Some may wonder why I have written this book.
When living ones life one wants to have a legacy. I have no children, no fortune. But I hope to leave something to the world that may be useful. It troubles me the things that are going on in the world. The USA exerts its influence throughout the world based on violence.
Sometimes I’m not sure whether this is the way things naturally are human nature based on violence or whether this is a particular American invention. I think to answer this one needs to look at history. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that some cultures have lived in peace but have been supplanted by the more violent cultures.
To put things another way is human behavior especially United State’s weltanschauung typical of the human species at large or is it just part of United States culture?
An even more important question is is violent behavior part of our genetic endowment or is it part of social conditioning? This is an important question. The world has reached a threshold where we find ourselves facing each other with ever more violent weapons. Was this outcome necessary that is is this outcome a part of our human nature? Or is this part of our teachings?
We find ourselves at every turn having this ideology of force and violence used against us. As children we are called sissies or even “fags” if we show any compassion for our fellow human beings.
But history is notable for relatively peaceful attitudes outlooks and behaviors toward the world. A good example are the Buddhists or some US Indigenous nations.
Yet in the US such an attitude is looked at as being soft and in some cases when violence is used against such peaceful inhabitants this is looked upon as being justified a sort of Darwinism where the conquering people are doing the human species a service. Of course such things were not what Darwin intended at all
Now the world is surrounded by saber rattling nations vowing “justice”. Certainly if this is the makeup of the human species then this must be part of our genetic endowment. But if one considers the matter one finds that those nations that do not pursue war and do not produce weapons fall easy prey to those that have these sinister weapons. With the attitude of pillage and plunder these peaceful people are overthrown and destroyed.
Yet the question is is this peaceful nature the “natural” outcome of human behavior. In other words is this behavior some part of our genetic endowment, or is it the case now that the former “peaceful” members of the world are eliminated perhaps eliminating this gene?
If one takes the twisted Darwinistic perspective promoted by the violent peoples of the world then one finds that while violent behavior may have been justified at some point in our history that is from an egoistic perspective that this is not the case now, as many nations possess weapons which we can use to annihilate each other.
So if the human species is determined by our genes then we are about to jump off the cliff like lemmings to perish from our own weapons as in science fiction where humans are overthrown by robots their own invention which comes to destroy them.
First of all we must decide if there is some sort of “violence” gene. Secondly the question is is there a corresponding “peace” gene. Thirdly has the peace gene been eliminated from the genome by the violence prone peoples of the world? Finally if the foregoing is not true then is human behavior not determined by our genetic endowment but is rather a learned behavior, then there is hope for humankind. Otherwise it seems all is lost.
It’s hard to know if this aspect of human behavior is genetic or learned. Nevertheless examining racism it is clear that the genetic endowment between humans varies little. There is no characteristic except for example skin color or our hair characteristics that makes us different intrinsically as human beings. In other words these differences are inconsequential and to assert that these characteristics are a significant difference amounts to bias and in some cases racism.
If one needs more evidence for this then one only needs to trace blood types through human groups to discover that there is no “genetic” characteristic that differentiates humans essentially according to this. So it seems unlikely that we are predetermined to exhibit violent behavior to other humans, or that this supposed peaceful “gene” has been wiped out in the act of Social Darwinism.
Or if it is in fact the case that there is a gene that determines human behavior especially violent behavior toward other humans then there is a gene for peaceful peoples in our past and that even peoples that are peaceful that exist today. So it is the case or at least it may be hoped that it is the case that the human species have the ability to coexist with other peoples of the world without the necessity of destroying them if this peaceful gene can be preserved.
So perhaps then we should rejoice there is hope!
But perhaps there is not any hope at all. That even if this behavior is not part of our essence but rather part of the learned experience that people can be brought to realize their own self interest. Certainly the human species must be saved!
But when one realizes that we are simply the result of the primordial chain of life, that as we came into existence as a specie, too we certainly will perish or at least become something uniquely different from today. Perhaps our influence will be felt for millions of years as the birds have in which many feel they are descendents of the dinosaurs.
But is it important for the human species to continue to exist? What if we were to become extinct as other species eventually do? Does nature care? Does God care if we exist?
If you take the religious perspective we are the creation of God in God’s image. Our existence is valuable as an extension of God’s creation and in a sense all are chosen by God. As with Aristotle where the planets made circles around the earth or Ptolemy where the planets too revolved around the earth or Copernicus where the solar system was heliocentric but our solar system still was at the center of all. And with Einstein we find that at every point in space that point is the center in reference to itself as all things are.
This vanity of the human species as being in some sense divine in nature is quickly being wiped out by science as it becomes clear that we are just another species in the primordial chain of being that began with the Big Bang and subsequently is acting out of dynamism of the hydrogen atom.
So does the universe or “God” care about us as a species? Are we favored in any way by the expanse of all in which we live? Or are we simply the unfolding of an infinite chain of being which continues on and on.
Not only is the question about whether or not we are simply a part of the cosmic order that cares nothing about us, but rather should we care whether the universe cares about us or even should we care about ourselves?
If we blow ourselves up does the earth care? If we irradiate the planet does the planet care? It seems not. Should we care? Are we important enough to preserve for anything at all? If not it doesn’t matter what kind of wholesale slaughter takes place what sort of genocide occurs? It seems that this ultimately is the decision of the primordial chain of being. Like a bouncing ball if one kicks it it moves in a certain direction determined by the physical properties of kinesis.
So as we are barreling down the path of life if we are determined by our “violent” genes the question is not only can we change it but is it worth changing?
The question becomes important that are we really free? If we are not free this question is important in many respects. If we are not free then we cannot change the path that humans are transversing and also if we are determined like an insane man cannot be found culpable of a crime we cannot talk about the ethical proscriptions about whether we are “worth” saving.
So if we have this violent gene or not, it matters not if we are not free. So should we find freedom? Or must we find it? It seems we must grasp at freedom out of the same egoistic desire which dooms us down this primordial chain of being. We should ask not why we should have freedom but rather does freedom exist? Otherwise what’s the point?
We should not decide this question out of a desire to justify our own existence, to do so would skew the question that is if we are matter following certain universal laws or that we are in fact free thinking beings.
But this brings us back to our original question. Are we determined and do we have a violent gene or not? Are we destined to bring about our own extinction or can the world be saved and also are we worth saving?
If we can in fact save ourselves we must be free to do so. And if we are free to do so then it seems we do have moral worth. So if we can save ourselves then we have moral worth.
It is my belief that the human specie is worth saving. It is also my belief that it is possible to save it. And if we are free then we are in fact able to act morally. If we are able to act morally then we can end violence against our brothers and sisters. In fact we must do that. Otherwise we cannot save ourselves and even more importantly we are not worth saving and therefore are not moral beings.
If we are free thinking this then makes us human endowed with this gift of creation by God or the infinite. If we are able to save ourselves it seems then we are worth saving otherwise it matters not our extinction and it seems nothing has been lost.
Following then in my work includes a justification for the positing of human freedom and an importance for our being in the world. A justification for our existence is in the infinite universe in this wide expanse where we would be easily lost in its enormity.
In order to change we must believe in something otherwise the outcome matters not. Whether this is science, or God, or the Infinite this belief enables us to fulfill what seems to be our destiny. That destiny is to survive and flourish, to reproduce and change to adapt as the world changes, to prevail throughout the mountains and fissures of the world as they present themselves.
To believe presupposes freedom and to be free justifies our existence and our importance. To be free enables us to join hands and face the future together not moving toward extinction or to be swept off the world by a divine hand but rather to find our place in the cosmos among the suns and planets and the other solar systems and stars and perhaps other species of distant worlds crying out for meaning. To be free implies our ability to survive. This ability to survive proves our moral integrity. This is human dignity.
Lets then stand firmly on the earth and affirm our existence for to do not is for naught.
Following is the introduction to the Yoga Party: Philosophical Writings which will be available soon to read at no charge on Google books:
Yoga Party Introduction
This is the first book of three. Firstly this book is Philosophical Writings, next is Poetry and last is Political Writings. The unifying theme to this series is the Yoga Party, ultimately a political party which emphasizes a state of mind.
In writing this book many basic philosophical principles are included. Those without a background in philosophy might want to brush up on basic philosophical thought, although I don’t feel it is impossible for someone to digest most of what is here with minimal preparation. The Donald Palmer books are entertaining and accessible. Most important I think is to keep an open mind when looking at the analysis. For those that wish to dive right in without any preparation I will identify some basic philosophical principles.
First of all philosophy is as old as humans have lived on this earth. Contrary to many professors of philosophy in the west, different philosophical positions exist worldwide which all contribute interesting perspectives to world thought. The study of western academic philosophy traditionally has largely ignored non-western philosophical traditions. Part of this definitely relies on a sort of feeling of superiority of this thought. This is changing somewhat now and non-western positions in some ways have penetrated western philosophy, although most of this penetration is based on philosophers borrowing from the non-western thought and adopting them as their own.
This book will not attempt to do this. I attempt in this book to approach the dominant world philosophical positions as being equal in value. But that is not to say that each traditions contribution to thought is the same. Ultimately though there are many more similarities between different philosophical positions than is often thought. All people have the same impulse to understand the reasons for the way things are and in doing so provide them some degree of comfort in understanding these things.
The stepping off point depends on the teachings of Sri Aurobindo. This 20th century master applied his interpretation of Hinduism to western thought. I attempt to present an interpretation that largely accords with Aurobindo yet ultimately rejects many of his tenets. For example his presentation of disembodied spirits runs counter to my rationalistic perspective.
Looking at Eastern and Western thought one finds many basic differences. In India for example where Aurobindo was born the prevailing attitude is that that which is most real is spirit while in the west we find attitudes about matter predominates. Aurobindo tries to find linkage between spirit and matter which I expand upon. I believe that Aurobindo’s thought can be used as a critique of western thought as well as indentifying dogmas inherent in eastern thought.
The predominant problem in the west lies in the confusion between metaphysics and epistemology. Metaphysics deals with the nature of reality while epistemology is involved in finding theories of knowledge. What we know and what there is can be very different things. What we know (e.g., epistemology) is useful but what is (e.g., metaphysics) is not necessarily known. In western society there is some confusion between these two aspects of western thought. Scientists often identify that which is known with that which is real. The gist seems to be that that which is real is only that which can be known. Only things that can be known can be considered when talking about the world, and if we don’t know something or can’t describe it then this is considered nonsense. Unfortunately this results in a very myopic view of the world.
If being myopic were the only sin of modern western thought then this would be something that we could all live with. But this perspective has some profound ramifications which are discussed at length within. Ultimately the way we see ourselves determines the way we see the world. A cultures bias is largely determined by their creation myths.
Humans need certainty in their lives in order to live an existence which minimizes anxiety. In order to feel comfortable we must assert our importance, our essence, our existence as being vital in the universe. But one curse of being free is the ability to investigate phenomenon with an open mind and to examine things which seem impossible or fantastic. For if we are free at all as a gift or curse from God we must exercise this quality be it for better or worse.
But hopefully broadening one’s outlook and keeping an open mind will enable one to examine things that before one thought not possible. It’s hard to see the forest from the trees but if we look hard enough and far enough we can find a place for ourselves there. So journey on and don’t tarry for the world is there for all to see and rends itself apparent in all our senses and minds. Journey on and see what there is to see. For to do otherwise is to waste our most prized asset, that of being fully human and fully conscious. Socrates said “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Don’t go through your life as you are lost in a cloud but consider the great ideas of your time and also the new ideas that are just now being born.
As you may or may not know, our individualism is a result of our heritage. We take this for granted. This tradition does not exist in the east. Well there may be some hint of it with Buddhism.
Those that are so critical of those religious extremists need to realize that whether we recognize it or not the way we look at ourselves is the result of our religious tradition. We see ourselves as the intelligence in a otherwise ignorant existence. I know this is a generalization but bear with me. In our glorifying the human life we neglect all other life and the species extinction is ever accelerating.
This separation between ourselves and the “world” comes about by this cognitive distance between ourselves and creation. Many people claim that human beings are the only thing with value. It is this perspective why the world population is approaching 7 billion at the expense of all other life and natural beauty. This perspective is know as anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism is a form of specieism. Anthropocentrism is discrimination of other species based on the seeming superiority of the human species or the lack of worth of other species, not unlike racism is the claim of superiority of one “race” over another. This singularity is one result of individualism.
There is no evidence for individualism. We are bound by material forces (e.g., physical, ecological, chemical etc). If we are spirit then we are not matter and if we are matter we are not spirit. We can’t be both as evidenced by the faulty supposition of Descartes problem of dualism where matter and spirit cannot interact because they are completely dissimilar (e.g., spirit is atemporal and aspatial, matter temporal and spatial). The idea of spirit in the religious sense or our ensoulment is a product of monotheism and obscures our connection with all life and matter.
Individualism results in egoistic selfishness. For the individual only the individual matters. Selfishness results in the class system in the USA. It results in sexism, racism, species extinction, greed, ageism etc. We don’t feel bound to or responsible for our fellow human, for life or for natural beauty. And of course individualism is nonsense. We are no more essential than anything else in the world. In a million years we all will most certainly be gone from the face of the earth if we don’t recognize and accept our connection with each other and the world around us.
This individualism whether based on specie, race, gender, age or whatever is subject to the divide and conquer mentality of our government. The government routinely divides us on the basis of class, race, gender etc. The ruling class gets 99/100 of the pie and leaves the other 1 hundredth for us to fight over. It’s a silly distinction and is used against us.
Its not an accident that this country is founded on freedom while being the antithesis of such. We have the largest prison population in the world, probably put the most to death, is presently engaged in a war to “liberate” Iraq’s where perhaps a million have died and all in the name of God our creator. What arrogance.
Voting rights originally were given to only white male property owners and blacks were sold into slavery for hundreds of years. When the Irish were brought here it was feared by the masters that they would unite with the black slaves so they were told that they were superior to blacks and because of this they would received certain prerogatives such as an extra head of cattle when their indentured servitude was satisfied.
We are born of the earth. We have evolved and therefore are linked with all other life and are dependend on all structures in the universe to survive. Individualism is just an excuse for narcissism. I don’t expect you to listen to what I have to say but anyways I thought I’d through it out to anyone that might think about it.
Throw off the ruling class ideology if you can and truly be free!
How can one know what to do? How can one know how things should be? Only through our acts can we know ourselves and only through our acts can others know us. Our actions are key. They define us. We must do what we value for otherwise we have betrayed our own nature.
But to know how things should be one must consult others. Shoulds are based on opinions and many times on bad advice. Shoulds are someone exercising power over someone else. This is true whether this person is friend or foe.
Complicity is one bound by association, especially in an act. One must choose their actions well. To be effective in the world one must act alone as well as in concordance with others. Different situations dictate different actions. When one is caring for one’s family then the individual and their family are most important. When these actions are in regards to the state then one must act in unity with others, whether it be through a political party, action committee or even as a form of resistance.
One is bound by society. Society has educated you and your children, kept you safe and done likewise for your children and others. But this obligation depends on a just state. An unjust law is not a law at all Dr. Martin Luther King Junior asserts. Justice denied any member of society is an unjust society and falls short of what we have come to expect in our democratic republic.
All should be honest and just. For to be dishonest is to be unjust and much injustice is wrapped in dishonesty. The laws required of its citizens must be required of all including those corporate persons. While the pleasure of innocence may be impossible, knowing that what one has done is righteous is reward enough. To do otherwise ultimately is cowardice and is a corrupting influence on the coward and others around them. And like the incidence of disease, it must be controlled before it has spread.