that our vocal chords dropped about 200.000 years ago, was also a plus. It allowed us to entertain far more social relationships than other homonids. So we could travel in bigger groups and replace the neandertahl in Europe and the Homo erectus in Asia.
Now, some people call this proof that there is any intelligence in nature (because it builds ever bigger brains). I, however, doubt that very much. Because nature allways makes the same mistakes and is not capable to learn from its mistakes. You can see it quite easily, whenever you see a polar bear, a cheetah or a panda-bear. These are all animals who specialise. Now, nature can go two ways, when it faces a crise (for instance: climat-change). It can specialise (like polar bear) or it can generalize (like humans or pigs). Now, if nature was intelligent and learned from it's own mistakes, it would stop to specalize. Because, we see clearly in the fossil-record that if an animal specializes, it's doomed to become extinct. A polar-bear is good, as long as there is ice around the poles. This is not a constant factor in earth's history. A panda-bear is good, as long as there is bamboo. This is not constant factor in earth's history. So, whenever there is an extinction-event, the animals that specialize are dying out, while animals who generalize in some cases get through the disaster. And yet, animals keep on specializing.
You can bet that humans aren't free of instictive behaviour. You can ask any psychologist.
So, there's nothing special in your discovery that both humans and (some) animals (provided that they have the equipment) can reason and can demonstrate instinctive behaviour. I mean, to me it's common knowledge and to deny this is a proof of how little you know.
But, that doesn't say a thing about the predetermenation of things or the neutrality of the oneness.
Have a pleasant day, :)
Well, Dirk--I'm sorry you still feel compelled to insult me ("How little you know," etc.) when I'm only trying to have a conversation, and have not--to my knowledge--insulted you.
I agree, for the most part, with all that you just said (although ants do grow their own food--certain kinds of fungi--and keep domesticated aphids as well!) But you're quite right that humans alone, through the unique gift of human language and the large frontal neocortex that coevolved with language, can speculate--can ask "what if...?" and all that entails.
For the same reason, humans alone are capable of moral choice, for this likewise presupposes the ability to reflect (using language, of course) on both assumptions and implications of our behavior. No other animal that I know of has anything resembling this ability.
However, there is growing evidence that the capacity for some form of learned behavior goes farther down the scale of complexity than we generally suppose--it is not the antithesis of instinct, but the other half, so to speak. Instinct (or I prefer the more precise and less anthropocentric word "genetic behavioral predisposition") sets the basic constraints on what an organism can or will learn; calibration and feedback do the rest.
For example, I attended a presentation many years ago by a top-notch neurobiologist at the University of Oregon, who was discussing the results of his meticulous research on the neurophysiology of learned behavior in grasshoppers! So if grasshoppers can learn to be more efficient grasshoppers, I am not willing to put an arbitrary boundary on where learning stops and "pure instinct"--i.e. completely preprogrammed behavior--takes over.
Human learning, I'm quite sure, is similarly constrained by genetic predispositions, though, owing to our complexity, these are less obvious. Why else have we not "learned," collectively, that kindness, trustworthiness, and generosity are more socially adaptive forms of behavior than cruelty, deceit, and greed? Simply because we are programmed--genetically predisposed--to treat our fellow humans as potential rivals, rather than collaborators, and must learn to do otherwise, through social conditioning.
Hi, Tom, :)
First of all: I've never intended to insult you personally. The 'you' you're referring to, isn't used as a 'you' that reflects on your person, but a 'you' used in general terms. Furthermore you have to read what I say: If you (used in general terms) deny this (the fact that (some) animals and humans use reasoning and instinctive behaviour) it's a proof of how little you know. You (used in personal terms) never denied that. Hence, it is clear that the 'you' doesn't apply on you.
But, you mustn't forget that I'm not an Englishman. So, in Dutch, this is a very normal way of saying this. Here, everyone understands it correctly if I say something like that. Now, maybe in England this construction of sentence isn't used, I don't know. In that case, I appologize. But, you have to understand that English isn't my mother-language and it will never be my mother-language. So, next time, how about giving me the benefit of doubt?
I'm not so sure that we're the only ones that use language. And, so thinks NASA. NASA, saw itself confronted with the question of understanding a message from another world. In that other world, the E.T.'s probably don't talk like us. From there came the intrest to develop a model to understand the messages that we might receive from other worlds. Hence, the NASA embarked on a mission to understand the language of a completely other species than humans. So, 15 years ago, they sponsered an effort to understand the language of dolphins. And, that research is still on its way. So, we still don't know if we're the only animal that talks, because nobody put any research in it. It is one of the things that we still have to find out in the comming 5000 years. But, I agree with you, that the language that animals use (if they use a language, at least) is probably less refined than our language.
Personally, I always am very careful with the comparison of us and animals. Just because we still don't know anything about it. There's practically no research done in the matter. Lately, that's been changing and the results that we have found so far keep on amazing the world. For instance: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html
or:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/joshua_klein_on_the_intelligence_of_crows.html
I agree with you also that we still don't have enough data to make a clear boundary between instict and intelligence. But, that doesn't mean that one day we can make the distinction very clearly.
As you see, Tom, we think not so differently. Even on religion we have more or less the same attitude. On an individual scale, it can really make a difference in the lives of some individuals. Although I must say that it isn't needed for me personally. Concerning organised religion or religion as an institution, I have to say that I remain highly critically. Just look at our history and see the things that the churches have done (and still are doing). For the rest, I'm convinced of the predetermination of things, because this is scientificly prooven by our theoretical physicists. And, I'm convinced of the neutrality of the oneness. Of course, I understand the need for humans to invent rules to build a society that doesn't destroy itself. Hence, in comes religion. But, that has nothing to do with the oneness, although they all claim so.
Have a nice week-end. :)
I've noticed that those internet-adresses don't stand correctly on your comment-page. So, check your e-mail. If, there too, they're not clear, just let me know and I'll type them over for you (here I copied them).
So long,
DG
It's all a matter, I think, of how we use the word "language." I have no doubt, for example, that dolphins and whales have a fairly sophisticated system of communication, expressed through their complex vocalizations, which we do not (at this point) understand. But what exactly they are communicating...it's hard to say, since they seem to communicate through (something like) music--that is, long melodic lines repeated with variation. And the different categories of whale and dolphin songs also seem to be genetically predetermined, rather than socially co-evolved (as far as we know).
Humans, conversely, are unique (again, as far as we know) in having what Stephen Pinker describes as "a discrete combinatorial system"--that is, a repertoire of arbitrary, socially coevolved vocalizations that differ dramatically from one language community to another, in which each discrete morpheme (a semantically tagged combination of phonemes) maps onto either a shared concept (nouns), proposition (verbs), or attribute (adjectives, adverbs).
In short, while other animals use sounds to communicate messages, humans are the only ones to have evolved syntax--the ability to share digital information (discrete concepts and propositions), rather than analog information about relationships, imminent danger, or available food sources. Other animals (again, as far as we know), seem restricted to the latter, genetically programmed forms of communication.
But everything I am saying here, of course, could be abruptly overthrown by the next discovered fact from ethologists in the field...
Hi Tom, :)
Well, you could be right with your explanation. However, I saw this afternoon a documentary concerning the hunting-tactics of the orca. And, based upon that documentary, I have questions with 'the genetically predetermination' of language-use by intelligent life-forms. It remains a fact: we just don't know because nobody has put any research into it. With exception of the NASA-effort to understand dolphins, I have heard of nobody who researches it now. And, the NASA-effort started 15 years ago, but we still don't know when it will end or whether it will end.
Furthermore, I want to warn you for having an overly optimistic (or naieve) view on humanity. As I see it, everything in this universe is temporary. So is also the 50-years of peace, in which we live. So is also the small crust of civilazation that we share. For instance: under Yellowstone-park, lays a super-volcano. Mankind has never witnessed the awesome strength of an eruption of a super-volcano in his short history. When a super-volcano erupts, the plume and the ashes reach the strosphere and spread out all over the world. Leaving the world in a nuclair winter and blocking any sunlight. Scientists estimate that, if a super-volcano erupts, temperatures drop on this earth with 15 degrees Celsius. Now, a drop of 5 degrees is enough to send us into a new ice-age. So, when a super-volcano erupts, we have a new ice-age. How do you think people will react on such an event? Do you really believe that it will be peace and understanding that prevails, under such conditions? I think not. It will be again a struggle to survive and I see mankind losing all sence of civilazation or normalcy when food becomes scares. And, only the best adapted, most violent people will come out of this mess. Now, the yellowstone-volcano has a rate of erupting once every 600.000 years. Now, as we speak, it's already 640.000 years ago since its last eruption. So, it's already late to erupt. Without any question, an eruption will occur somewhere in the future, killing billons of humans as there will be no food and no fields to grow food on. The only question that remains, is: when will Yellowstone-park erupt again? And, that question remains unanswered. That's why Stephen Hawkin is right, when he says: If mankind goes into space, it will determine whether we have any futur at all.
Have a nice day. :)
Post a Comment