Theos-Talk Archives (December 2005 Message tt00254)

"Mind is chief!"
Dhammapada - I, 1.


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...> 
wrote:
>
> 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
>