Essay: Man, Know Thyself

[Lou Gold]

Eugene, I tend toward agreement with you about creativity as the sacred purpose of an earthly incarnation. However, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Creativity is both constructive and destructive and the incarnate being must learn to self-limit as well as to self-reveal. Yeah (I know) this gets a bit tricky when we start pointing toward 'no-self', so...

Yes, I agree, but with one reservation: creativity by itself is neutral, it's how we use the results of creativity that can be constructive or destructive.

We are on the same page, I suspect. I would want to add that everything by itself is neutral. The rubber meets the road only in practice where there is a season for all under Heaven and everything has a use or abuse. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this is why Buddhism focuses more on "right action" (fitting in context) than on absolute moral precepts?

[Lou Gold]

In connection with Lou's response, I would say Nietzsche was on the right path with his concept of "eternal recurrence of the same". Heidegger believed this concept, along with the Ubermensch (the two are integral to each other), lay at the foundation of all of Nietzsche's thinking, and it is hard (and unwise) to argue with him. Without any further exploration of its meaning, we see it involves two nouns and a verb; Being and becoming. Both must be incorporated into any metaphysical discussion of Reality IMO.

This is way above my paygrade. Perhaps there will unfold a "Nietzsche & Heidegger for Dummies" in this regard.

[Lou Gold]

For All,

I believe the recently posted Essentia Foundation discussion with Donald Hoffman offers a great deal of scientific elaboration to my intuition that mutuality/altruism is not an evolved higher-level moral state of consciousness but, rather, it is something that has played an important survival role from much earlier on and 'lower-down'. Indeed, it is embedded in our animal nature. Please check it out...

[AshvinP]

For All,

I believe the recently posted Essentia Foundation discussion with Donald Hoffman offers a great deal of scientific elaboration to my intuition that mutuality/altruism is not an evolved higher-level moral state of consciousness but, rather, it is something that has played an important survival role from much earlier on and 'lower-down'. Indeed, it is embedded in our animal nature. Please check it out...

This seems much more in line with Cleric's position that 'morality' only becomes possible when Spirit can reflect on itself and choose how to express its animal instincts. So morality cannot be synonymous with or reduced to cooperation, altruism, etc. Hoffman often mentions the example of the blue-footed booby:

"Blue-footed booby chicks practice facultative siblicide, opting to cause the death of a sibling based on environmental conditions. The A-chick, which hatches first, will kill the younger B-chick if a food shortage exists."

Who among us would call that immoral behavior worthy of punishment? Yet if humans were to practice that siblicide, we would have no problem calling it immoral and punishing it. How do you account for the difference?

[Eugene I]

For All,
I believe the recently posted Essentia Foundation discussion with Donald Hoffman offers a great deal of scientific elaboration to my intuition that mutuality/altruism is not an evolved higher-level moral state of consciousness but, rather, it is something that has played an important survival role from much earlier on and 'lower-down'. Indeed, it is embedded in our animal nature. Please check it out...

Sure, and the same applies to individualism.
It was indeed a great discussion, I always enjoy listening Hoffman.

A more practical question to ask is: at the current state of humanity and looking into the near future, what is the most optimal and safest strategy/path to take to avoid the dangers of destruction of humanity and of the nature on Earth. And I think neither individualism nor collectivism are the right answers, because both can be equally easily abused (as they have been many times in the history of humanity). The answer lies in a different dimension: I think it's actually not about individualism vs collectivism, but about the psychic structure of humans, our motives and basic drives. As the naturalist E.O. Wilson once said, "We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology." Such incompatibility of our ancient emotions and institutions and the rapidly advancing technology becomes the greatest danger when the powerful technologies are used for the purposes defined by Paleolithic motives of individual and tribal survival and domination. The majority of humans are driven by very primitive Paleolithic survival mechanisms that unconsciously define their values and life goals, drive them to desire possessions, domination and control. Those are mostly self-centered and egoic, but also in part collaborative on the family and tribal level (as Hoffman explained very well). When taking collaborative forms, it most often becomes similarly possessive, domination and control-driven (as we can see in the examples of socialist countries or capitalist corporations). Another example of the tribal-level collaborative domination and survival mechanisms is nationalism and racism.

It is the transcendence of our ancestral survival and domination mechanisms and freeing ourselves from being conditioned and driven by them that bring us to the "evolved higher-level moral state of consciousness" where the values become based on the freedom of development and the well-being of each individual as well the wholeness of all (without over-emphasizing or suppressing one over the other) rather than on egotism, survival and domination.

[Lou Gold]

For All,

I believe the recently posted Essentia Foundation discussion with Donald Hoffman offers a great deal of scientific elaboration to my intuition that mutuality/altruism is not an evolved higher-level moral state of consciousness but, rather, it is something that has played an important survival role from much earlier on and 'lower-down'. Indeed, it is embedded in our animal nature. Please check it out...

This seems much more in line with Cleric's position that 'morality' only becomes possible when Spirit can reflect on itself and choose how to express its animal instincts. So morality cannot be synonymous with or reduced to cooperation, altruism, etc. Hoffman often mentions the example of the blue-footed booby:

"Blue-footed booby chicks practice facultative siblicide, opting to cause the death of a sibling based on environmental conditions. The A-chick, which hatches first, will kill the younger B-chick if a food shortage exists."

Who among us would call that immoral behavior worthy of punishment? Yet if humans were to practice that siblicide, we would have no problem calling it immoral and punishing it. How do you account for the difference?

Ashvin,

I believe that you missed my drift. I very much agree that morality follows separation and does not precede it. The point that I'm making is that altruist, mutualist, cooperative behavior does not depend on attaining a moral perspective, that, indeed, it was already embedded in earlier animal behavior and, therefore, a self-reflective moral-minded human may become better connected with the cooperative and/or competitive animal traits already embedded within his/her bodily/animist traits. Returning to the theme title "Man, Know Thyself" thus also means becoming more aware of and connected to one's own animal nature, which is the point of a great deal of David Abram's and other's works.

[Lou Gold]

For All,
I believe the recently posted Essentia Foundation discussion with Donald Hoffman offers a great deal of scientific elaboration to my intuition that mutuality/altruism is not an evolved higher-level moral state of consciousness but, rather, it is something that has played an important survival role from much earlier on and 'lower-down'. Indeed, it is embedded in our animal nature. Please check it out...

Sure, and the same applies to individualism.
It was indeed a great discussion, I always enjoy listening Hoffman.

A more practical question to ask is: at the current state of humanity and looking into the near future, what is the most optimal and safest strategy/path to take to avoid the dangers of destruction of humanity and of the nature on Earth. And I think neither individualism nor collectivism are the right answers, because both can be equally easily abused (as they have been many times in the history of humanity). The answer lies in a different dimension: I think it's actually not about individualism vs collectivism, but about the psychic structure of humans, our motives and basic drives. As the naturalist E.O. Wilson once said, "We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology." Such incompatibility of our ancient emotions and institutions and the rapidly advancing technology becomes the greatest danger when the powerful technologies are used for the purposes defined by Paleolithic motives of individual and tribal survival and domination. The majority of humans are driven by very primitive Paleolithic survival mechanisms that unconsciously define their values and life goals, drive them to desire possessions, domination and control. Those are mostly self-centered and egoic, but also in part collaborative on the family and tribal level (as Hoffman explained very well). When taking collaborative forms, it most often becomes similarly possessive, domination and control-driven (as we can see in the examples of socialist countries or capitalist corporations). Another example of the tribal-level collaborative domination and survival mechanisms is nationalism and racism.

Eugene,

Thank you for asking the key question: A more practical question to ask is: at the current state of humanity and looking into the near future, what is the most optimal and safest strategy/path to take to avoid the dangers of destruction of humanity and of the nature on Earth? I AGREE and urge everyone to read or listen to the recent journalistic exchange between two outstanding materialist science reporters Ezra Klein and Elizabeth Kolbert dialog about what to do under conditions of a 'new normal' of uncertainty and doubt. It's amazing to hear these hardcore types end up speculating about aliens. Just as you assert that it's no longer about individual-vs-collective, I'm not at all certain that it can be reduced to the great ecologist E.O. Wilson's, ""We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology." The emergent question, it seems to me, is how to respond to a new normal of "not knowing", which, of course, has profound metaphysical and practical implications.

It is the transcendence of our ancestral survival and domination mechanisms and freeing ourselves from being conditioned and driven by them that bring us to the "evolved higher-level moral state of consciousness" where the values become based on the freedom of development and the well-being of each individual as well the wholeness of all (without over-emphasizing or suppressing one over the other) rather than on egotism, survival and domination

The "perennial philosophy" as well as "indigenous wisdom traditions" have been reaching toward this for millenia. I believe that the difference making the difference is now it's going to be driven by events and I surely do not know how they will play out. The dream vision I received a month ago showed a collapsing center driving all beings to an equidistant periphery where they stood holding hands and paying attention to the same awesome unknown. I could call it an "individual/collective initiation" but that's probably my hopeful way of saying, "I don't know!" All I can report is the the dream felt calm, comfortable and hopeful.

[AshvinP]

For All,

I believe the recently posted Essentia Foundation discussion with Donald Hoffman offers a great deal of scientific elaboration to my intuition that mutuality/altruism is not an evolved higher-level moral state of consciousness but, rather, it is something that has played an important survival role from much earlier on and 'lower-down'. Indeed, it is embedded in our animal nature. Please check it out...

This seems much more in line with Cleric's position that 'morality' only becomes possible when Spirit can reflect on itself and choose how to express its animal instincts. So morality cannot be synonymous with or reduced to cooperation, altruism, etc. Hoffman often mentions the example of the blue-footed booby:

"Blue-footed booby chicks practice facultative siblicide, opting to cause the death of a sibling based on environmental conditions. The A-chick, which hatches first, will kill the younger B-chick if a food shortage exists."

Who among us would call that immoral behavior worthy of punishment? Yet if humans were to practice that siblicide, we would have no problem calling it immoral and punishing it. How do you account for the difference?

Ashvin,

I believe that you missed my drift. I very much agree that morality follows separation and does not precede it. The point that I'm making is that altruist, mutualist, cooperative behavior does not depend on attaining a moral perspective, that, indeed, it was already embedded in earlier animal behavior and, therefore, a self-reflective moral-minded human may become better connected with the cooperative and/or competitive animal traits already embedded within his/her bodily/animist traits. Returning to the theme title "Man, Know Thyself" thus also means becoming more aware of and connected to one's own animal nature, which is the point of a great deal of David Abram's and other's works.

Yes, I think everyone agrees that we, as humans, are tasked with becoming more aware of our own nature, more conscious of the subconscious forces at work. Becoming who we are.

I am saying these examples from 'evolutionary psychology' that Hoffman references call into question our traditional concepts of "good" and "evil". They call into question whether the concepts of cooperation and altruism can simply be equated with "good" and other concepts, like 'selfishness', can simply be equated with "evil". Or, rather, whether there are deeper levels of understanding which go 'beyond good and evil' that only humans seem capable of seeking out.

[Lou Gold]

Ashvin,

I assert that "cooperation, altruism, conflict and competition" are neutral and are defined as good or evil only in the context of time and conditions. "There is a season for all under Heaven." Yes, there are, I expect, deeper levels of understanding which go 'beyond good and evil' , which events will force us (in one form or another) to realize.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

I assert that "cooperation, altruism, conflict and competition" are neutral and are defined as good or evil only in the context of time and conditions. "There is a season for all under Heaven." Yes, there are, I expect, deeper levels of understanding which go 'beyond good and evil' , which events will force us (in one form or another) to realize.

Perhaps that context only appeared recently in human history, let alone the history of life on Earth. Why should 'events' force us to realize the deeper levels of understanding as opposed to us freely seeking and confronting them ourselves?