Theos-Talk Archives (December 2005 Message tt00244)

Hi Paul,

Fascinating!

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. 

I'm assuming that the scientists you quote are working from the 
Darwinian assumption that human beings evolved from apes. As you 
probably know, that is not the theosophical theory. The two theories 
do not seem mutually exclusive, at least from a speculative point of 
view, when considering the DNA evidence. Interesting thought, how the 
DNA could serve to "prove" each. 

But a theory that explains everything explains nothing, I've
> heard it said, so take it with a grain of salt.

OK, but it makes sense to me from my pretty much theosophical POV, 
that polarity is the nature of reality as we know it. If one is 
considering one pole of something (an attitude, a behavior, etc.) he 
naturally calls the other pole into action. It's a bit like a seesaw. 
One end cannot vibrate without causing the other to vibrate also, in 
opposite motion. The thing aspired to is to find the balance point in 
the middle, where all things are true and neither end predominates.
>
> 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.

Balance again. Of course we can see history as cyclic, and we might 
assume that nothing really stays the same, that what goes up must 
come down, and then go up again. Our view of our reality is 
necessarily limited. Our written history only goes back a few 
thousand years, but we seem to have been around much longer than 
that. It's difficult to perceive the cyclic nature, except in a 
fairly minute fashion. 
> 
> 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. > > 
> 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:

It is as if the chimps and the bonobos represent two poles of 
something (human-like behavior?). I just recently had a conversation 
with an animal rights activist friend who suggests that animals are 
actually superior to humans, that we lost something important when we 
evolved beyond the animal kingdom. But we also got something, a self-
conscious mind, an awareness that we are conscious, with the ability 
to make choices. There is the rub, of course. What do we do with 
this ability? Some of our choices would seem to be counter 
productive, even suicidal. I don't know what a scientist would say, 
but I think that animals don't make choices in the same way humans 
do. They simply behave according to the law of their kind. That is 
what makes them seem so noble. Humans, on the other hand, seem like 
teen-agers, busy trying to prove that the law of our kind is 
ridiculous. But like most teen-agers, it seems likely we might find 
out someday that the law is what makes things work. What is that law, 
becomes the question. I'd ask the bonobos. They seem to have it down. 

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. 

When I first read this sentence I thought you were saying there are 
texts written by HPB or the Masters which seek to justify dogmatic 
agression. But upon rereading I get that you are referring to things 
written by others. Is that right?

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.

As though it were predetermined, a sort of result of which branch of 
the post ape evolution one belongs to? A chilling thought, that. 

I have limited exposure to different theosophical organizations so 
can't really say anything about them. My experience, limited as it 
is, suggests to me that there are all sorts of people everywhere I 
go. Some are kind and compassionate and some are not. Some are 
accepting of others and dedicated to being the best people they can 
be, and others seem dedicated to something quite different. I do 
notice, in most venues, that if I am calm and non-judgemental, others 
seem more willing to interact in a similar manner. Online is 
something else. If I had any expectations of theosophists as a group, 
they have been dashed by my experience of online discussions. And 
yet, I have met some people online, people I would not have known 
otherwise, due to limitations of geography, whom I admire very much 
for exactly those bonobo derived qualities. 

Good talking to you, Paul,

All the best,
Adelasie