|
Home
Doors
Essays2007
Essays2008
Essays2009
Essays2010
Wisdom
Gallery
Links
Blog
Bios
Contact
|
..:: Questions ::..
By
Alan Schneider
Probably the single most important
question facing humanity today is “What is the optimal condition for
individual human beings to exist in?” What are the defining
circumstances of this state of being? How can they (or can they
at all, or even should they) be created in real time? This
article will address these questions, and attempt to answer them.
We must begin with a
realistic view of what we are given by the biological and evolutionary
creative mechanism to work with in what we experience as life. The
common edifice of living experience is the human body for us all.
Whether we like it or not, this body imposes a set of limitations on our
awareness and existence. These limitations include: 1) an apparently
time-bounded conscious waking perception that has a beginning with the
first infantile differentiation of the ego (I am not my environment), a
fundamentally transitory sensory manifestation (my experience emerges
from chaos, is momentary, and passes into memory following
manifestation), and an ending at that physical failure of the organism
to sustain our ongoing streams of momentary conscious impressions known
as physical death. 2) The effects generated by the Psyche on our
conscious experience – perception of socio-biological need states
(hunger, thirst, sleep, shelter, sex, companionship) – perception of
existential need states (meaning, purpose, love, security, morality,
karma, causality, philosophy) – and emergent perception of largely
unconscious need states (traumas, archetypal symbols, dreams, creativity
impulses). What we accept with a fair degree of certainty is 3) All of
these circumstances are fundamentally temporary and will, at the very
least, be subject to either termination or gross modification at death.
Those as yet relatively few individuals among us who have extensively
investigated the psychology of perception may have evidence to
contribute to the world regarding the possibility of post-mortal ongoing
states of perception, but this evidence still occurs among the living,
and is reported by the living to the living. Even the extended
perceptions of the Presence of the Logos at the center of all
manifestation are nonetheless subject to communication as the
medium of cultural transmission of those perceptions, and culture is
demonstrated among the living. The body, the central nervous system, the
physical senses, and the acculturated ego determine all that we
experience in life, and the formation of the value systems that we will
use to screen our ongoing experience as well.
So, the first priorities of
optimization must concern the well-being of the physical organism, and
the physical plane of experience – the only one that we can be sure of
through the senses we all hold in common. These two phenomena are
interactive – the body and the physical environment in which it exists
heavily influence each other, and must be considered together in
our discussion. The physical organism arises from, returns to, and is
inseparable from, the physical environment.
The key factor in human
optimization is seen in the concept of homeostasis – the process
by which the total organism (i.e. both physical and
psychological) naturally seeks a balance of the complex array of need
state gratifications present in human perception. The type of needs and
level of gratification required to achieve homeostasis are determined by
Karma, or destiny, or fate, as designated by whatever verbal
representation one prefers to use, and this condition is also subject to
evolution – as we pass through life, our interaction with the
environment can change our perception and our destiny, hopefully
in directions that tend to augment improved homeostasis, but not always.
Many people remain ignorant as the requirement of their Karma in life –
this is their fate for this incarnation, and this fate cannot be
significantly altered by any amount of communication. A symptom of this
ignorance can be considered to be the determined belief that this life
is the only life, and that no other mode of existence can or will
ever be manifest. Even if this is the case, and perhaps especially
if this is the case, we must still focus on the goal of optimal
homeostasis for the best possible outcome of the human condition.
What constitutes the set of
circumstances that tends to optimize homeostasis? Probably the first
requirement is optimal personal security for the individual organism.
This is not a condition of total security, however – total security is
unattainable to human beings, and is unhealthy in any case because we
need the ongoing challenge of a certain extent of instability to provoke
psychological and spiritual growth. In a word, we need a certain amount
of prodding to sustain a healthy state of mind! Optimal personal
security is a dicey matter to characterize – what is optimal for one
person is often harmful for another, and optimal homeostasis also
changes with personal psychological and environmental conditions at the
individual level. But there are some general considerations that can
be stated on the matter. A sustained level of physical threat to the
body from whatever source is something that, at the very least, should
be viewed with suspicion as being anti-homeostatic. A condition of
manifest physical harm to the body is even more suspect – the
circumstances under which such harm can be constructive are very rare
indeed, although they tend to be gloried in the popular narratives of
many modern cultures. Such glorification is misguided and manipulative –
this activity frequently benefits the interests of a largely occult
sector of society that I have identified in previous articles as the
Culture of Conflict – world military organizations and the
manufacturing entities that support them.
Here we see a real split in
human perception into the two groups that are present everywhere as
economic mega-factors – social predators and social victims. The
predators tend to compose the majority influences present in the Culture
of Conflict, and constitute the determining factor in human affairs.
Whether we like it or not “The Masters make the Rules for the Wise men
and the Fools” (from Bob Dylan, a.k.a Robert Zimmerman)! As long as
violence and warfare appear to be profitable, we will find both
glorified in popular cultural narratives. What is needed to combat(!)
this trend is a massive, world-wide cultural reeducation program that
deemphasizes not only the profitability of conflict, but the
acceptability of conflict as a social problem solving tool. Since
conflict is a natural result of human ignorance, it will tend to be the
default mode resorted to in many interactions – the obverse condition of
compassion has to be learned, and should be taught to our
children as a viable perceptual alternative as early on as possible.
This inevitably involves the concept of personal sacrifice for the
common good – admittedly a tough sell to the predators, but what are we
here for if not to rise to life’s challenges? If we fail as a group to
successfully address this first condition of optimal security, we will
necessarily fail to address all subsequent issues involved in optimal
homeostasis. Ultimately, we must lay down our arms for the sake of human
advancement.
The companion issue to the
deemphasis of violence is the world-wide institution of population
control measures. Without the effect of population attrition caused by
conflict, and even with this effect present as seen today, the
exploding human population poses a premier threat to optimal security
and optimal homeostasis. Again, this problem can only be successfully
addressed by a world-wide reeducation campaign that glorifies birth
control instead of violence, and makes intentional family planning
the norm in all cultures. If these two reeducation efforts can somehow
be instituted, we may still have a chance as a race. If not, I must
observe here that our days are numbered, and the number is coming up
fast. My personal homeostasis involves the concept of hope for human
affairs, and I prefer to believe that there is still hope for
humanity. This belief is mirrored in the gift of this article for my
newsletter, my website, and my life as a good man.
Assuming the eventual success
of the aforementioned reeducation schema (and this is a hefty
assumption), and the achievement of optimal security thereby, there
remains a series of subsequent considerations to be pondered for the
attainment of optimal homeostasis. The advantage of conflict in human
affairs is that it is inherently challenging. With this factor
deemphasized, and breeding concomitantly deemphasized, a new
conceptualization of challenge will be needed to prevent human
stagnation. Where will this come from, and what will it be?
Again, we must consider the
body as the common arbiter of experience. If we do not glorify death
through combat, and life through reproduction, what will be the result
for our existence? If we are doomed anyway, why bother to make any
attempt to achieve any kind of homeostasis at all? Simply because, as
organism, we must. And as long as we must, optimization of the
process is still a viable concern. What is needed is a new view of
optimization that is much less oriented toward external objects as
sources of gratification, and much more oriented toward internal
self-investigation as a source of gratification. And this will be
another tough sell – this time to prey and predator alike, because they
all have egos, and the ego is naturally disposed to avoid change, while
seeking stability in the process. Why? Because change is uncertain and
unpredictable as a mechanism, and brings with it the specter of the
final change in life – death. All of these are understandably
frightening to the ego, tasked as it is with physical survival and
gratification as its priorities. Self-investigation is the essential
enabler of change, and the ego avoids this process like the plague,
preferring comfortable habit formation as the alternative – even
harmful habits are preferable to an uncertain future as far as the
ego is concerned!
Internal self-investigation
is difficult, even when freely chosen as the alternative, constructive
habit of choice. The world encountered when we turn away from the ego
and physical senses is initially dark and confusing. All of what we fear
and despise has been thrust into the darkness of the unconscious, and
this is where internal investigation must eventually lead us. All of
this negative material must be acknowledged, accepted, and released in
the process of internal exploration. As Fredrick Perls once said “To
suffer ones death, and be reborn, is not easy!” This is the fundamental
process at work in self-investigation – psychological death and rebirth.
As someone who has spent much of his life involved with personal
exploration, I can attest to the absolute validity of Perl’s remark.
“Not easy” is an understatement! Yet, as responsible human beings, we
must rise to this challenge as the best possible alternative available
among many others that may be more comfortable, but are essentially
personally and socially dishonest.
All this boils down to risk-taking in the face of a
threatening-eventual-outcome scenario. It would appear that we have the
choice of accepting an external threat or an internal threat – the
prey/predator dichotomy versus the self-exploration imperative. It is
perhaps a sobering comment on our mortal circumstances that this is what
life can be condensed to. If we do not select the external battle (and
we may not have much choice about this, as effected by our culture), we
must select the internal battle for the sake of our mental health as the
alternative. Either way, the meaning of life, as Jung observed, is that
it is a battle. Perhaps the fundamentally turbulent and chaotic
conditions that established, and still constitute, the balance of
factors that make life possible on Earth also make our battles
inevitable and necessary. This is, in fact, the conclusion that I have
arrived at now, at the current perceptual terminus of my life.
And I have come to the realization that many of life’s enormous problems
may never be solved by any scenario, not by the ones suggested in
this article, nor any other. We must still live in hope.
- With Love, Alan -
(CR2008, Alan Schneider)
Return to Top
|