Theos-Talk Archives (December 2005 Message tt00236)

Dear Adelasie,

At the end of your post I've pasted a piece I wrote some time ago but 
never posted here. It relates to the perplexing mixed evidence about 
what "human nature" really is, derived from evolutionary studies. I 
stumbled into the realm of DNA testing in the effort to resolve a 
historical mystery in my own family. While barely able to grasp its 
significance, I think that genome research is hugely valuable in ways 
we won't really understand in our lifetimes. The potential is 
astounding. While the mechanism(s) of evolution remain somewhat 
mysterious, evolution itself is a fact and not a theory, something 
the ID folks don't seem to have grasped. And now we have the ability 
to measure how close or distant our relationships are with other 
species. You wrote:
> 
> Well I'll be, and Hallelujah! Who knew there was actually a word 
for this. But I'll trust you to find one if there is one every time.
> 
Can't help having mixed feelings about Jung; many of his concepts 
feel so intuitively right, yet there is little empirical evidence for 
them (although introversion/extraversion is fairly well established I 
think.) This enantiodromia business really does help explain some 
strange things, like why psychiatrists commit suicide at much higher 
rates than other professions, or why priests commit sexual abuse.  
But a theory that explains everything explains nothing, I've heard it 
said, so take it with a grain of salt.

snip 
> 
> So, back to our subject. Enantiodromia. Wow. What do you suppose is 
> the way out of this dilemma? I mean, if every glorious inspiration 
> from enlightened consciousnesses is doomed to quickly degenerate 
into muck, the future is remarkably uninteresting, to say nothing of 
> dangerous, catasrophic even. 
> 
The dual legacy of "human nature"-- as indicated by our two closest 
biological relatives-- points to a possible answer. We are both 
inherently competitive and inherently cooperative (with a certain 
amount of gender specialization in each direction.) But the race is 
doomed to extinction if we can't get a proper balance, and so far the 
chimp side is way out front.  

> I would posit that we take things in our own hands, so to speak, 
and resolve not to follow the crowd. Think for ourselves. Just reject 
> revenge and hatred. Choose love. What do you think?
> 
> Adelasie
here's that post, which is my current tentative answer:

I have recently read two fine books that discuss the differences
between our two closest relatives in the primate family, and what
they reveal about our own nature. First was Field Notes on the
Compassionate Life by Marc Ian Barasch, subtitled A Search for the
Soul of Kindness. Here's most of a Publisher's Weekly review:

Touching on psychology, social science and evolutionary biology, 
Barasch, former editor-in-chief of New Age Journal, explores his 
theme in a lively autobiographical style, with firsthand reportage, 
such as
living temporarily as a homeless person. The compassionate life is
not only liberating, it genuinely feels good, he says. But how do we
overcome our innately self-serving tendencies? Barasch finds among
bonobo chimpanzees a model for caring group behavior that he believes
undermines Darwin's evolutionary idea of the survival of the fittest.
 
END QUOTE

The chapter on bonobos and chimps was so fascinating that I next read
the new book by Frans de Waal, who features prominently in Barasch's
book. Here is the description from the publisher:

Our Inner Ape: Power, Sex, Violence, Kindness, and the Evolution of
Human Nature

One of the world's foremost primatologists explores what our two
closest relatives in the animal kingdom-the violent, power-hungry
chimpanzee and the cooperative, empathetic bonobo-can tell us about
the duality of our own human nature.

We have long attributed man's violent, aggressive, competitive nature
to his animal ancestry. But what if we are just as given to
cooperation, empathy, and morality by virtue of our genes?

>From a scientist and writer whom E. O. Wilson has called "the world
authority on primate social behavior" comes a lively look at the most
provocative aspects of human nature-power, sex, violence, kindness,
and morality-through our two closest cousins in the ape family. For
nearly twenty years, Frans de Waal has worked with both the famously
aggressive chimpanzee and the lesser-known egalitarian, erotic,
matriarchal bonobo, two species whose DNA is nearly identical to that
of humans.

END QUOTE

Chimps have demonstrated almost all the worst features of humanity; 
practicing warfare, gang rape, infanticide, fraud, and cannibalism.  
None of these behaviors are found among the bonobos. The 
chimp/bonobo polarity in the ape world mirrors a polarity within 
human nature, argues De Waal. I see this as reflected in a polarity 
in religious and spiritual groups, including those that make up the 
Theosophical movement. Some groups and individuals are very invested 
in hierarchy and the aggression necessary to sustain it. Others are 
more egalitarian and less inclined to fighting. It is impossible to 
pursue a discussion with fundamentalist believers in anything, 
because if you step out of line (i.e. ask an "offensive" question or 
state an "offensive" conclusion), they will charge at you in a 
threatening way, determined to "win" by humiliation and 
confrontation. In such cases we're seeing chimp hierarchy on display; 
it's always about establishing dominance.
Here's a link to an article by de Waal:

http://www.geocities.com/willc7/bonobos.html

excerpt:
"Male chimpanzees often engage in spectacular charging displays in 
which they show off their strength: throwing rocks, breaking branches 
and uprooting small trees in the process. They keep up these noisy 
performances for many minutes, during which most other members of the 
group wisely stay out of their way. Male bonobos, on the other hand, 
usually limit displays to a brief run while dragging a few branches 
behind them."
END QUOTE

Some regulars in online fora devoted to spiritual topics specialize 
in chimplike charging displays. A win/lose dynamic is ever present 
and "putting people in their place" (BELOW that of the aggressor) is 
standard operating procedure. In the case of Theosophy, there are 
abundant texts that can be cited to justify dogmatic aggression on 
behalf (allegedly) of the Masters or their agent HPB. But there are 
just as many texts that could be cited condemning such behavior and 
encouraging egalitarian and openminded brotherhood. Which texts one 
pays attention to might be determined by which side of the primate 
family one most favors, chimps or bonobos.

There are religious groups in which the overall tone is much less
aggressive and dogmatic than those where fundamentalist tendencies 
prevail; for example Quakers, Unitarians, most Buddhists. But I would 
suggest that chimplike behaviors are more manifest at the national 
and international levels than locally, whatever the organization. The 
more chimplike (competitive, aggressive) someone is, the more likely 
he (and it usually is a he) will rise to the top of a hierarchy of 
whatever variety.

As I've mentioned here before, it has been really perplexing for me
to see the differences between small local groups and higher levels of
organizations in terms of how people treat one another. My
experiences with ARE Study Groups, at widely separated intervals,
have been the best I ever had with any form of organized
spirituality. No hierarchy, no budget, no conflict among members,
just mutually supportive, open-minded open-hearted sharing among
equals. That was more or less the pattern with small local
Theosophical groups I've been involved in as well. OTOH the years in
which I closely observed ARE organizational behavior (1996-2001) were
amazingly chaotic, with three leadership structures overturned in
five years. Overturned through traditional chimplike means of people
backstabbing one another, power struggles, dogmatic aggression, etc.  
And what we have seen in the Theosophical movement over the last 
couple of decades is similar. At the "higher levels" of 
organizational intrigue, the leaders behave in far chimpier ways than 
would be found in the average local lodge.

PJ