“What is life?”, and “Who am I?” are two of the most basic, yet most profound questions ever asked since the dawn of time. In fact, when one considers all of the sacred texts in the world, from the Bible to the Quran, from the Vedic texts to the Popol Vuh, it is clear that they all attempt to answer these very questions. Each different creation myth tries to explain the origins and mechanics of life, while humanity is defined by the trials and triumphs that it faces in the myths and legends recorded in these works. Even though the specific answers given differ from book to book, it is the same questions that are being answered. Across the globe, and across the span of thousands of years, humanity has risen to its highest potential when it has grappled with these fundamental questions of life. One could argue that what makes the sacred texts of the world sacred aren’t the answers that they provide, but the struggle faced by so many in the quest to discover those answers.
So why are these questions so significant? What difference does it make whether or not we ever find the answers? Simply put, this is one of the most fundamental ways in which humanity differs from the rest of nature. Mankind, and mankind alone, has the capability of not only being a part of life, but of also having a clear understanding of life and what our place in life is. We alone search for meaning in life. We alone search for some higher purpose to make our lives more than just mundane. It is the quest for knowledge which sets humanity apart from every other species on this planet. And that quest must necessarily begin with the most basic concepts of life and identity. Once we understand what life is, and who we are, then we are free to be able to affect the life that we live, both as individuals and as a collective whole.
This understanding of life and identity is in essence the very soul of knowledge. All technology and human achievement is for nothing if it doesn’t enhance our understanding of what life is and who we are. And yet the technology and human achievements of today paint an all too negative picture of the human condition. We spend countless amounts of money to build weapons whose sole purpose is to cause death and destruction to mankind itself. We have become self destructive, both to our species and to the very planet on which we live – a planet which we are necessarily dependent upon. The quest for knowledge and technology, therefore, is not enough unto itself. Unless it is tempered with a knowledge of life and human identity, these aspects of human achievement become monstrous and terrifying. Our knowledge has lost its soul. Our drive has lost its meaning. It’s time to search once again for that soul and that meaning, and hopefully restore some sense of balance within life, both on the individual level and on the collective level. It’s time to rediscover what life is, and who we are.
What Is Life?
The topic of life is a complex issue indeed. This is because life itself is quite complex. Yet, for all its complexities, life itself is not complicated. Quite the opposite. Life is, in truth, fundamentally simple. The trick is in looking beyond all of the surface details and seeing what lies beneath. Once you see life in its pure, fundamental form, the simplicity of it is quite profound. The problem is that we, as humans, tend to equate simplicity with inferiority. Thus we assume that the more grandiose a topic is in scope and meaning, the more complicated it should be. Life, being supremely grand in scope, must necessarily also be supremely complicated. But the truth is far more simple than we have been led to believe. In fact, it seems that the human mind alone is responsible for making life so seemingly complicated.
Life is a natural phenomenon which has two distinct aspects. One aspect is of an active nature, and one is of a passive nature. These two aspects give life both its form and its essence. They underwrite our reality whether or not we are even aware of their existence. Becoming aware of these aspects of life restores a sense of responsibility and control over our actions, and subsequently, over the very course of our lives. This control is of a level rarely imagined, let alone experienced, in our modern day lives. It is, however, the level of control which is our natural right as living, sentient beings.
Polarities
Perhaps the most fundamental concept within this philosophy is that of polarities. Most traditions view life in terms of dichotomies. Right/wrong, good/bad, God/devil, up/down, left/right, and so on. The list is endless, for everything has an opposite – two sides of the coin, as it were. This is the view of life commonly accepted by most forms of conventional wisdom. But how true to life is it, exactly? Is life really that fixed, that rigid? Are there only two sides to everything? And if so, how does that work?
The tradition of dichotomies looks good on paper, but if you look to nature you see that it doesn’t really hold up that well. Perhaps the reason for this is that there are no light switches in nature. In order for something to change in nature a certain progression must occur. A perfect example of this- perhaps the most perfect example possible, is the transition from day to night. If we are to believe in dichotomies, then day and night must be fixed. As such, day would be the equivalent of the sun being on, and night would be the equivalent of the sun being off. Simple enough – but, in fact, that is not how it works. Instead, we see a dynamic transition from the complete darkness of midnight to the complete brilliance of noon, and then back again. The sun does not suddenly turn on, then turn off. It goes through the progressive stages of dawn to sunrise, to zenith, to sunset, and finally to dusk. Dusk, then, transforms into night, and then night, in turn, transforms back into dawn. Instead of a fixed, rigid sense of events we get a sense of motion, of fluidity. The static light switch is not to be found. Rather, a dynamic process is at work. The opposites of day and night are very much real. But instead of being two sides to a flat reality they are two ends to a reality with substance. After all, ours is a three dimensional world, not a two dimensional one. Thus, if a concept is to be found which explains the relationship between opposites then it too must be three dimensional, and not two dimensional as in the case of dichotomies.
Perhaps it is not even enough to say that we live in a three dimensional world. Progression, whether it is physical or conceptual, is dynamic. It is an event in motion. Thus it crosses over from being two or three dimensional to being fourth dimensional. It is not about form, but it is about direction. It is when we look at direction that things become much clearer. Up/down, left/right, these seem like dichotomies. The same can be said of north/south and east/west, but we never consider these to be fixed. They are relative to the position of the observer. They are not two sides to a flat reality, but rather they are polar extremes – two opposite ends of a polarity. And it is here that we find the model for the true relationship between opposites. Opposites are not fixed locations. They are directions. Where an observer stands is neither north or south – it is the direction which he or she faces which is north or south. If you are driving north on a freeway, the mile that lies ahead is north. Once you travel that mile, then it has become south, as it is now behind you and you are still traveling north. Direction is relative to the observer. And the motion of the observer affects that relationship further still. In this way polarities not only represent the opposites themselves, but they represent the relationship of the observer to those opposites.
Thus, polarities, not dichotomies, are a truer way to view the opposites of life. For between the opposites of good and bad, right and wrong, young and old, stands the observer. This person is always standing in a space which is neutral, undefined. It is the direction in which they travel which is defined. And that direction is determined by the choices they make. The actions they commit determine whether they travel toward good or bad, right or wrong. Life is not experienced as a destination or a fixed location. Rather it is experienced as a journey moving in one direction or another. Polarities demonstrate how opposites are the directions in which life travels. We never actually reach “east”, but we can travel east indefinitely, or until we choose to follow a different direction. The same can be said of “good”. We never actually become “good”, rather, we choose our actions in the direction of good, and we keep doing so indefinitely, or until we change direction. Just as a person could travel east forever, so too can a person travel toward any polar extreme forever. After all, a direction is not a fixed location, and thus, can never actually be reached. It is that which always lies in front of you.
The Middle Ground
So far, polarities have been defined as lines which connect two opposites. It is these opposites which define the nature of a given polarity. But there is another point on the line of a polarity which is of equal, if not greater, significance than the opposite ends. That point is the middle. This middle point is the point of balance. It is the source from which the opposing sides originate. It is the point of truth.
The best way to demonstrate this concept is within the context of a debate. Suppose two people were arguing over the nature of a tennis ball. One argued that it is round, whereas the other argued that it is green. The first thing to recognize is that both arguments are founded on truth. The fact of the matter is that a tennis ball is both round and green. The fact about any argument is that it can only exist if both sides have an element of truth to them. If, for example, the one person argued that the tennis ball is round, but the other argued that it was made of cheese, then the argument would not be sustainable. Clearly the tennis ball is not made of cheese. That argument cannot stand. Thus, when an argument is unresolved, yet sustainable for a long period of time, then it is clear that the opposite opinions both contain elements of truth.
Where is the truth from which these opposing opinions originated? The answer is right in the middle. If you look at the middle of the tennis ball debate you see a more complete picture of the tennis ball. It is both round and green. It is also bouncy, light, and made of rubber on the inside, and that fuzzy stuff on the outside. The tennis ball, as a whole, is all these things. Thus, the truth is that which is undivided. It is the complete essence of a particular thing. The polarity only occurs when a truth is split into two or more aspects. Thus, neither end of a polarity is the truth. Rather, they are portions of a central truth. Neither is a complete picture of the subject at hand, but different angles from which that subject is viewed. Ironically, one side of the argument cannot exist without the other, for each side is incomplete on its own. It is how the balance of truth is maintained.
This is the problem with dichotomies. In the context of a dichotomy an argument is unresolvable. The two sides of the coin exist as long as the coin itself exists. Everything is divided. Nothing is able to be restored to a singular existence. Polarities, on the other hand, offer the opportunity of such a restoration. If we return to the debate about the nature of the tennis ball we can see how this works. Needless to say, neither person can convince the other that they are wrong. The further they strive to do so is the further they stray from the center, and thus the further they move from the truth. If, however, they stop looking at the ends of the polarity, where their differences lie, and start looking toward the middle of the polarity, then they can get a fresh perspective of the subject – namely, the tennis ball as a whole. By examining the bigger picture, the more complete truth, they can come to resolve their differences by discovering common ground. By looking at the tennis ball again they can rediscover that it is more than one particular description. Indeed, that ball has many different descriptions possible. It is, in fact, all of them. No particular one is right, and no particular one is wrong. Suddenly the argument dissolves. The ends of the polarity are restored to the center. Now there is just a point, and that point is the point of truth. It is the tennis ball as it is – undivided and complete. It is the restoration of wholeness.
This is the nature of the middle ground. The middle ground is where truth resides. No argument can be resolved by eliminating one side, or by transforming one side to be more like the other. Instead, an argument must be seen as the stretching of a truth from a single point into a line – a polarity. If the energy which was spent on destroying opposing views and beliefs was instead spent on discovering the common, middle ground, then one might imagine that the rediscovery of truth would be the outcome of conflict, not violence, bloodshed and war. Instead of extremism there would be harmony. Instead of division there would be unity. Truth, and the benefits thereof, will always be available to those who seek it. Truth is always easy to find – it always resides in the middle ground.
Active Life
Active life is the aspect of life which is tangible. It is that which is governed by our five physical senses of taste, touch, smell, sight and hearing. Active life is the hard, solid side of life. It is fact, rather than truth, experience rather than dream, knowledge rather than faith. Simply put, active life is that which we experience every single day in our conscious, waking lives. It is the side of life that we are most familiar with. It is the side of life we most identity with.
Active life is more than just form – it is also the dynamic side of the physical world. It is how life is experienced and perceived within the physical world. It is, in a single word, action. If form is physical reality as a noun, then action is physical reality as a verb. It is the energy of life manifest in a physical reality. Thus, active life is the culmination of all action and all things able to be acted upon. It is the living, breathing dynamic aspect of life as well as all things contained therein.
Causality
When one takes the time to contemplate active life, in all its forms and functions, one might imagine that there must be a rather complex set of rules and laws to keep everything from falling into complete and total chaos. After all, society itself is but one entity within the grand scope of active life, and it is filled with countless rules, regulations and laws which barely keep things in some semblance of order. How much more, then, would the whole of active life rely on a similar set of rules and regulations in order to maintain what could be called the natural order of things? How complex would these laws be? And how many laws and rules are needed to keep this sense of natural order? The number must be unimaginable. Yet, truth be told, the number of laws and rules governing active life is actually one – just one. One single, solitary law keeps this whole big physical universe in perfect balance and order: the law of causality.
Otherwise known as cause and effect, causality is the simple yet profound law that says that for every action there is a consequence. That is the fundamental truth which all of active life is based on. In fact, life itself is the consequence of action. Whether you go back to the action of procreation, or you go back to the creative processes which brought life to this planet in the first place, all life is the consequence of some action. Every action that has occurred, from the most recent to those from the primordial origins of the universe, has led to the consequence of life as we know it. This very day is built upon every cycle of cause and effect since time began. It is like looking at the layers of rock on the side of a cliff. Each strata of rock is built upon the last. Causality is exactly the same. It is the cycle of events from the beginning of time to the very present. And what we do today provides the foundation for the consequence of tomorrow.
It is important to reiterate that causality is indeed a cycle. Most people look upon cause and effect as a self contained phenomenon, a one-off as it were. The truth of the matter, however, is that causality is a continuous phenomenon. Cause leads to effect, but then that effect in itself becomes the cause of the next action. Thus, the cycle is born. Perhaps the best example of this is a fight. Most fights start off as an exchange of insults. One person calls another person a derogatory name. That is the cause. The result is that the other person responds with an insult of their own. This, then, becomes the cause for the first person to become physically violent. This action, although the result of the previous action, becomes the cause of the second person to fight back. So it is that each action leads to a consequence, which in turn becomes the cause for the next action. Left alone, this cycle of cause and effect will simply escalate from one level to the next, engendering greater and greater levels of violence and conflict. In the end, the only way such a cycle ends is either when it is exhausted from within- either one person wins the fight, or both parties simply stop fighting, or when it is interrupted from without- police intervention, for example. Otherwise, true to the nature of a cycle, it could be endlessly self perpetuating.
Consequential Momentum
If cause and effect were simply static, when one person insulted another person, the result would be that the second person would be offended. And that would be that. Done. Insult equals injury. End of story. But that is never how it happens. That injury becomes the cause for the second person’s response. This is the essence of momentum within active life. This momentum is what is called consequential momentum. The cyclic nature of causality results in a progressive momentum in a particular direction. Fighting, albeit a negative example, is nonetheless a perfect example for this consequential momentum. When a person is insulted, and thus offended, they have a simple choice, they can either respond to the situation, or ignore it altogether and move on. To engage in similar behavior is to start momentum down a negative and potentially violent path. However, if they choose to not become entangled in such a violent cycle, then they can stop the cycle by removing themselves from the situation altogether. By not responding to a negative action with a negative action they interrupt the causality cycle. As a result of breaking the cycle, they then prevent any momentum from being able to take shape.
The result of breaking a cycle of consequential momentum is that a person is able to control their reality in a very definite, deliberate manner. Rather than being drug into a situation by following the lead of another, they begin a fresh chain of events. By removing themselves from a potential conflict they return to a more positive state of reality. Here is where the responsibility for and control of one’s reality begins to take shape. The more blindly we follow along in the wake of another person’s actions, especially within a negative context, is the more negative our reality becomes. We become victims of a reality dictated by others. We stumble through life in a state of blind consequential momentum. When we take control of our every action we are free from the influences of those around us. Thus, the person who is in control of their actions is truly in control of their reality.
This phenomenon can occur on a collective level as well. On the world stage, conflict is again the best example of this tragic dynamic. To engage in conflict is to engage in a negative cycle of consequential momentum. This negative momentum creates negative reality. To do so on a global level creates a negative worldwide reality. The thing with momentum is that once it is started it becomes harder and harder to stop, especially on such a grand scale. How many times has a war been justified simply because it has already been started? How often has a long, drawn out conflict, costing the lives of tens of thousands or even millions of persons, been seen as preferable to the humiliation of negotiation? As history has taught, once a war is started it is all but impossible to stop. The only natural end to conflict is the destruction of one or all sides involved. In the end, the best way to stop a war is to not fight one in the first place. Therefore, the best way to stop negative momentum, and thus avoid negative reality, is to disrupt the negative cycle of causality in the first place. Again, just as the individual who is in control of their actions is in control of their reality, so too, the society in control of its actions is in control of its reality.
While conflict is perhaps an excellent example of consequential momentum it would be wrong to associate consequential momentum with negativity alone. In fact, consequential momentum is critical to the most positive of realities as well. Take, for example, a person who goes to a gym. Now, it may take a couple of weeks of pain and effort, but eventually results begin to show. Perhaps losing weight is the goal. Eventually, measurable results will begin to manifest. Now, while these results are the consequence of going to the gym, they also become the cause for continuing to go to the gym. The efforts of one week lead to the positive results of that week. Those results, in turn, lead to the efforts of the next week, and so on. In the end, consequential momentum is the cornerstone of behavior. Constant cause and effect in a given direction develops the pattern of behavior. This behavior, the embodiment of consequential momentum, is what propels an individual in a particular direction. It is what defines the lifestyle of each and every one of us. The positive or negative aspects of our behavior determine the positive or negative aspects of our reality.
Consequential Interference
When we think of laws we generally think of moral laws, rules, regulations and the like. In fact there are two types of laws. There are the laws of morality, and there are the laws of nature. The main difference between the two is that while moral laws can be broken, by definition, natural laws cannot. In fact, for something to be considered a law in the natural sense, it must have a certain quality of invariability. In other words, there are no exceptions to the rule. It could also be said that while moral laws are prescribed, natural laws are discovered. Laws of motion, for example, aren’t the construct of some legislative body, but rather are the fundamental mechanics of motion discovered by scientists through their studies and observations. Thus, these laws are not open for debate or interpretation. The laws of motion are equally relevant in one country as in the next. They do not apply to one race more than another. They are neither arbitrary nor changeable. Instead, as a natural law, they are unbreakable. The law of causality shares this quality of being unbreakable. Like the laws of motion, the law of causality is universal and invariable.
Despite the fact that the law of causality is unbreakable, many people attempt to manipulate it anyway. This manipulation is an attempt to avoid or deflect the consequence of a particular action. It is what is called consequential interference. More often than not this phenomenon occurs when one person comes to the aid of another. The best example of this is when a person is irresponsible with money. They constantly spend money in the usual ways – eating out, endlessly shopping, perhaps gambling, and the like. Yet, at the end of the day they need money in order to pay rent. Now, if no-one comes to their aid, then the chances are that this person will get kicked out of their home. Not a nice scenario, but the truth of the matter is that, in this case at least, the person is directly responsible for this outcome. Their reckless spending is the cause of the consequence of their being evicted for not paying rent. All too often when we see someone in trouble we tend to jump in to try and save the day. Fair enough. But what happens when this behavior of reckless spending doesn’t change? What happens when money is borrowed to pay rent month after month? The result is that any person who lends long term assistance to this person begins to suffer financial setback due to the continual reckless spending of the person in trouble. Thus, the result is that while they have averted trouble for their friend, they have in fact redirected that trouble to themselves. As long as the friend continues to spend more money than they have, they continue to cause the consequence of financial ruin. And as long as someone lends them money, then that financial ruin is simply passed from the person causing it to the person or persons trying to help. This is the essence of consequential interference. Only when the actions of reckless spending are ended will the consequence of financial ruin truly be avoided.
This is not to say that helping a friend in need is a bad thing at all. On the contrary, helping a friend in need is the best possible thing a person can do. The question is, how helpful are our efforts? If we try to help a person change their actions so as to avoid self destructive behavior, then our efforts are lasting and meaningful. However, if we merely try to interfere with the law of causality, namely through the phenomenon of consequential interference, then we not only provide false help and hope for our friends, but we also place ourselves in jeopardy. This is the proof positive that the law of causality may be able to be affected, but it can never be broken.
Blind consequential momentum and consequential interference are both negative aspects of causality. By its nature, however, the law of causality is not a negative force at all. Instead, it is that which maintains a certain natural order within the context of action. If causality did not exist, then there would be no predictability regarding the outcome of a given action. This would engender chaos on a universal scale. Thus, causality is a very necessary, very beneficial phenomenon. It is only the ignorance of causality and its potential that creates negative conditions. Once a person understands the fundamental mechanics of causality, then that person can use causality as a life transforming tool. So far the focus has been on people committing actions without regard to the consequence, but what if a person were to choose their actions around the consequence? What if they were to contemplate the results they were hoping to achieve, and choose the actions most likely to bring about those particular results? As simple as this sounds, it is the difference between being the victim of causality, or being the mindful creator of one’s reality.
The truth is that each and every person – indeed, each and every living being, does in fact create their own reality. Every single action that we perform leads to a consequence. This phenomenon, performed in an unbroken, constant state, creates two things. First, it creates the immediate environment of our reality. Second, actions repeatedly taken to achieve the same or similar results create a certain momentum. Unlike negative consequential momentum, however, this momentum is purposefully created in order to take the person’s life in a specific direction. Simply put, it comes down to habits. Just as bad habits lead a person’s life in a bad direction, so too, good habits lead a person’s life down a positive path. Yet, as simple as this is, and it is absurdly simple, that is how we create our reality. We constantly form habits. These habits either lead to happiness, or they lead to despair. In the end, it is both the responsibility and the inherent right of every living being to take charge of their habits. By doing so, they take charge of creating their very reality. And that, simply put, is the whole point of life in the first place. It is the chance to create who and what we are. It is the law of causality that allows us to do this very thing, and active life is the arena in which this creation takes place.
Passive Life
Passive life is the aspect of life which is intangible and unseen. In contrast to active life, which is characterized by action and physicality, passive life is characterized by thought, feeling and the nonphysical essence of life. This is the side of life embodied in traditions of the spirit or the soul. Simply put, passive life is the essential energy flowing just beneath the tangible reality of active life.
Mind Under Matter
There is an axiom which states, “something can’t come from nothing.” This is perhaps the most concise and profound explanation of passive life. The best example of this is technology. Everything that we see and use, from our phones to our cars, from our computers to our mp3 players, all went through an evolutionary stage of development. But no matter how complex or sophisticated an item might be, it invariably began as an idea in someone’s mind. This idea became the inspiration behind the planning and development, which led to the prototype, and eventually, the final product. This evolution from thought to product is so commonplace that it is unnoticed. People rarely give thought to the intellect and imagination which underlies the technology we use every day. Yet it is that very intellect and imagination that is responsible for every single man-made thing in existence – from the most sophisticated to the most mundane. This is among the more tangible forms of proof that something doesn’t come from nothing. Every single piece of our tangible, physical reality, ultimately came from the intangible, non physical vision within someone’s creative mind. All physical reality was thus born from a non physical idea.
On a larger scale this same relationship between mind and matter can still be observed. It is not as blatant, per se, as the relationship between mind and matter in the realm of technology. Rather, it is more subtle in its appearance. After all, there are no drawings or blueprints to be found within nature demonstrating the creative process from mind to matter. There are, however, dynamic equivalents to blueprints and drawings to be found within all life. These dynamic equivalents are patterns, and these patterns are most easily observed within the laws of physics. More specifically, it is the universal nature of the laws of physics which demonstrate these patterns. The relationship between the gravity on the moon and gravity on earth is a perfect example. The fact that the moon’s gravity is different from earth’s, yet predictably so, demonstrates a pattern in nature. We take it for granted that this makes sense, based on our understanding of how gravity works. But why is it so? Who’s to say that there has to be a relationship between earth’s gravity and the gravity of the moon? Why not just unexplained chaos? After all, the moon is a separate entity from the earth, so why does it have to behave the same way? Simply put, even though the earth and the moon are separate physically, they are still both born of the same passive dimension of life. This dimension is universal, giving birth to all physical reality. Thus, even though all physical reality has the appearance of separateness, it is in fact all connected on a nonphysical level. It is this phenomenon of patterns which reflects the single law which governs passive life – the law of equivalence.
Equivalence
Just as causality is the single law governing active life, equivalence is the single law governing passive life. The essence of equivalence is best summed up by the axiom, “as above, so below.” Equivalence, therefore, can be seen as the relationship between all things. It is the universal aspect of nature. Equivalence makes the laws of physics just as applicable on the moon as they are on the earth. It is the unifying force behind all of existence.
Perhaps the best example of equivalence is that of solar system to the atom. When Galileo asserted that the sun was the center of the solar system, and that all the planets orbit the sun in a set, circular motion, the world was stunned. It turned the academic and religious paradigms upside down. All the textbooks had to be rewritten. Today, we revere Galileo as nothing short of a genius. His work set scientific thought on a course which has allowed it to achieve the advancements that it has achieved. But, just imagine if he had used equivalence to postulate something more. Imagine if Galileo sat back and said, “If the largest model of life that we know works this way, then, based on equivalence – as above, so below – the smallest model of life must also necessarily work the same way. Therefore, just as the sun is the massive center of a system, with smaller entities orbiting it in fixed, elliptical orbits, then so too must the smallest model of life act the same way. A massive central body must have a number of smaller units orbiting in fixed, elliptical orbits – a mini solar system.” What Galileo could not possibly have known is just how right he would have been. By observing the solar system, he could have envisioned the mechanics of one of the smallest models of life – the atom. If Galileo had used equivalence to postulate the existence of the atom we would have called him more than a genius, we would have called him an intellectual god. Needless to say, he didn’t make any such postulations – at least none that we are aware of. But the opportunity to do so was certainly there. To look at the model of the solar system is to look at the model of an atom. That, simply put, is what equivalence is all about.
The patterns of equivalence reflect more than just form, they reflect the very cycles of life. The best example of this is the life of a person. The life of a person begins at birth, where they awaken for the first time in this world. It then goes through the evolutionary stages of childhood and adolescence, where the energy and vitality of an individual develops and peaks. Adolescence passes into adulthood, which is characterized by achievement and stability. From adulthood a person passes into the final phases of life, marked by an increase of experience and wisdom, but a dramatic decrease of energy and vitality. The final chapter of life is, of course, death. This very same cycle of life is experienced in a microcosmic form every single day. Each day is started when a person wakes up – the first moment of awareness. Next, the person gets out of bed – taking their literal ‘first steps’. Then the process of getting ready to face the day – getting dressed, eating, etc. – the development of energy and vitality. As the day progresses, this energy peaks, as does the productivity of the individual. As the day begins to wane, so too does the energy levels and productivity of each person. These are, however, replaced by the level of achievement and experience for that person. As evening sets in, the average person begins to wind down, replacing work with entertainment, or simply returning home to relax with family and loved ones. In the end, every individual reaches the point where they lay down, done with the day, and close their eyes and find the peace of sleep. Each and every day is a mini cycle of life, from birth to death, and everything in between. If a person was unaware of how a single lifetime looked they could look at a single day, contemplate the law of equivalence, and postulate the mechanics of a single lifetime.
The Zero Dimension
Perhaps another way to understand passive life is in terms of dimensions. We have a very orderly view of the physical universe, neatly divided into dimensions. Now the number of dimensions differs, depending on who you talk to. How many dimensions there are isn’t really relevant to this point. What is relevant is that each dimension is a virtual extension of the previous one. Thus, the dimensions aren’t random, but they are a neat, orderly construct of the layers of physical reality. We start with the single point of the first dimension, move to the plane of the second dimension, and end with the spatial reality of the third dimension. The fourth dimension, space-time, is the dimension of motion. Where does passive life fit into this construct? Simply put, it is the prime dimension – the dimension from which all others originate. It is the zero dimension. The examples given earlier of how ideas lead to inventions are only a microcosmic example of an infinitely larger phenomenon. The fact is, physical reality is a byproduct of nonphysical reality. Active life is the manifestation of passive life. Look no further than the relationship between mental and physical health for proof of this statement. Stress, anxiety and anger lead to physical sickness and suffering. On the other end of the spectrum, peace of mind and contentment lead to a greater sense of physical well-being. This direct relationship between mind and body is a small example of the relationship between passive and active life, but it is a profound one none the less. It demonstrates how each individual contains the whole dynamic relationship of passive to active life just as a single day contains the whole cycle of a human life. It shows how all-pervading the patterns of passive life really are. They are experienced as completely within an individual life as they are within the universe as a whole. Passive life, in short, is the infinite, eternal, unseen dimension which gives birth to all physical reality. It is the very essence of life itself.
True Life
As a tool, polarities can be of immeasurable value for the development of the self. They can serve to help an individual find a better balance for specific actions or behaviors. All too often the reason a person struggles or fails in a particular venture is that they are either doing too much of one thing, or not enough of another. This can be the case in personal goals, in relationships, or in just about any fundamental aspect of life. All too often when our efforts seem ineffective we assume that we have to increase those very same efforts. The result is that we go further and further toward an extremity, and subsequently, further and further away from the truth. The most fundamental example of this struggle is on the polarity of life.
On one end of the polarity of life you have passive life. This is the aspect of life characterized by dreams, thoughts, wishes and imagination. It is the aspect of life which lies just beneath physical reality. It is the formless essence of physical reality. Every invention, song, and work of art has its origins in the mind of the creator. Every book written on paper is first written in the imagination of the author. Every Olympic gold medal starts as a dream. No journey is taken without it first being taken in the mind. This is the essence of passive life.
On the other end of the polarity of life lies active life. This is the aspect of life characterized by action rather than thought. It is physicality – that which is tangible. Every word spoken, every step taken, every action performed, are the mechanisms of active life. If passive life is dreaming of winning an Olympic gold medal, then active life is the process of endless training and endless competition, culminating in the one single event of running that final race which yields the object of the dream – the gold medal itself. Active life is the act of putting paint to canvas, pen to paper, one’s money where one’s mouth is. It is the committing of the dream to physical reality. Every building built, song sung, race run, are all the consequence of action taken. They are the products of active life.
Now, looking at each aspect of life it is hard to say which is better than the other, or which is less significant to life as a whole. That is because they are both equally important to life. Life, simply put, cannot exist without an equal balance between its active and passive aspects – thus, the polarity is born. Now, from the perspective of a dichotomy, only one aspect is achievable at a time. In this light a person is restricted to only dreaming or only acting toward achieving their particular goal. This results in a fixation on the one or the other. The results of this fixation usually lie somewhere between constant struggle and constant failure. Too often dreams go unrealized because actions were never taken to bring them to fruition. On the other end lives are spent in constant motion, filled with every action conceivable, only to be bereft of meaning or fulfillment. Where a lack of action prevents a dream coming true, a lack of a dream leaves every effort and action without purpose. Where is the solution to be found? Right in the middle.
If we take a look at the most successful people we begin to see a pattern develop. Any athlete that wins gold will tell of their unquenchable dream to win, which in turn led to their endless pursuit of perfection through the endless training they underwent. This is a classic example of the balance between dream and action, between passive and active life. Actors and actresses will tell of the hardships they went through before making it big. Despite all the sacrifices and setbacks they never gave up on their dream, nor did they ever stop pursuing every opportunity that came their way – again, the balance of the passive and active. Every success story told will follow this same pattern. There is always a dream, followed by tireless effort and unrelenting action. Yet, what is the end result? Some would argue that it is the gold medal, or the fame and fortune of success. But when you look at a person who has found that perfect balance between their dreams and their actions you see a person who seems to be living life on a different level. These are the people who seem larger than life. These are the ones who seem successful even without the success. Neither lost in dreams, nor lost in mindless actions, these are the people who have found the middle ground in the polarity of life. By merging both aspects of life, passive and active, they have restored the polarity to a point of truth. In essence, they are living true life.
True life is found in the middle of the polarity of life. It is when dream and action are restored to a single unity. To live true life is to eliminate the stresses and struggles of going against the natural flow. It is to live life completely. It is like going on a road trip. If all you do is look at the map, then you never get anywhere. You can stare at a map all day long, knowing exactly what roads will take you from point A to point B, but until you actually get into the car and start driving you remain at the starting point. While the knowledge of how to get to your destination is of infinite value, alone it cannot actually get you where you need to be. Likewise, if you get into your car and just start driving with no particular direction in mind, following other people because they seem to know where they are going, then you can wind up anywhere. While the driving is critical in making the journey, alone it too cannot get you where you need to be. However, when you merge the two, looking at the map for direction, and driving in the direction the map gives, then you wind up at your destination. No luck is needed. No destiny or preordained mission need be discovered. You simply choose a spot, look at the map, and drive. That is true life. You choose a goal, look at the opportunities available, and drive. There may be some bad weather. There may be a delay or two. Detours aren’t uncommon. But in the end, a determined effort to act on your dream will see you arrive at your destination.
Natural Order
Humanity has a way of attributing to itself the best qualities in life. Not accepting defeat is attributed to the indomitable human spirit. The exploration of space is the result of the curiosity of man. Finding solutions to the seemingly impossible is due to human ingenuity. The gentle and kind treatment of a living being is ironically called humane (the irony lies in the fact that humanity is the only species which causes the suffering and death of another creature unnecessarily). In the end, humanity paints a rather heroic picture of itself. Yet of all the positive qualities singularly attributed to humanity, there is one quality which humanity does not lay claim to. It is the only positive quality attributed to nature rather than to man. It is the quality of order.
We often hear mention of “the natural order,” when referring to an inherent system or structure. This statement always evokes a sense of design, the interference of which is always sure to lead to catastrophe. This idea of natural order permeates cultures spanning all corners of the earth, at all times of human existence. Subsequently, it seems to be more than a mere poetic fantasy or whimsical notion. The idea of an inherent structure within nature comes not from the intellectual mind, but rather, it seems to rise up from the subconscious mind. Quite literally, our awareness of natural order is rooted in our very soul.
But what is the essence of this natural order? And why is it that this idyllic quality is not attributed to man? Simply put, natural order is the perfect harmonious state created by the two true laws of life, causality and equivalence. On the level of equivalence, all things are formed in accordance to a certain pattern or cycle. The cycle of a single day reflects the cycle of a single life. The cycle of a single year is a macrocosm of the cycle of a single day. The atom is the microcosmic model of the solar system. Each pattern or cycle exists to maintain order where there would otherwise be chaos. The mechanics required for the one are the same mechanics that are required for all. One set system underlies all aspects of life. This is the order of form.
The order within action is contained in the law of causality. Cause and affect create an orderly, predictable set of events. If you stand in the rain you get wet, and if you stay inside you stay dry. Absurdly simple, yet immensely profound. That simple sense of action and consequence is what maintains order within the dynamic, active side of life. What if it was all random? What if you could just as easily get wet if you came inside from a rainstorm as you could if you stayed outside? What if only certain people got wet in the rain? What chaos would ensue if gravity were intermittent? Life would be completely unpredictable were it not for the simple, yet immeasurably significant law of causality. The whole point of causality is predictability. To be able to predict an outcome gives a being a chance to make a sound decision. Intellect can only be useful in problem solving if certain factors are constant. Causality creates the constancy required for problem solving. It establishes the order of consequence to action. It gives all living things the chance to develop survival skills through experience and observation. Lessons learned today will be just as pertinent tomorrow. This is what allows progress. This is what allows individual development. This is what underlies the evolution of the mind.
But why is it that this sense of order is not attributed to humanity? Simply put, humanity has a hard time obeying the laws. As the human intellect develops, so too does an unhealthy sense of dominance. The smarter we get, the more convinced we are of our own superiority. We ignore the patterns within life. We know more than the animals, so we must be smarter than nature. We can control our environment, so we ignore the consequences of our actions. As humanity goes from strength to strength, from achievement to achievement, it goes farther and farther away from the fundamental laws of equivalence and causality. The problem is, these are the two true laws in life. As such, they are unable to be broken, and whether or not we choose to accept these laws, they remain very much real and in place. All we do when we try to interfere with these laws is disturb the order that these laws serve to maintain. Consequential interference doesn’t disrupt causality, it merely diverts the consequence of an action from one party to another. Ignoring the patterns and cycles of life doesn’t undermine their reality, it only undermines the potential of human achievement.
In the end, the reason humanity cannot lay claim to the quality of order is that humanity is the single most chaotic, conflict ridden species on the planet. While the rest of nature seems to perpetuate a sense of balance and harmony, humanity perpetuates conflict, unchecked expansion and senseless waste. The paradox, however, is that while it seems as though natural order is all but extinguished due to the chaotic nature of man, it is in fact very much in place. Natural order exists for the perpetuation of life. When it is maintained, then life can thrive. That is the essence of natural order. Thus, when natural order is not maintained, then life cannot thrive. Humanity may be spreading unchecked over the four corners of the earth, but humanity is far from thriving. The amount of suffering, struggle and despair within the human species is overwhelming, and times aren’t getting better. It seems that the more we ignore natural order is the further we get from a life of balance and harmony. Thus, humanity is not cheating natural order, it is only cheating itself. The more we ignore the fundamentals of natural order is the more death, destruction and despair that humanity will suffer for it. Only when we realign ourselves with the laws of equivalence and causality will we be able to attribute that most necessary of all qualities to humanity – the quality of order.
Yet there is more to this natural order than we commonly realize. We see this order as belonging to nature because it is within nature that this order was first witnessed. Nature, after all, was the only thing which mankind could observe in an up-close and personal way until very recently, when technology has allowed us to study the cosmos in a similar way. Thus, phenomena of the universe were classified as phenomena of nature. The fact is, however, that what we see as natural order is in fact the order of the cosmos. Equivalence and causality are the cornerstones upon which the universe itself exists. These laws go back to the primordial beginnings of the universe itself. Time and space exist only as a result of causality and equivalence. Without the order which causality and equivalence creates, time and space could not function. As such, this order is not simply the order of nature as we see it, namely the sum of all living things on this single planet, but rather, it is the order of the entirety of creation. It is an order which predates time and space – an order of primordial origin. Causality and equivalence are, quite literally, the primal order.
WHO AM I?
“Who am I?” is perhaps the first question which separates man from the rest of nature. The argument over how self aware animals are is one which may never be resolved. On the one hand, much of science and religion would argue that animals are not self aware at all. Yet on the other hand many observers of animals, both in and out of nature, would contend that in fact animals are very much self aware. I believe that the distinction lies with one simple threshold. Animal self awareness begins and ends with the simple notion “I am.” It is a unique quality of the human species to be able to qualify that statement. As humans we not only say “I am,” but we can also say “I am a person”, “a man/woman”, “English/American”, “late for work”, and any other number of qualifiers that relate to our particular state at that particular moment.
The inherent problem with this unique quality of being able to qualify our sense of self is that all too often we become lost in the details. We eventually lose touch with the more fundamental aspects of who we are, both as individuals and as a species. In our day to day lives we become increasingly identified with our occupation, our responsibilities, and our ambitions. The end result of this is that all too often we forget that these are all details. We place far too much importance on these qualifiers and far too little importance on the more fundamental truths of our identity. We are more than just a list of job titles and functions. We are living, sentient beings. Perhaps one of the reasons why there is so much conflict within humanity is that we focus too much on those things which make us different. Perhaps if we began to rediscover the more fundamental nature of our identity we could start to focus on that which makes us alike. Then, and only then, would there be any hope of restoring a sense of peaceful coexistence to this war ravaged planet that is mankind’s home.
Domestic Identity
The Creation of Man
In the beginning there was darkness. Then God commanded there to be light. And there was light. Then God separated the light from the dark, calling the light day and the darkness night. And so on and so forth through the creation of planets and stars, land and sea, plants and trees, animals and bugs, right on through to the creation of man himself. Of course, this is the creation story of the Judeo-Christian tradition, as found in the book of Genesis. If you look at the myriad of other religious traditions you will find creation stories with countless differences in detail – from the god or gods responsible for creation to the way in which these powers went about the creation process itself. Despite all the differences, however, there is a certain continuity found in all of the traditions – the order of events. Life starts from the more abstract elements of light and dark, space and time, and ends up in a very neat, ordered world where everything has its place and its purpose. Without exception man is always created within this orderly environment. You never find a tradition that has man created first, floating around in space patiently waiting for a place to sleep and something to eat. Instead, man is always created last, brought into an already built, already functioning abode, complete with companions of all shapes and sizes.
Today, it’s hard to imagine that any one of us has anything at all in common with the first persons created. From being created by the hand of God himself, to being brought to life in a paradise on earth, first man seems as distant from our own experience as you could possibly get. After all, we are born, not created. And, looking around, we wouldn’t necessarily call our surroundings paradise. Yet there is one fundamental similarity. Like first man, we too are brought to life in an already existent world. When we draw our first breath, reality is already well underway. There aren’t any loose ends which need tying up, nor are there any kinks needing to be worked out. We are born into a very complete, very functioning reality. In this way, like first man, we come from the darkness of oblivion into an already living, fully functioning vibrant world.
The focus of both the creation story and our own experience seems to always be placed upon the physical reality which surrounds us. The Garden of Eden is described in great detail in terms of its physical appearance and of all the living things to be found within. So too, when we consider the world in which we live we can’t help but notice its physical attributes. From buildings to highways, from cars to planes, we live in a visual, tangible world where life is experienced fully by all five of our physical senses. But is this physical aspect of life all that there is? Is tangible reality alone responsible for life as we know it? Or is there something more?
Perhaps one of the most intriguing details of the creation story is that it takes place in a garden. All too often we take this detail for granted. Why is it a garden? Why not simply paradise? Why not a forest, or just nature itself? To answer this we must first discover what makes a garden different from any landscape inherently found in nature. A garden, whether it is a vegetable, flower, or other type of garden, is a place where nature is given structure. Things are planted in a particular order, giving shape where shape would not otherwise be. There is a certain system governing the dynamic of the garden itself. Thus, unlike the random appearance of nature seen in jungles, wildernesses and the like, a garden has a neat, orderly structure about it. This structure determines when the garden is in bloom, and what colors, fruits or vegetables the garden will produce. Thus, what separates a garden from landscapes within nature is a certain dynamic structure which defines and perpetuates the form and function of the garden itself.
With that understanding in mind the question arises, is there a form of dynamic structure within our physical reality? The answer is yes. In fact, there are three forms of dynamic structure found within our physical reality. These dynamic structures are family, society and religion. And just as the dynamic structure of a garden gives it form and function, so too these dynamic structures give our physical reality form and function, both on an individual and a collective level.
Family
The dynamic structure which should first be examined is that of family. After all, family is the single dynamic structure necessary for life itself. As such, it can be considered the oldest and most established of the dynamic structures. Without the structure of family it would be impossible for life to reproduce. For as long as the birthing process is necessary to bring life into this world, then there will always be a mother and a child. And while science and technology have made it unnecessary for there to be a natural insemination process, they have not been able to replace the need for a father altogether. Thus, despite the advances of science and technology, for now the dynamic structure of family remains inescapably necessary for the perpetuation of life.
If the creation and perpetuation of life were the only function which family served, it would certainly be enough. But the truth is, family serves yet another function beyond that. Its function is to not only create life, but also to instill within that life a sense of identity. Thus, it not only creates all living things, but it also serves to define all living things. It does this by creating three separate forms of identity within each individual being. These three forms of identity are physical identity, conditional identity, and potential identity. And it is these three forms of identity which determine the nature of the very lives which the dynamic structure of family serves to create.
The first form of identity which family creates is that of physical identity. Our very physical appearance is the consequence of the family we are born into. Genetics determines our hair color, eye color, skin color, height and even our size. All too often have we heard people say, “You have your father’s eyes,“ “your mother’s smile,“ and all sorts of other physical features or quirks which we take for granted, yet others see as proof of our pedigree. In fact, certain physical features can be used to trace the ancestry of a person to a deeper, more cultural level. Hair color and eye color, height, and even the shape of a nose can often tell of the heritage of an individual beyond that of parents or even grandparents. Certain features are predominant, if not exclusive, within certain cultures. Blond hair and blue eyes point to Germanic or Scandinavian roots quite often. Fair skin and red hair suggests Irish or Scottish descent. While these are generalizations, with exceptions, it is enough to support the concept of the role family plays in engendering within each one of us a very definite physical identity.
It is now a known fact that genetics do more than simply determine our hair and eye color. It is now proven that genetics even determine our health. Whether or not we will be prone to certain sicknesses or disorders is no longer seen as random, or even the consequence of lifestyle, diet, or the efforts of the individual. Heart disease, diabetes, cancer and a multitude of other diseases are now being linked to genetic causes as well as the causes previously associated with them. In this respect our family becomes not only the author of our life, but also of how well and how long we live that life. Thus, the influence of the family is not simply static, limited to our features and appearance, but rather it is dynamic, remaining embedded within us throughout our entire life, good, bad or otherwise.
The second form of identity that family creates within the individual is conditional identity. Conditional identity differs from physical identity in that while physical identity defines our physical being, conditional identity defines the conditions that our physical being is born into. The example of conditional identity most significant in today’s society is, most likely, the financial one. Whether a person is born into a rich family or into a poor family is a large part of their condition, and thus, a large part of their conditional identity. In fact certain family names have become synonymous with wealth- Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt, just to name a few. To be born into such a family is to be born into a pampered, ambitious, prominent condition. These specifics in turn form a large part of the conditional identity of the individual within the scope of the dynamic structure of family. A person born into a family of wealth or prominence is automatically a person of wealth or prominence. They are born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouth. As long as the family maintains its status, and as long as the individual is in good standing with the family, then a large part of that person’s identity is guaranteed.
This established sense of identity holds true not just for persons of wealth and prominence, but it holds equally true for persons on the opposite end of the spectrum, the poor and obscure. Indeed, just as it is unfathomable that a member of the Rockefeller family should suddenly become poor and obscure, so too is it unfathomable for countless families struggling to make ends meet that they should suddenly be wealthy beyond imagination, basking in the limelight of fame and fortune. An individual born into such a family is by default born on the wrong side of the tracks. All too often the individual character of a person is overlooked simply because of the conditional identity of the family that they were born into. In fact, until as recently as the eighteenth or nineteenth century, it was virtually impossible for an individual to rise above the condition of the family. The ability to change even one’s profession was all but unheard of- a mere fantasy. Instead, members of a family would stay in the same profession generation after generation. If a person was born into a family whose profession was carpentry, then that individual, usually male, would be a carpenter – no exceptions. This took place with such regularity, and for so long, that the traces of it can still be seen today. Family names such as Carpenter, Fletcher, Smith, and Shoemaker, just to name a few, point to the professions which identified whole families for countless generations. A more perfect example of conditional identity would be virtually impossible to find.
The third and final form of identity which the family places upon the individual is the Potential Identity. Whilst the physical identity is fairly fixed, and the conditional identity is mostly fixed- focusing on conditions which, while potentially transient, are nonetheless fixed for the moment, the potential identity is the identity of what might be. This is the sense of definition which finds its roots in ambition, hope and dreams. On the whole, the potential identity is the prospect of advancement- moving the individual into a higher status than that which the family currently possesses. In prominent families this prospect usually translates into positions of power, from financial to political, from CEO to president or prime minister. In the United States this dynamic is best seen in the Kennedy or Bush families. Indeed, this pursuance of potential power is what has given birth to every dynasty in history. This is the hope which the family places on the individual, not just for the benefit of the individual, but for the benefit of the family as a whole. It is the collective desire for the family’s continued success and prominence formed into an aspiration placed upon the individual. Indeed, it might even be said that many families have children for such specific purposes. Should these children fail to live up to such expectations then more often than not they become ostracized, gaining the label of black sheep.
Such ambitions are not unique to families of wealth and power. On the contrary, the potential identity is very real, even very necessary, in the life of the average family. The level of wealth a family possesses is equal to their level of struggle for survival. The families who live in poverty find that struggle infinitely greater than their wealthy counterparts. In this light the potential identity is more a matter of life and death than one of prestige. In some cases children are seen as the potential helpers of the parents, serving as simple labor at first, and eventually apprenticing to be the replacement of the parents themselves. This dynamic is most often seen in rural conditions, where the potential for anything more than eking out a basic survival is seen as a dream too far-fetched. In this case, the black sheep of the family is one who abandons the traditions and trade of the family in search of better horizons. This move is seen as a potential sacrifice of the family for the ambition of the individual, and thus breaks the potential identity placed on the individual by that family.
On the other extreme the family places the greatest responsibility on the individual- that of the families salvation. Many families of low means invest all their efforts and resources on an individual in the hopes that this member of the family may gain wealth and success as an individual, and thus, bring the family the respite it so desperately needs. All too often parents inform their children of the sacrifices they made so that, “you can have a better life than I had.” Or, they remind us of the fact that, “your mother/father and I never had it so good.” All too often the potential identity is the projection of success by one or both parents upon the individual child. If this child does not share the same values as the parents then they are deemed reckless, selfish and disinterested in the well-being of the parents or the family as a whole. In this sense, the potential identity is that which is placed upon the individual in the firm belief that the family’s success and well being ultimately rest upon the individual fulfilling that potential.
Still, not all examples of potential identity are negative. Instead, there are a great many examples of people who changed their life with the encouragement and support of their family. Quite often do we see actors and athletes who, when being awarded for their achievements, give credit to their parents who “worked so hard so that I could be here.” In fact the rags to riches story follows in the same vein. Even though it may not be as commonplace as we may wish it is common enough to have coined the phrase “rags to riches.” The individual child rises above their conditional identity and fulfills their potential identity, much to the credit and relief of the family. There is also a phenomenon which occurs within the healthiest of family relationships. This is the interchange of ambitions. First, the family has the ambition for the child to be successful. If this ambition has no specific definition it allows the child to choose their own path. This path, which is the ambition of the individual, then transposes to the ambition of the parents. It fills in the blanks with regard to the details of the parents wish for their child’s success. This in turn becomes the potential identity with which the family perceives the individual. Unlike an inherited or forced sense of identity, however, this potential identity is discovered within the individual and fostered by the family. This is perhaps the most ideal sense of potential identity one could hope to find, and the one which stands the best chance of success.
Society
The next dynamic structure which needs to be examined is that of society. In many ways the social dynamic structure is very similar to the family dynamic structure- only much, much bigger. Society, after all, is not only comprised of a collection of individuals, but it is also comprised of a vast collection of families. In this way the effect that society has on the individual is much the same as the effect of the family, but greatly amplified. Whilst the dynamic structure of family served the two main functions of perpetuating life and the bestowing of identity, society serves the two main functions of maintaining life and the bestowing of identity. Society, after all, cannot as such create life. Instead, society is better suited for the purpose of maintaining life, largely because the resources available to a single society are so vastly greater than the resources available to a single family – in most cases, at least.
But it is the bestowing of identity that is the most significant function of the dynamic structure of society. It is impossible, after all, for an individual to exist in society without acquiring all sorts of labels, titles and distinctions which serve to distinguish that individual from all the rest. It is society’s way of placing all persons in some sort of system, finding a place for everyone for the purpose of creating order where there would otherwise be chaos. Like all things in life this dynamic structure is evolutionary, and its development can be traced back to the very beginnings of humanity. But while technology and the human condition has changed dramatically over the course of several millennia, the basic principles of society, to preserve life and promote order, have remained very much the same. And just as the purpose of bestowing identity upon the individual is the same as that of the dynamic structure of family, so too are the forms which that identity takes- physical, conditional, and potential.
As stated earlier, society cannot create life. As such, society does not develop physical identity by creating the physical form as the family does, but rather society develops the physical identity using two other means – valuation and transformation. In this way, society takes an already existent being and determines their value based on such physical attributes as gender, age, race, and size- all attributes of the physical identity inherited from the family through the genetic code. It then offers the individual the means by which to transform their physical identity in order to affect their social value. While this may sound bizarre, in fact it is not. The process takes place before us every single day. While some examples of valuation and transformation may be extreme, others are far more subtle.
Social valuation is a phenomenon which can be observed through many mediums. Its effects can be seen in areas ranging from politics to the workplace to the military. It is the way of classifying all persons based on the single aspect of their physical appearance. On the more basic level, that physical appearance covers the fundamental characteristics of gender, race, age and health. Any and all of these characteristics can make the difference between a person being significant or insignificant, admired or despised, accepted or rejected, and even free or enslaved. Of course, it is not only the characteristics themselves that determine the fate of a single person, but also the society in which that person lives. What makes a person prone for the greatest of prospects in one society may in fact condemn them to the harshest of existences in another. Whilst most societies have written documents such as a constitution stating the philosophical agenda and aspiration of that particular society, most do not have any sort of written notice or promise regarding the status of a person based on physical traits. So how does one determine which physical qualities are valued and which are despised in a given culture?
The closest thing to any sort of written guarantee comes in the form of legislation. If one examines the laws of a particular nation then one can begin to see all of the prejudices inherent in that society. If a law is written for the right of women to vote, for example, then it becomes clear that women are not automatically afforded the same status as men. Were they considered equal, after all, then no law would be required to guarantee what would already be so commonplace as to probably be taken for granted. Instead, such laws are written as the result of changes made to social philosophies based upon the outcome of long, hard struggles between those who are oppressed and those who would be their oppressors. Such laws can be seen more commonly in the workplace. From labor laws to codes of conduct, numerous rules and guarantees now exist to afford all persons in many societies equal treatment, pay, and potential for promotion.
Again, such legislation can be seen as both the promise of the future as well as the memories of injustices of the past. And in all cases such injustices were only abolished at the end of long, bitter and usually violent struggles. In fact, apart from legislation the only way to understand the opinions of a culture with regard to the physical identity of an individual is to study the struggles between different groups within that society. While many struggles can be learned through the history of a culture, all too often many such struggles continue to this very day. The struggles for gender and racial equality have resulted in great changes within western society, but the true equality which is hoped for is still not fully realized. So, even in a society considered free from religious extremism and archaic class structures, prejudices and social structures remain, placing certain persons in positions of comfort and opportunity while at the same time placing others in positions of hardship and struggle, simply because of certain physical traits. This, then, is the most poignant example of social valuation of one’s physical identity.
Social valuation can clearly be seen through the intense mediums of legislation and class struggle, but can it be seen in a less sinister light? Are there not mediums somewhat more subtle in form and function? In fact, there are, and they are in front of us every single day, in many different shapes and sizes. These more subtle forms of social valuation are better known to us as stereotypes. Indeed, stereotypes are the most common form of social valuation, especially with reference to the physical identity of an individual. Their existence can be traced to two main causes. First, they are often the remnants of a much more poignant rift within society- a rift which usually was only resolved after severe conflict. The stereotype of a woman being a housewife is one such example. Throughout much of western history women were afforded a second class status, being subservient to men. Many wedding vows still have the bride promise to “honor and obey.” This is a throwback to a social system which saw men as dominant and women as less capable of life outside of the house. This stereotype is still visible in the workplace where the capability of women to be the boss and not just the secretary is just now becoming realized. The fact that a woman can do any task that a man can do, however, is still not enough to silence the stereotype. This is most commonly seen in advertising. How many commercials show a vacuum cleaner being used by a man? How many by a woman? How many commercials show a man cleaning a sink, bathtub or oven? But how many commercials show a man driving a truck, changing oil or drinking a beer? To this day, then, the stereotype of a soft, innocent, delicate and even servile woman remains very much intact.
So, once the physical identity of a person has been evaluated, what then? It’s all fun and games if that person finds himself or herself on the top end of the totem pole. To be in high demand in society’s eyes is to have a head start to life- an edge, an advantage. To have been born with the right physical qualities to have an easier, more affluent life would be quite a stroke of luck. But what of the others? What of those not fortunate enough to have been born with a physical identity found desirable by the social process of valuation? What of those who are found inferior, lacking, simply not up to expectation? Fortunately, society has the answer: transformation.
There are many ways for a person to transform their appearance from what nature gave them into something more pleasing in social terms. One example of such a transformation would be the face lift. To an individual who undergoes a face lift the appearance of age is seen as detrimental. Whether the person is in the public eye, such as a model or an actor, or whether the person simply feels that their physical appeal is lessened by the effects of aging, it is clear that they view the physical appearance of aging as having a negative impact on their worth. Simply put, an older them is less valuable than a younger them. As such a person will try to fight the signs of aging through diet, exercise, and ultimately with surgery. Since age cannot be reversed the appearance of age is the only thing changeable.
Face lifts are a more extreme example of trying to maintain a high value physical identity, but less extreme, more common examples can also be found. Everything from makeup to nail polish to hair color and hair style are all examples of efforts taken to hide or change less valuable physical appearances into more desirable, more valuable physical appearances. The attempt to look young and beautiful is a blatant response to the fear of mortality and rejection. These fears are the inherent consequence of society’s low valuation of the old and the ugly. Whilst most people are not really old, and certainly not ugly, the quest isn’t about not being last, it’s about striving to be first. To look young and beautiful is the underlying promise behind all cosmetic company advertising campaigns. The human need to be considered highly valuable within society is what makes those advertising campaigns so successful, and in turn makes the cosmetic companies among the most profitable businesses in existence.
Still, all of these examples have been of ways to affect the physical identity by actually altering a person’s physical appearance. But there are ways of affecting a person’s physical identity which are even more subtle – ways which don’t require the alteration of a person’s actual physical being. In particular, there is a method to affect the physical identity through the art of concealment and disguise – a method to transform without actually touching a person’s physical features. This most subtle, yet most common, of transformation processes is known worldwide by a single name: fashion. Simply put, fashion enables a person of any age, gender or race to transform their physical identity from any one type to virtually any other type. Men can appear as women, women as men, and persons of a more mature age can appear young again. Society often sees these examples as odd and vain. Yet we take for granted the examples of this transformation which are much more common, but no less extreme. If a young person puts on a suit or dress for church or for a job interview everyone commends them on how well they “clean up”. Likewise, when a woman wears a suit to a business meeting it is more often than not an attempt to blend in better with her male counterparts. In this way it is clear that a person’s physical identity has a profound effect on the social value given to that person. Would the teenager be taken less seriously if they showed up to the job interview in jeans and a tee shirt? Would the business woman be looked down upon for attending the business meeting in a nice, stylish dress? Regrettably, the answer to both is a resounding yes.
There is another way in which the physical identity is transformed to better suit the environment which a person finds themselves in. Unlike the other methods listed, this transformation does not attempt to simply alter the physical appearance from one personal type to another, like old to young, or woman to man, but rather it attempts to convert the physical appearance from that of a personal appearance to that of a collective, functional appearance. The tool used to achieve this transformation is the uniform. When a person puts on a uniform- whether it is a military, police, medical, or school uniform, that person is transformed from a person to a function- soldier, police officer, doctor/nurse, or student. All distinguishing features are disguised- gender, race, age, etc., and the only definition left to the individual’s appearance is the function which they serve. As extreme as this seems, most people engage in this very process of self disguise, if not with the medium of a uniform, then with the more common medium of the dress code. Most places of employment have a strict dress code, the purpose of which is to distinguish its employees from everyone else. Hats, aprons, colors and styles of clothes, all of these elements are used to transform a person from who they are naturally to who they are socially.
So it is, that while society can neither create nor destroy the physical identity as such, it can certainly determine the value of that identity. And while the individual cannot choose the family from which they come, and thus choose their physical identity, they can alter and manipulate the appearance of their physical identity in order to be better served by it within the social environment they find themselves in. But to what end? What goal could be so important as to justify such intensive measures to transform the physical identity? Simply put, that goal is none other than the conditional identity.
While it was stated that society cannot create the physical identity of an individual, it certainly does create an individual’s conditional identity. In fact, just as the physical identity is the most significant contribution of the family, conditional identity is the most significant contribution of society. But what is conditional identity in society? Simply put, it is the function of the individual. As family is the dynamic structure responsible for creating life, society is the dynamic structure responsible for supporting life. As such every member of society is expected to contribute to that common goal. That contribution is defined by the function that an individual serves.
For the most part the conditional identity of the individual is the job that they have. Whether this job is a day job – one to simply pay the bills, or whether it is an actual career – one which reflects the lifestyle of the individual, the fundamental of the conditional identity remains the same. This fundamental can best be observed when two people meet for the first time. Invariably, one of the first questions asked is “what do you do?” This is answered usually by the words “I am a …..” It doesn’t matter what word fills in the blank, the significance is in how the individual identifies themselves by their function. They are literally saying “I am what I do.” They identify by their contribution to the social agenda of supporting life.
Conditional identity is not simply restricted to the workplace – instead, it covers the whole spectrum of human experience within the social mainframe. One of the best examples is that of the student. Simply stated, the function of the student is to gain an education. While this function does not produce tangible results in social or fiscal terms the way workplace functions do, it produces a more subtle result- the preparation of the individual to be able to perform a more tangible function once their education is complete. This education can be standard, such as that of high school, or it can take on a richer dimension such as that of a college or university. In this case, not only is the individual identified as a student, but they are also identified by their particular field of study. “I am a philosophy major,” gives added depth to the function of that individual. Not only are they studying, but they are studying with the ambition of contributing to a specific element of the social dynamic.
Another good example of a non-workplace function is that of housewife .This function may not produce tangible fiscal results, but it is a function which is seen as very necessary to the social agenda of supporting life. Stay–at-home dad, person of leisure, author, and the like are other such examples of non-workforce functions. They all describe functions which are not measurable in consistent financial terms, but which still allow positive social interaction, and even social contribution from individuals in such categories. While these examples have been positive it should be noted that less positive ones can also be found. Prison inmate is the most common of these. A person in prison is not only defined by a non-workforce standard, but they are also defined by a total lack of contribution to the social agenda of supporting life. In fact, they are defined by their attempt to undermine society. Thus their function is given a certain stigma by society. Indeed, it is this very stigma which points to another aspect of the conditional identity within society. That aspect is the value placed by society on the various forms of conditional identity, a value known as status.
Status is universal on the dynamic level, but it is not universal on the level of its specific details. It is equivalent to money. While all societies use currency, not all societies call their currency by the same name, nor are all currencies of equal value. Status, essentially, is the currency of the conditional identity. Those forms of conditional identity which are seen as having the greatest impact on society are given the greatest status. The status of the president of the United States, for example, is one of the highest in contemporary times. The position is associated as one of both extreme power and extreme wealth. It is these two aspects, power and wealth, which best define the value of status in modern consumerist societies – i.e. the United States, Canada, Europe, and other free market societies. As such, any function which earns a high paycheck receives an equally high status within society. This is not limited to politicians and corporate hierarchy, but it also includes the high paying professions of movie stars, rock stars, sports celebrities and other such professions which are in the limelight of popular culture.
The status of a particular individual is usually in direct proportion to the fame of that particular individual. In fact, the relationship between status and fame can be seen as a cyclic phenomenon within the conditional identity. As a movie star becomes more popular their demand becomes greater. This demand gives them more work, usually at a higher price, which sees them increasing the monetary value of their conditional identity. As their success increases, so too does their time in the public eye, thus increasing their fame. This particular cycle goes on until the individual removes themselves from it. This can happen either by choice or by consequence. When a figure chooses to step out of the public eye their fame decreases incrementally, until they reach a level of social obscurity. But this can also happen when an individual engages in activities which are shunned by the society they are in. Drug abuse, infidelity, violence and reckless behavior have all taken individuals from levels of fame and fortune to levels of infamy and despair. Once an individual falls from grace, their status becomes a thing of the past. Society is more often than not a rather unforgiving environment to those who break the rules.
Unfortunately, societies which are more oriented toward consumerism and popular culture often have a rather unnatural set of values. Whilst movie stars, athletes and other celebrities affect society, it is only within the realm of entertainment. And while entertainment is admirable, it does little in terms of contributing to the basic agenda of society – the supporting of life. More often than not, those professions which have the greatest impacts on society in terms of supporting life are given a most meager status, usually in direct proportion to the meager salaries drawn by such professions. Teachers are probably the best example of this paradox. It must be said that even the greatest of persons in society started out as a small child in a classroom learning the alphabet and how to count. From those first educational experiences, right to the last – whether it ends in high school, college or grad school, teachers were responsible for the guidance and education which helped shape those individuals into the great persons which they became. Every doctor, lawyer, actor, and CEO owes their status to the education they received, and to the teachers who gave them that education.
In this light it can be argued that teachers are the cornerstone of society, and as such you would expect them to have the highest status, if not the highest income as well. Yet, on the contrary, theirs is a relatively thankless job, unrecognized and financially unrewarded. The same can be said of firefighters, police, even farmers. Think of it. If all entertainment suddenly stopped, would society fall apart? No. But what if all the farmers, teachers, firefighters, and police suddenly vanished? Would society fall apart then? Most definitely. Fortunately, not all societies have the same currency of status. There are those which value the pop culture icons less, and respect the integral functions of society more. Those societies which have a higher regard for the functions which fulfill the social agenda of supporting life often prove to be more stable. This in turn provides an environment which is healthier and happier to individuals who live in those particular societies.
This sense of conditional identity gives society a very static appearance. Society, however, is defined as a dynamic structure. This is because society, like life, is in a constant state of motion. As people go through the stages of life their needs and abilities change. Just as their physical identity evolves over time, so too does the nature of their conditional identity. So what creates this motion in what would otherwise be a static phenomenon? What allows the conditional identity to change and grow? Simply put, it is the phenomenon known as potential identity.
The potential identity within society serves two main functions. The first function is to maintain motion within the social dynamic, and thus prevent society from becoming stagnant. At first thought, it seems irrational to suggest that society even has the potential of becoming stagnant. And even if that potential existed, how would it actually manifest? And how would it affect the individual living within that society? Perhaps the best example of this stagnation can be found in the previously discussed phenomenon of a last name reflecting a family’s profession. This practice was prevalent throughout the middle ages in feudalistic societies. Since education was all but nonexistent, a person not only inherited the family name, they inherited the family occupation as well. A son born to a blacksmith would grow up to be a blacksmith. His education would be as an apprentice to his father. And this would continue from generation to generation, with virtually no end in sight.
This may not seem to be such a bad state of affairs. After all, it meant that the family had a certain sense of job security. As long as the blacksmith had sons, and as long as the sons were able to learn the trade, then the family could make the money necessary to put food on the table. And perhaps it wasn’t such a bad deal, at least for a generation or two. But over the course of hundreds of years the result was that society reached an impasse. What started as a system designed to bring stability and security ultimately resulted in preventing individuals from evolving beyond the experience of their forebears. A lack of education, combined with a lack of new experiences, meant that society began to slow down, generation by generation, until finally, entire societies came to a standstill. The individual no longer ventured beyond their home, let alone their town. It became harder and harder to tell one generation from the next. Eventually, the progress which results from the dynamic motion of social evolution came to an end.
It is this grim fate which potential identity serves to prevent. But exactly how does this work? There are two tools which enable the potential identity to serve its purpose. The first is education, and the second is experience. These two elements promote growth in terms of the mind. It is this growth which enables the individual to pursue higher goals than their forebears, and thus, maintain the momentum which keeps society from becoming stagnant. A good example of this is dynamic can be found in the work environment. When an individual starts a new job they begin at the bottom level. They receive initial training to enable them to perform the basic functions of their job. After a while at this job the individual gains the insights and skills which experience alone can provide. These gains help to make the individual ever more valuable in their job. That value can be augmented by additional training and education. The end result is that the individual is now quite competent at their job, and can either take their job to new levels, or they themselves can advance to a higher level job through the process of promotion. Either way, whether the individual brings change to their job, or changes the job that they do, this is an evolutionary progression which benefits their work environment. It is this very progression which leads to innovations and new discoveries.
Multiplied on a larger scale, this progression has much greater results. Now, instead of an individual it is thousands of individuals. Now, not only is this progression occurring in the work place of one particular field, but it is occurring in the workplace of multiple fields. Now, members of society are progressing the fields of science, medicine, agriculture, education, and every other field of endeavor which society possesses. Thus, the progress of the individual is critical to the very progress of society itself. In this light the elements of education and experience must be seen as extremely valuable within the context of the main agenda of society – to maintain and promote life.
The second function of the potential identity is to provide this progressive motion with a sense of structure, thus creating order where there would otherwise be complete and total chaos. Just as the lack of progressive motion can have disastrous effects on society, so too, motion which is reckless or unchecked could have the same dire results. One of the simplest examples of this structure is the education system. In the United States the basic education system is divided into twelve grades. This setup is like a staircase. Each year a child climbs one more stair, until eventually they reach the top – graduation. Now, after graduating high school the individual has the option of furthering their education in college or university. Once the next school is started a new system, usually lasting four years, begins. Again, each year is another step, leading higher and higher until the individual reaches the level of their choosing. This structure is so basic that it is taken completely for granted. What would happen if this system were removed? What if students were placed in whatever spaces were available regardless of their age or qualification? Suddenly you have a situation where nine year old students are struggling with advanced chemistry in college, while at the opposite end you have twenty year old students having nap time in kindergarten. Needless to say, this would not work at all, no matter how willing twenty year old students would be of giving nap time a try.
This sense of structure can be found in all areas of society, not just in the education system. The work place is another arena in which this structure is strictly adhered to. The individual who is starting at the bottom level does not imagine that with only one or two promotions they will find themselves on the board of directors. The corporate example of this structure even has its own name- the corporate ladder. Each person who strives to reach the pinnacle of that ladder knows that they have to do it one painstaking rung at a time. And while this structure may not be foolproof, it still serves the purpose of maintaining a sense of order in what would otherwise be a chaotic situation of monumental proportions. It also serves to inspire everyone involved to strive for that next rung. As long as a person feels that some sort of reward lies within their grasp, then they continue to strive to reach that next level of accomplishment. And the history of these accomplishments is recorded in that person’s resume. In fact, the resume of a person is like their corporate passport. It grants them access to places within the corporate world, albeit restricting their travel to areas not too distant from where they are, or where they’ve been. Each experience, each level of training, and each promotion opens a greater area for an individual to travel in their quest for personal success within the corporate world.
The overall rule of thumb is that a circle can be drawn around a person’s conditional identity. That circle encompasses all the possible options for progressive change within that person’s life. It is the person’s true potential in the eyes of society. For a convict, on the one extreme, that circle is small and usually quite bleak. For the wealthy or powerful, on the opposite extreme, that circle is all but endless, both in scope and in promise of success. For everyone else in between, that circle is of varying sizes, giving various levels of promise for various levels of success. That circle is, in no uncertain terms, the true face of potential identity. Thus, while the rags to riches story are an inspiring example of success against all odds, it is the exception rather than the rule.
Religion
The third, and final, of the three dynamic structures is religion. As a dynamic structure religion, even though quite distinct from family and society, still performs the same dynamic functions. Interestingly enough, in many ways religion seems to merge the functions of family and society together. While the dynamic structure of family served to create life and bestow identity, and society served to maintain life and bestow identity, so it is that religion serves to both create and maintain life, while also serving the second function of bestowing identity. But how is it possible for religion to perform the same dynamic functions without being considered redundant? How can religion seem so similar, yet really be quite distinct? The answer can be found within the functions themselves.
First, let us consider the function of maintaining life. How does religion differ from society in this function? Society tackles this task from a purely practical perspective. The maintaining of life within society is a task which primarily serves to make the necessities of life available through the medium of labor. When a person works, then they earn a paycheck and are thus able to afford food and shelter. Religion, on the other hand, seeks to bring food and shelter to those who have, for one reason or another, fallen out of the social mainframe. Charity, then, is religion’s answer to maintaining life, but in a way which does not hinder, nor prove redundant to, society’s efforts to do the same.
Another way which society attempts to maintain life is through the establishment of law and order. In an attempt to avert the destruction that lawlessness and chaos would theoretically bring, society dictates codes of conduct to keep all persons within a safe moral construct. Religion does the same thing to a large extent, creating codes of conduct, such as the Ten Commandments, to bring morality and order to all persons in its care. But while the form and function of these efforts may seem the same, it is the reason behind the efforts which is different. Society seeks the immediate, measurable results of law and order in the here and now. Whilst religion seeks the same, it also offers something which society cannot. For not only does it offer the reward of a happy life in the here and now, but it also offers the reward of happiness in the future- the far, far distant future. It offers the reward of happiness in life after death. It is here, then, that we begin to see how religion can seem the same as society, but yet be quite different. Religion is not only concerned with physical life, but it is also concerned with the life after physical life, life beyond the reach of the dynamic structure of society. Religion not only seeks to maintain life in terms of the body, it also seeks to maintain life in terms of the soul.
It is in this context that the functions of religion and family begin to merge. As stated earlier, the first function of family is to create life. Religion, too, seeks to do the same. But while religion does not attempt to take responsibility for the creation of physical life as such, it does try to create life in the spiritual sense. No example of this endeavor can be more succinct than the Christian tradition of being born again. Through the process of being born again, an individual’s soul is rescued from damnation and eternal death, and it is given eternal life. By no means is the Christian tradition the only tradition which refers to rebirth. Ancient mystical traditions commonly employed the symbolism of death and rebirth for their initiation rites. It could also be argued that enlightenment, in its various forms, is synonymous with a spiritual rebirth or resurrection. In any event, the function of religion bringing life to mankind, albeit in non physical form, is very much the same as the function performed by family. It is the creation of life.
In addition to creating and maintaining life religion also serves the dynamic function of bestowing identity. Just as within the other dynamic structures, the identity that religion bestows takes the same three forms of physical, conditional, and potential. And just as life has a multidimensional nature within religion, identity, too, has this same multidimensional nature. This gives religion the distinct quality of portraying humanity in a deeper, richer context. It is in this context that humanity, and often all of life, is portrayed on a sacred level, unable to be found within the dynamic structures of either family or society.
The physical identity within religion takes two distinct forms. The first form is more consistent with the social paradigms relative to that particular religion. This phenomenon can easily be seen when comparing the roles which gender plays within a particular religion to those of the society in which that particular religion is found. For example, the role of women within the theocracy of Judaism is virtually non-existent. This is easily seen to be comparable to the role of women, largely being subservient to men, within Orthodox Jewish society. Islamic society demonstrates the same similarity between the gender valuation of women in society as in religion. The simple rule of thumb is that the equality of women to men in a given society is equal to the equality of the feminine to the masculine within the godhead worshiped within the religion of that society. If, as in Judaism and Islam, and indeed many forms of Christianity, there is a completely masculine aspect to God, then the contemporary societies will grant women an inferior role to men. Whilst on the other extreme, those religions which place a higher emphasis on the worship of a feminine deity will provide an equally prominent role for women within those contemporary societies.
As in the case of a pantheon, such as that of ancient Greece or Rome, and even that of the Hindu tradition, the embodiment of women within the godhead does not necessarily afford them equality. Instead, the situation most common is that the significance of the goddesses in the pantheon reflects the significance of women in society. This is true of their function, as well as of their status. Most pantheons have a goddess of fertility, of the home, of love and sensuality, and even of wisdom and the arts. These goddesses reflect the functions with which the women of that particular society are associated. The status of women is represented by the relationships between the gods and goddesses of the pantheon. Even though the pantheons of the world afford women the same recognition as men, it is almost without exception that the chief deity of these pantheons is always a male divinity. Zeus/ Jupiter is perhaps the best known example of this in western society. Thus, even though the role and significance of women is recognized within the religious framework of the godhead, the status of women is usually still just a little less than that of men. Whether or not it was religion which influenced society, or rather society which influenced religion, it is impossible to say. It is like the age old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. And just as with the question of the chicken and the egg, so too this is a question which points to a symbiotic relationship. For the structures of society and religion are inseparable, each influencing the other, each vital for the perpetuation of the other. Just as the chicken cannot exist except for the egg, so too it could be argued that society cannot exist except for religion, and visa-verse.
Gender, however, is not the only focus of the physical identity within religion. Indeed, race plays a very important role as well. An example of this phenomenon can best be found in a religion of worldwide scope. Christianity is perhaps the best example, as it has an art heritage of an almost unparalleled level of cultural diversity. If one studies the paintings and frescoes of the world’s churches, one sees that the portrayal of such figures as Christ himself has a vast range of forms. Indeed, there are as many different faces of Christ as there are people whom those faces look upon. Needless to say, each face closely resembles the faces of those by whom it is seen. It is intended to remind the people that they are indeed created in God’s image, even down to the very last details of skin tone and hair color. While this can have a positive impact on the relationship between God and man, it can also have a catastrophic impact on how one society views another. What more powerful a tool can a society have than a picture of God which looks like the members of that society? Clearly, since their race is in God’s image, it must be superior to all other races. And this is where the animosity and violence between cultures and races begins. This is where the justification of cruelty and barbarism is born. Since the other races aren’t in God’s image, then they are worth less, or even worse, worthless altogether. This is also where the justification for one gender dominating another is conceived, albeit ill conceived. But that is usually a case where society abuses religion for its own designs, and thus, it should not necessarily be assumed to be the fault of religion itself. In fact it is usually these same abuses which undermine the very stability of the society who commit them.
The second aspect of the physical identity within religion is completely unique to the philosophical framework of religion itself – for this aspect is not interested in the details of gender or race, but rather it is interested in a completely different outlook on the physical being. This outlook is comparative in nature, and it serves to compare the physical reality of life to a more ethereal aspect of reality, that most commonly referred to as the spiritual reality of life. In this way, the value system which religion places on physical identity is not based on function and appearance, but rather it is based on a more fundamental value of physical reality as a whole. Whilst this valuation system is fairly consistent throughout all religions, the actual value placed on the physical identity is anything but consistent. Indeed, it is the proverbial case where one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.
Christianity is perhaps the best example for a religion which places a very low value on the physical identity. Within the codes of conduct found in the Bible, sins such as gluttony, lust and drunkenness are often referred to as sins of the flesh. In such a context it is as though our bodies themselves are responsible for generating these sins. In fact it was not uncommon for certain forms of Christianity to promote the idea of treating the body as the arena in which the devil himself tempts us to lose sight of our spiritual path to salvation in favor of a path of sin which leads to destruction. It is in this light that those who gave their lives to the service of God and church, such as priests, monks and nuns, had to swear off of such things as marriage and sex, and deprive their bodies of such foods and luxuries as might interfere with their calling. This inability to reconcile the body with the soul has led to a brutal sense of inner conflict within countless persons throughout the history of Christianity and other such religions which maintain that the body is a liability rather than something of immeasurable value. Still, it must be remembered that the intention behind this devaluation of the physical body is always for the spiritual benefit of the individual.
The proof which religions use for the devaluation of the physical form is the mortality of the flesh. Sickness and death are only possible because the body is inferior to the soul. While the spirit of a person lives forever, their body will die and be buried to rot in the ground. In fact, many traditions view death as the liberation of the soul. Thus death is not to be mourned, but rather it is to be looked upon as an end to being bound to an imperfect physical world. Quite literally it is the act of being released from an earthly, physical prison. The physical identity, therefore, is seen as the most imperfect aspect of humanity. And the sooner that a person removes themselves from every aspect of the physical identity is the sooner they can reach a more perfect level of existence.
Needless to say, while many religions have upheld the doctrine that the physical identity of an individual is inferior to the soul, there are other religions which take a very different approach. In the eyes of these religions the physical form was natural, thus it was sacred. As such, the physical identity was given the highest sense of value. The sculptures of the gods of Greece and Rome are a testament to the idea that the body was a marvel of nature and not a prison for the soul. These statues were almost always in nude form, showing the ideals of feminine sensuality and masculine strength. They were portrayals of physical perfection- a notion not even imaginable to the traditions which sought to devalue the physical form. Simply put, such traditions which celebrated the human body were seen as the antithesis of the traditions which placed spiritual life as supreme. And it is true to say that those religions which celebrated the physical form often placed little to no emphasis on the spiritual side of man. For them, life was physical reality. For them, what you see is what you get.
The next form of identity to consider within religion is conditional identity. Whilst the conditional identities within family and society were largely one dimensional, family being mostly predetermined and based on form, as opposed to society, which was largely self determined and based on function, religion provides a more multidimensional context for the conditional identity, being based on both form and function, being both predetermined and self determined. Thus religion merges the values of family and society, granting a more comprehensive form of conditional identity. Furthermore it grants this identity to both the individual and to society as a whole.
The aspect of conditional identity which is based on form is more or less a continuation of the physical identity. Whatever value a particular religion places on the physical form is the same value that it places on the conditional identity of all physical life. If, for example, the physical form is seen as imperfect, or as a consequence of sin, then the conditional identity of all living things is simply defined as imperfect and sinful. Since all living things are born into a sinful world, then all things born are of a sinful nature. No aspect of the individual can exclude them from this all encompassing valuation. Since it is based on the most fundamental level of form, then the valuation is inescapable and unchangeable by all living beings. That said, the same is true of the other end of the spectrum. Those religions which place a more sacred sense of value upon the physical identity also grant a more sacred sense of value upon the conditional identity. If, for example, physical life is seen as a miracle, then the conditional identity of all living things is that of a miracle. All things, large or small, beautiful or ugly, share the conditional identity of being a part of something wonderful and sacred. This more positive conditional identity is just as predetermined, just as inescapable, as its more negative counterpart.
In contrast to the aspect of conditional identity based on form is the aspect of conditional identity based on function. Unlike function within the social context – namely the profession of an individual, this function is of a more fundamental nature. Function within religion is based on the everyday actions of the individual. These everyday actions fall into one of two categories – right or wrong. Now, whether a person uses the terms right and wrong, or whether they use alternate terms such as good and bad, righteous and sinful, the meaning remains quite the same. A persons actions are either acceptable to the values of a particular religion, or they are not. This is one occasion where the valuation of an individual is based on a dichotomy, an all or nothing value system. Right is right, wrong is wrong. It’s a case of black and white with no grey in between.
Despite the simplicity of this valuation, the significance of it is quite profound. It underscores an equation which has been used throughout history to explain the human plight in the simplest of terms. This equation, simply put, is – a person who is pleasing to God = a person who is blessed by God. A person who is displeasing to God = a person who is not blessed by God. Thus, whenever a society experienced times of great fortune, clearly the people and their leader were good in God’s sight. However, when a society experienced times of hardship and suffering, then the people and their leader must necessarily be sinful in God’s sight. In this light people fell into one of two categories- part of the problem, or part of the solution. It was in the effort to always be pleasing in God’s sight that the earliest of societies established law codes. Most of these societies stated that not only were these codes divinely inspired, but that they were actually written by the gods themselves. From the Sumerian laws given to man by the Anunnaki, to the Ten Commandments of the Israelites, written by Yahweh and given to Moses, these laws were the voice of heaven. To follow these laws was to follow God himself. And thus it is that the conditional identity of man within religion determines whether an individual is favored by God, or is seen as an abomination by God, simply by comparing the actions of that individual against the dictates of Heaven, or at the very least, our interpretation of them.
This leads us to the third and final form of identity to consider – the potential identity. Within religion, the potential identity shares the same characteristics as the conditional identity – namely of being both abstract and dichotomous in nature. Unlike the potential identities of family and society, the potential identity of religion is not concerned with an individual’s future within this life. Rather, it is concerned with an individual’s future after this life, in what most traditions term the afterlife. Herein lies the abstract nature of the potential identity. The dichotomy lies in the conditions of the afterlife itself. Almost all traditions regarding the afterlife can be divided into two categories-those which believe in reincarnation, and those which do not. For those which believe in reincarnation, the soul can find itself reborn at a higher level than this life, or at a lower level, depending on the actions of the individual within this life. For those which do not believe in reincarnation, the soul is destined to one of two locations – heaven or hell, also largely determined by the actions of the individual within this life. The argument between heaven and reincarnation, however, is of little significance to the potential identity. The concept of being rewarded or punished in the afterlife, based on the conditional identity of an individual, is what is truly important. And this concept is one of the most fundamental of traditions which is held universally throughout religion as a whole. It is here where we find the dichotomous nature of the potential identity. The soul is either good or bad. It either goes to heaven or to hell, or it is reborn higher or lower in the next life. In the end, the potential identity of religion states simply that the conditional identity of an individual, namely whether that individual is good or bad, is solely and directly responsible for the condition of the individual’s afterlife. Rather than a circle drawn around the conditional identity, as was done to determine the potential identity in society, an arrow up or down can be drawn from the conditional identity to determine an individual’s potential identity within the context of religion.
The Three Walled Cell
The three dynamic structures of family, society and religion form the established dynamic environment into which all humanity is born – the dynamic Garden of Eden. This garden, by its dynamic nature, is ever growing and changing. The Eden which we are born into is the result of the actions of every generation of humanity preceding our own. Just as we inherit the consequences of their actions, so too will all future generations inherit the consequences of our actions. We are, after all, not just the inhabitants of this dynamic environment; we are also its custodians. Thus, if our generation sows the seeds of war, then all future generations will reap the harvest of those seeds. If, instead, we sow seeds of peace and prosperity, then those are the fruits which will feed the future of humanity.
But enough of the big picture… the real question is, what does it all mean to the individual? How does this dynamic environment affect the life of a single human being? The analogy of the Garden of Eden works best for describing the dynamic environment within the context of humanity as a whole. Within the context of the individual, however, the dynamic environment takes a different shape – that of a three walled chamber. Each individual is essentially born into a three walled room, or chamber. Each of these walls represents one of the three dynamic structures – family, society and religion. The fourth side is open. Herein lies the purpose of life – the building of the fourth wall.
As children we are all-curious, all-questioning, and all-adventurous. We look not at the three walls that surround us, but rather we look at the open side. We continually ask, “What’s out there?” We continually wander toward the opening to explore what lies beyond. But we are continually told to stop asking questions and to not wander off. From the earliest age we are taught less of the wonders of life, and more of life’s dangers. The devil, the boogeyman, monsters and the like lurk outside our unfinished room. Death and sorrow await any who would dare to venture out. The only safe place is inside our strange little room.
And so it is, since we cannot go out and see what lies outside we settle for looking out the windows in the walls of our chamber. Each wall has a window which shows a different aspect to the outside world. When you look at the window of family you see the dangers of being alone, outcast from those you love. You see the pain and suffering of those you let down, those who you disobey. It is like a jungle outside, and the only way to survive is to stick together- to remain with the pack. The window of society shows a similar view of doom and danger. Society is, after all, our big family. Stepping outside of social customs and traditions is to leave the safety of your chamber and face the bleak wilderness of life alone. And last but not least is the window of religion. This gives the most terrifying view of death and destruction, fear and turmoil, and worst of all, eternal damnation and suffering. To ignore the teachings of religion is to walk into the arms of the devil himself. To leave the three walled room is to jump headfirst into the very depths of hell. If being away from family wasn’t scary enough, if being outcast from society wasn’t terrible enough, then certainly to be cast away from God himself must certainly be enough to keep you from wandering out of your little abode.
Thus begins the next phase of life. As children we are warned not to venture out into the terrible world which lies outside our dynamic chamber. But as we grow up we become faced with the threat of the dangers of the outside world coming into our little room. The love and guidance of family kept us safe in our innocence. But now the responsibility to defend ourselves becomes ours and ours alone. And so we begin the process of constructing the fourth wall, that which will keep that which is outside out, and that which is inside in. But how does one build this wall? Where are the tools and materials needed for such a project? Simply put, the materials are found within the existing walls, and the only tool needed is our mind.
When we look at the windows within the three walls we see the dangers from which those walls protect us. The walls themselves, however, are constructed from the dogmas and traditions of each of the three dynamic structures. When we see the monsters we want to hide from, we look to the instruction of family, society and religion. To protect ourselves from eternal damnation we look to faith in God. Once we find that faith, whether it be of one tradition or another, it becomes the material from which our fourth wall is constructed. Brick by brick, concept by concept, we build the wall to make us truly safe. But herein lies the biggest challenge – not all bricks are of the same size and shape. Not all stones fit together. This is because not all traditions are the same and not all beliefs fit together. Life is complex. Your faith in God may not be the same as that of your family. Your political views may be opposite to those of the ones you love. Your religion may be scorned by the society you live in. Your profession may contradict your faith. Suddenly this critical task of building the fourth wall to make you safe and warm seems all but impossible. Thus, while the construction of the fourth wall might be the purpose of life, it is the challenge inherent to the task which is the struggle of life.
So, what does one do? Stones that don’t fit together won’t build a wall that will stand. The real trick is to try to keep like stones with like. Don’t talk politics with someone who is opposed to your way of thinking. Don’t talk religion with those who you will scare or anger with your beliefs. Make the stones fit where they will. That is the great juggling act of day to day life. Trying to make everyone happy is the struggle shared by all who live within this dynamic chamber. Where stones won’t fit together at all you need to use mortar. This comes in the forms of tact, tolerance, and all too often, little white lies. The tricks of the trade, as it were, are those things which enable you to pull off the impossible. They allow you to make everyone happy, or at least happy enough. They enable you to avoid conflict, or at the very least, to keep conflict from getting out of hand. These tricks allow the relatively peaceful co-existence of opposite minded persons. They help to establish some level of peace and harmony. They help to make stones fit together when they naturally would not. They help to keep the wall intact.
At the end of the day all anyone can hope for is to successfully complete their fourth wall. This is the wall built of all the ideals and beliefs to which that particular individual subscribes. It is the political beliefs, the religious beliefs, the morals and values of the individual. It is their job, their pursuits, and their goals. It is all the lessons learned both the easy and the hard way. It is the culmination of education and experience. It is the dynamic character of a person within the domestic context. In short, this fourth wall is the individual’s domestic identity. It is the very definition of an individual within the dynamic contexts of family, society and religion. Complete with mortar, a few holes, and a few jagged edges, this wall is what completes the dynamic abode of an individual in this dynamic Garden of Eden. The only remaining question to ask is, has the individual completed the construction of a fortress – a safe haven to protect them from the perils of life? Or has the individual successfully completed the construction of a prison for the soul – a chamber to keep the individual from experiencing a true, free life? Is it a three walled abode we are born into, or is it a three walled cell?
Primal Identity
When we look around at the world we live in what do we see? On the one hand we see nature – animals, insects, mountains, forests, oceans, deserts and everything else that constitutes the natural world. On the other hand we see humanity – houses, highways, cars, planes, cities, computers, shopping malls, and everything else that constitutes the non-natural world. The more you look is the more you realize that this world is largely dominated by humans. In fact, any environment not completely run by, shaped by and populated by humans is either considered hostile or it is a nature preserve protected from human incursion and development. So, in short, we see a seemingly dualistic world consisting of nature and man.
When we observe nature we discover a polarity. On the one end there is the aspect of nature personified as Mother Nature. This aspect focuses on the creative/nurturing aspect of nature, that which is responsible for the miracle of life itself. On the other end we see nature as a more ferocious entity, focusing on storms, earthquakes, floods and other such usually destructive phenomena. These destructive elements embody the deadly face of nature. No matter which aspect of nature a person focuses upon, however, it is generally agreed that nature is in fact primal, simple, even savage in essence. Certainly it is less intelligent, less predictable and less important that its dualistic counterpart – man.
Like nature, mankind also possesses a polarity of character. Some see mankind as a creative, intelligent, compassionate and morally supreme species. This is the “in God’s image” view which focuses on man’s greatness and achievements. These include basic achievements, such as cultivation of crops, domestication of livestock, construction of buildings and, perhaps most notably, language – both written and spoken. But they also include more advanced achievements of man, such as science, medicine, technology and education. Others, however, see man as a destructive species. This view focuses on crime, violence, oppression, greed, and greatest of all, war. Yet regardless of whether man is seen as creative or destructive he is always seen as intelligent. Indeed, whether you examine the wondrous cures which man has discovered to fight disease, and thus promote life, or you examine the horrific weapons which man has invented to destroy that very same life, it is impossible to ignore the height of intellectual ability and achievement needed to accomplish both.
Whether one views nature as creative or destructive, or mankind as creative or destructive, there can be no mistaking the one for the other. The distinction between man and nature is as clear as the distinction between night and day. But what is the origin of this distinction? What in particular is responsible for the man/nature dichotomy of this world in which we live?
From Monkey To Man.
Whether or not one believes in Darwin’s theory of evolution, the physical transformation from monkey to man, one can clearly see the intellectual evolution that has taken place within humanity. In fact, the history of humanity is divided into ages which typify the distinct phases of this evolutionary process. From the Stone Age through to the space age, mankind defines the era in which he lives by the technological achievements which bear testament to this very evolution of the mind.
For thousands of years the pace at which this evolution occurred was fairly slow and steady. In modern times, however, the pace of this intellectual evolution has increased at an astonishing rate. Whereas at one time hundreds or even thousands of years would elapse between one breakthrough and the next, that gap has become increasingly smaller. Now every decade sees technological breakthroughs that make all previous achievements seem antiquated and obsolete. It can even be argued that the average person of a hundred years ago would have more in common with the average person of a thousand years ago than they would with the average person of today. And if that were not enough to show just how far man has progressed, then simply compare the present day technological societies with the societies of the indigenous tribes of the Amazon or the Pacific islands. These examples of human society virtually frozen in the Stone Age amidst the technological societies of the modern day give the best measure of just how far man has developed intellectually.
Just as the average person of a hundred years ago has more in common with the average person of a thousand years ago than of today, so too, it could be said that the average person of the indigenous tribes of the Amazon or Pacific have more in common with nature than they do with modern man. Here is the true measure of the man/nature dichotomy of the world we live in today. All of the things which separate us from primitive man – automobiles, the internet, space travel, and the infinite list of objects and events that we take for granted in our day to day lives, these are the very same things which separate mankind from nature itself. Thus the cause of the visible, tangible rift between man and nature is none other than the human intellect.
The rift between man and nature is more than the tangible differences alone. It is more than just cars, computers and cell phones. There is a dynamic dimension to it as well. The domestic identity of man is the antithesis of the untamed, primal identity of nature. However, that is not to say that the dynamic structures of the domestic identity, namely, family, society and religion, are not to be found within nature. It is just to suggest that they are not all to be found within nature. And it is this difference, the difference between domestic and primal identity that is responsible for the dynamic rift between man and nature.
Of the three dynamic structures of the domestic identity, family is the one which is most obviously shared by man and nature. Family, after all, is the means by which nature, like man, perpetuates life. Family is necessary for the creation of life itself. Without both the male and female participants, procreation could not take place. Regardless of the aftermath of procreation – whether the family unit remains intact or not, it still has to exist at least for that single moment of conception for the creation of life to occur. In most cases within nature the family unit does in fact remain intact. This is significant for the other purpose of family within nature – the nurturing of life.
Needless to say, making a baby is just the beginning of the perpetuation of life. If the baby is just left to fend for itself then it will stand no chance of survival. Instead the family unit is needed to sustain the life of a newborn by providing it at first with the fundamentals of food and shelter and later with the lessons it will need in order to survive once its time for independence has come. Whether the lessons are for hunting, swimming or flying, it is up to the parental units of a newborn to provide those lessons. Humanity is the only species that relies on schools rather than family to provide education for the young. So the dynamic structure of family is clearly not one which separates man from nature, but rather, it serves to draw a distinct similarity between the two.
So if family is found within both man and nature, what of society? Surely the social achievements of mankind separate humanity from the rest of nature. After all, one will not find schools within nature, as in human society. Yet education is a fundamental part of society. Nor are sports, politics or industry to be found within nature. Yet these are all elements of the social construct of humanity. However, these are all details of the dynamic structure of society. They are not the dynamic structure itself. The dynamic essence of society is for families to come together in order to form larger communities, usually for the sake of survival.
Society, by definition, is essentially one large family – a macro-cosmic family as it were. This is very much to be found within nature as well. Whether it is a pack of dogs, a herd of sheep, a troop of monkeys, or a flock of geese, social groups made up of several family units are to be found all throughout nature. Like society within humanity, these social groups serve to maintain life. Groups that contain large numbers often provide better protection against predators who would otherwise act unopposed against smaller groups. From the predatory perspective a group of animals working together will have a better chance of a successful hunt than any one individual would have acting alone. Colonies of ants serve to build and maintain the nest in which the colony lives, a feat which could not be accomplished by any single ant. In fact, these social groups tend to be quite necessary for the very survival of the species. In nature it is true that the smaller the numbers of a group, the smaller the chances of survival. Only through the combined efforts of a large group can the functions necessary for survival be more easily achieved.
The functions of society in nature reflect the fundamental functions of society within humanity quite well. A community can produce far more food on a communal farm for each member than any one individual could produce for themselves. So too, construction of houses and defense against enemies are all much more easily achieved when done in large numbers than by small numbers or through individual endeavor. Hospitals would not be possible were it not for society, and thus, the chances of an individual surviving trauma or disease would be virtually nonexistent outside the social context. It can be argued that, like nature, mankind has a much better chance of survival when large numbers unite rather than when individuals struggle on their own.
The dynamic structure of society, like the dynamic structure of family, serves to draw a similarity between nature and humanity rather than revealing the difference that is the cause for the dynamic rift between man and nature. The last hope of finding this dynamic difference between mankind and nature then rests in the last dynamic structure to consider – religion.
Religion, like society, serves to maintain life. In fact, in many cases the line between social and religious functions becomes quite blurred. However, whilst society tries to maintain life through the medium of labor, offering services in exchange for money earned, religion offers the basic necessities of life free of charge. Charity is the prime example of this effort. Since there is no profit to be made, this is truly a labor of love. Any person involved in such endeavors will point to the love that God has for man as the purpose behind such labor. The question is, can any such labor of love be found within nature? The answer, for the most part, is most certainly no. There are examples of animals ‘adopting’ orphan infants, even of other species, but these examples are the exception to the rule rather than the rule itself. For the most part, nature is a most uncharitable place to be. The human capacity for a labor of love can be attributed to a single quality – compassion. Thus, while nature may not be completely bereft of compassion, it would seem that the level of compassion found within humanity outweighs any level of compassion found in nature as a whole. This, then, is our first example of a distinct dynamic difference between nature and man.
The second way in which religion serves to maintain life is through the establishment of order. Today we associate laws with society. After all, the last vestige of religion to be found within a courtroom is the swearing to tell the truth, so help you God. Yet it is religion which is responsible for the establishment of the law codes from which our modern day legal systems have developed. The most obvious example of these law codes is that of the Ten Commandments. Given to man by God himself, they are the very foundation for legislation within western society today. However, law codes have been discovered which predate that of the Ten Commandments. But even these were attributed to divine authorship or influence, albeit not the same as that of the Ten Commandments. Whether it was one god or many, tradition holds that the authors of the law codes were divine and not merely human. Thus, the origin of law and legal systems can be found not in society, but in religion.
This stands in stark contrast to the legal system of nature. Simply put, nature follows the single law of active life – causality. Cause and effect is the single code of conduct found within the untamed regions of this planet. Nowhere in nature is there an example of deliberations over what is considered to be acceptable behavior and what is not. Nowhere in nature is an animal incarcerated for any wrongdoing. Nowhere in nature does one animal have the power to tell another animal what it can or cannot do. It all comes down to cause and effect. Do as you will, and see where it gets you – no lawyers, no police, no jails, no dos and don’ts. Simply live and let live.
So herein lies yet another, quiet profound difference between nature and man. Whilst nature has but one law, mankind has many. How and why would that necessarily be? Why doesn’t nature have legal systems like that of man? Simply put, it comes down to the notion of right and wrong. Humanity is the only species which has the capacity for ethics. Ethics, after all, could be considered the byproduct of both a highly developed intellect and a highly developed sense of compassion. After all, laws are intended to make things fair – and were it not for compassion, then there would be no need for such measures. Thus, intellect and compassion not only facilitate the complex legal systems of humanity, but they also create the need for such systems. The desire for fairness and justice is very much a part of human nature.
So far religion has been examined primarily from the aspect of mankind itself. But what would religion be without a divine entity at its center? Places of worship, divine texts, and sacred traditions permeate all of human society, from one end of the world to the other, from time immemorial right up to the present day. But what function do these things serve? What is the purpose of the religious traditions practiced by countless numbers of men, women and children since the earliest origins of our species? That question cannot have a single definitive answer. For each person has their own reason for the religious practice that they observe. Yet there is one common thread to be found within those reasons – identity. The observance of a divine entity serves to place mankind in context within the grand scheme of things. In an attempt to understand who we are and why we are here, a person will often turn to religion. It is in religion that we are taught that we are created by God, created in God’s image and that we go back to God after we die. Needless to say, these answers vary based on which tradition a person turns to. But in the end, it is the answers to these questions of identity and purpose that are sought and found within religion itself.
Not only are divine texts, sacred sites and religious traditions not to be found within nature, but neither are the reasons for their existence. In the end, regardless of which one believes came first, God or the question “why am I here?”, the one serves to fulfill the other. If one believes that God exists then God must be as real to nature as he is to man. Yet nature does not worship or study God. The reason for this, simply put, comes right back to intellect. Humanity alone possesses the level of intellect which allows us to not only say “I am”, but also to pose the question, “who am I?”. It is this lack of heightened intellect which makes religion quiet unnecessary within the realm of primal nature. Once again intellect serves to sever the ties between man and nature.
While we can create an almost infinite list of differences between man and nature on the level of specifics and details, these differences can be summed up in two qualities – compassion and intellect. Indeed, examples of both can be found within nature, but not to the height or regularity that they can be found within humanity. Thus, whether one believes that we are created in God’s image, inheriting the grand qualities of intellect and compassion, or that we have evolved over the course of many millions of years from mere primates to the advanced species that we are today, developing these qualities along the way, it is clear that what truly separates us from nature is the depth of intellect and compassion that we currently possess. Still, you need not look any further than the names we have given our species to see that this is indeed the truth. Of the genus Homo, which is Latin for human or person, we are the species Homo-sapiens, which is Latin for wise human or wise person. So our species is defined by intellect itself. And at the other end, that of compassion, there is the humane or inhumane treatment of a particular thing. The inhumane treatment of something is cruel and heartless, bereft of compassion, whilst the humane treatment is that which is most compassionate. Humane Homo-sapiens, then, is the measure that leads from monkey to man.
The Evolution of Religion
Religion can tell us a great deal about the people of a particular place or a particular time. One of the most significant things that we can learn from a religious tradition is the values system of its adherents. It is through religion that man expresses his sense of sacredness and his view of the divine. And just as man has undergone an evolutionary process, so too have all things connected to man. Religion is certainly no exception to this rule. Thus, as man has gone through cultural and intellectual transformation, so it is that his sense of what is sacred and divine has also gone through transformation. The sacred things of the past are discarded as mundane in the present. The gods of old have been replaced by a whole new order.
Religion has been a part of mankind’s experience since the origin of mankind itself. While the specific traditions of earliest man have been lost to time, the one thing which has remained is religious art. And, just as the axiom states, a picture is truly worth a thousand words. Just as contemporary religious art portrays what is sacred and divine in the hearts of modern man, so too the religious art of ancient man portrays what was sacred and divine in the hearts of the ancients. By examining this ancient art we can develop a strong sense of what the values of ancient man truly were.
If one looks at the artifacts of the ancient Mesoamerican cultures of the Aztecs and the Maya one begins to see a common artistic theme – nature. From the shapes of the artifacts to the decorations on them, nature is represented in all its forms. Birds, alligators, jaguars and the like are found all throughout. But to what end? On the one hand it could be argued that these works of art portray nature simply for an aesthetic value. None would argue that these items are not beautiful, and thus, that the aesthetic value isn’t of considerable significance. But on the other hand there is another, more probable argument – that there is a greater significance to the nature motifs themselves than mere surface beauty alone.
The true significance of nature to the peoples of ancient cultures, particularly those of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, can be discerned by observing the way in which the gods themselves were portrayed. Whilst the gods themselves are human in form, they are always adorned by animal motif headdresses, clothing or other symbolism. These animals are specific to the god or goddess wearing them. This phenomenon, far from being a mere fashion trend, is in fact a way to identify the god or goddess portrayed. In cultures not possessing a written language, or those with writing, but with a largely illiterate populace, this symbolic identification is critical. Without it, the pictorial stories of the gods would become vague and confusing. What was intended as a sacred, meaningful depiction would simply become a collection of pretty pictures.
One could be forgiven for imagining that this code of sorts is a brilliant invention of a specific culture or tribe. But the truth is that this symbolic language is universal. The use of animal motifs to identify gods and goddesses is not unique to Mesoamerica, but can also be found as far away as Egypt, and as far back as a thousand years before the depictions of the Maya or Aztecs. While the Egyptians went as far as putting actual animal heads on anthropomorphic bodies, as opposed to the use of headdresses and clothing by the Mesoamerican traditions, the nature of the phenomenon is undoubtedly one and the same. These animal motifs were a way of identifying specific deities to populations who either had no written language or who were simply largely illiterate.
But why use animal motifs to identify the gods? And how is it that the animals used possess enough meaning to be able to give identity to the gods? Symbolism has been a way to transmit a message since the beginning of humanity. But the symbol must be easily understood by all who see it. This is where the reason for using animals to identify deities becomes very clear. Unlike most people of today, the people of ancient cultures had far fewer distractions from day to day life. Subsequently, these people spent copious amounts of time observing their environment. These observations led to specific associations between certain animals and certain aspects of life. Birds, for example, were associated with travel or wisdom. The distances that birds flew make them a good candidate for representing travel. And who would deny that birds have to be smart? They are, after all, the only animals that know how to fly. Vultures and jackals symbolized death and anything associated with death or the passage from this life to the next. This too stands to reason as it was these animals that fed off of the carcasses of animals and people alike. When a person saw vultures circling overhead, or jackals on the move, it was a given that someone or something was dead or very nearly there. Strength was seen in lions and jaguars, thus it is their image that represents strength. This symbolism was easily understood by the people of a culture well versed on the specific nature of the animals within their environment. The Egyptians, Aztecs, and Mayans are certainly examples of such cultures.
What this reveals is how the ancients perceived life. They understood that there are certain qualities and characteristics of life common throughout all of nature. Strength, for example, is an aspect of life commonly shared by all living things. The difference is the measure of strength possessed by each species. Some animals possess little apparent strength whereas others possess the quality in abundance. The result is that the animals which possess the greatest measure of strength come to represent the essence of strength itself. This carries over to all aspects of life. Wisdom, fertility, cunning, stealth, speed, and many other qualities of life become personified by the animals or elements of nature which possess the greatest measure of each specific quality. Since these qualities of life were seen as integral to life itself, they were seen as divine, since life itself was seen as divine. Thus, each species of nature represented a different facet of life. They each were a unique expression of the universe – a finite piece of the infinite puzzle. This, then, is why animal motifs were used to define the gods. Since the gods were seen as divine in nature, then they were represented by the elements of nature which were also seen as divine.
There is another similarity between the art of Mesoamerica and that of ancient Egypt, and that is the common theme of day to day life. This is especially true of ancient Egypt. All throughout the temples and tombs of the gods and the pharaohs are scene upon scene of day to day life. From hunting and fishing to making bread and beer, the day to day life of this ancient people is depicted in paintings, carvings and in miniature model form. The obsession with this theme can only indicate one thing – that these people took great joy and satisfaction from day to day life. Life itself was a gift, a sacred gift, which ought to be appreciated every single day. Within day to day life there was to be found a certain sacred fulfillment. The sacredness with which the ancients held day to day life is also reflected in the belief that the afterlife is but a reflection of this life. The same activities and daily tasks found in the here and now were expected to be found in the life beyond, a life shared with the gods themselves.
When and how did this mindset begin to change? Where are the first measurable signs of transformation from the old ways to the new ways? Perhaps it is in the depictions of the gods themselves that these signs are most evident. After all, the gods of ancient Egypt and Mesoamerica are an amalgam of natural and human form. This could very well be the transition phase from a time when nature itself was seen as embodying the essence of the divine to a time when divinity took on a more human shape. While we have a tremendous literary, artistic and archaeological record of Egypt’s rise to greatness, we have very little information on its more humble beginnings. What is commonly assumed is that the first Egyptians were semi-nomadic peoples who came to settle on the fertile banks of the Nile. These people, by all accounts, would have more closely resembled the Aborigines of Australia or the peoples of the indigenous tribes of the Amazon than they would the literate, city dwelling, pyramid building peoples of Egypt’s golden age. And their religion would have resembled the shamanic traditions of the Aborigines and Amazon tribes as well. Is it any wonder, then, that as man started to change the landscape around him and to achieve levels of intellectual greatness through language, architecture and other cultural phenomena that the gods themselves should transform from pure nature to a hybrid of nature and man? Is this not the very time that man began to establish his place in the grand scheme of things?
This quest for definition continued in the next religions to rise to dominance after that of ancient Egypt – the Hellenistic religions of ancient Greece and Rome. While natural motifs can still be found in the depictions and descriptions of the Hellenistic gods and goddesses, they are far less common and certainly far less profound than their Egyptian forbears. The form of the Greco-Roman gods and goddesses are not the nature/human hybrid form of the Egyptian pantheon, but rather they are of pure human form. And this human form goes through its own evolution. In the earlier art the forms are average and unremarkable in style. But as time progressed the forms of the gods and goddesses became idealized and perfected. These artistic marvels are achievements unto themselves, but they also portend the ongoing perfection of humanity. This is the ideal achievement. Man is to strive to match the beauty and strength of the gods and goddesses whose stone statues are ever observant of human activity.
This sense of idealism can be seen in the other subjects of Hellenistic art. Unlike Egypt, Greece and Rome did not adorn their walls with scenes of day to day life. Models weren’t made of average citizens performing average tasks. Instead, the art of Greece and Rome gives birth to the era of heroes and of heroic deeds. Now day to day life is not enough. Only great persons and great achievements are worthy of attention. This paradigm shift serves to underscore the growing rift between man and nature. While Egypt maintained a balance between man and nature, seeing divinity as blend of the two, Hellenistic society saw divinity in man. And while day to day life was seen as sacred in Egypt, it was seen as mundane in this new era, where the average person was replaced by superior persons – superior in appearance, stature and deed. This was yet one step further away from the natural and one step closer to what could only be called supernatural.
The final stage of this transformation occurs with the rise of the monotheistic religions – Judaism, Islam and Christianity. It is within these traditions that the clean break between heaven and earth finally occurs, for even though the Hellenistic gods were detached from nature, they still dwelt on Earth. Mount Olympus may have been a lofty abode, but it was still part of this landscape. Now, however, the divine presence is completely removed from this plane of existence. God no longer dwells with man, but rather he dwells in the distant, nonphysical realm of heaven. Unlike the physical realm of earth, heaven is a realm of spirit, where angels and the souls of the departed exist side by side. Physical bodies are a thing of the past, as are pain, sickness and suffering. All of these things are the imperfect attributes of an imperfect physical reality. Nature is no longer sacred, but is now part of a flawed, sin-laden existence.
Just as the nature of the divine has changed, so too has the nature of what is sacred. Now, the physical is replaced with the spiritual. Day to day life is not what is sacred, but rather it is the life beyond which is to be revered. Physical life and the day to day realities thereof are seen as the fallen, profane, corrupt aspects of existence. These are no longer to be celebrated as a sacred gift, but rather they are to be borne as a necessary evil. This physical life is simply that which leads to the afterlife, a mere stepping stone. Deeds performed in the here and now are done mainly for a reward in the hereafter. Little regard is given to the present, but rather all energies and attentions are focused on what awaits in the great beyond. This is a new era – an era of spirit rather than flesh, an era of the afterlife rather than life itself.
This evolutionary phenomenon can be most easily summed up by a neat pattern that exists between the nature of man’s technology and the nature of his religion. As long as man has tools fashioned from nature- specifically stone and wood, then his gods are of a more natural appearance and quality as well. But as tools progress from pure natural elements to elements manipulated by man – bronze, iron, steel, etc., then the face of the gods becomes increasingly less natural and increasingly more human. In other words, the less dependent man becomes of nature is the less that nature is seen as divine. And the less that nature is seen as divine is the more that man disconnects from any sense of natural identity. While man once identified with what is natural, man now identifies more with what is supernatural. Since man is in the image of a supernatural deity, then man too, must necessarily be more than natural. Indeed, man must be of a supernatural essence as well. Perhaps it is this sense of belonging to something beyond this world that has influenced our technological evolution into the space age. While the natural and semi-natural religions of the ancients were changed by technology, is it now possible that religion has finally evolved first? Could it be that our spiritual quest – to be beyond this life, to be above nature, has resulted in man’s scientific and technological quest to actually leave this planet and colonize what lies beyond? Is science and technology not trying to achieve the same goal as religion – to make man supernatural?
Hyper-Qualities
Physically speaking, nature is the epitome of diversity. From bugs to birds to beasts there are countless varieties of life, taking on all different forms, shapes, sizes and colors. One common thread found throughout this diversity is that of the five physical senses. These senses – sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell, are shared throughout nature almost without exception. But the degree to which a species possesses each of these senses is not universal. Instead, each species possesses varying levels of each physical sense. While one sense might be dull or virtually dormant in a given species, another may be far more acute and active. That certain animals possess certain physical senses in abundance is evident in familiar expressions such as “eyes like a hawk” or “bat-like hearing”. Dogs are associated with acute senses of smell and hearing, and cats with the ability to see in the darkest of conditions. These are just a few examples of how a given species has certain physical qualities in abundance. These heightened or hyper- qualities are what give each and every species a certain uniqueness, both in form as well as in function.
Hyper-qualities are not restricted to just the five physical senses. Instead, they include a broader range of attributes. Most of these attributes are physical, such as those of strength, agility and speed. But there are also non-physical attributes, such as courage, cunning, and industriousness. Again, such expressions as “heart of a lion”, “sly like a fox”, or “busy bee” exemplify the fact that this knowledge is so common that it is imbedded in our day to day vocabulary. But where does humanity fit into this paradigm? What, if any, are the hyper-qualities of man?
When we observe humanity in light of hyper-qualities we come to a very sobering realization – humanity is really quite fragile. In terms of the five physical senses humanity is quite unremarkable. We certainly don’t have eyes like a hawk, or bat-like hearing. We can’t sniff out prey like a dog, nor can we see very well in the dark. We fare little better when we expand the hyper-qualities to include the other physical attributes- agility, speed and strength. Now this is not to say that we do not possess these qualities at all, nor does it suggest that we possess them in small measure. Instead, it merely suggests that we do not possess these qualities in excess. None of these constitute our hyper-qualities. Where we find our hyper- qualities is not within the physical attributes, but rather it is within the non-physical attributes.
Intellect, like the other physical and non-physical qualities discussed, is a quality shared by most of the species within nature. Just like the other qualities, however, it is not shared in equal measure. While some species demonstrate high intellectual proficiency, such as the capacity to problem solve or the ability to use tools, others do not. Of all the species in nature, however, it is humanity which certainly demonstrates the highest intellectual proficiency. Humanity is virtually the personification of intellect – much the same way that lions are the personification of strength and courage, or leopards the personification of speed and agility. Thus, it is the intellect which can be considered one of mankind’s hyper-qualities.
When we consider our own condition – being physically unremarkable, yet intellectually second to none, we begin to understand how hyper-qualities really work. While we possess all of the physical qualities, we do not possess any of them in a very high measure. Thus, if we rely on our physical abilities alone, survival, while possible, would be a continual struggle to say the least. Where we gain an upper hand is in the possession of our hyper-quality of intellect. This intellect enables us to compensate for our lack of physical renown. Mankind has invented everything from the torch to night-vision in order to enable him to see in the dark. We have developed weapons to compensate for our being physically weaker than many other species. We sail boats in order to cross bodies of water we would otherwise not be able to cross, and fly planes in order to travel distances that would otherwise be out of the question. In the end, all of the achievements which have come from the human intellect – from technology to language, from literature to religion, have all been designed to achieve one goal – to ensure that the human species not only survives, but that it thrives. This is the very essence of the hyper-quality. It is that which enables a species to not only survive, but to thrive.
Intellect, however, is not the only hyper-quality which humanity possesses. There is, in fact, a second quality inherent in mankind. This second hyper-quality is compassion. Like many of the hyper-qualities in nature, compassion is evident as a human hyper-quality through common expression. Whenever someone acts with a sense of compassion their actions are qualified as being “humane”. From the Humane Society, to the humane treatment of prisoners of war, all actions which are seen as benevolent and gentle are considered a true reflection of the human spirit. While it may seem a bit strange to suggest that compassion is a human hyper-quality in light of the war, violence and destruction that humanity is responsible for, it is in the midst of these very horrors that the compassionate nature of humanity is perhaps most evident. All too often war is justified by the promise that it will bring peace. Public support for such an inhumane act as war is only achieved by promising the humane condition of peace. In addition, those responsible for instigating war are often accused of “crimes against humanity”. Thus, even though humanity is capable of such atrocities, it maintains a constant effort of disassociating itself from them. War, violence and the like are always considered the darker side of human potential. They are always seen as the downfall of humanity whilst charity and the pursuit of peace are celebrated as the pinnacle of the human spirit. In the end, no matter how destructive humanity can be, being destructive is never considered being truly human.
What purpose does compassion serve? Why is it a hyper-quality of mankind? And why would mankind have two hyper-qualities which seem to be at odds with each other? Perhaps it is within this apparent conflict of interests that the true purpose for compassion can be found. The compassionate nature of humanity comes to surface in the darkest of times. Whether through natural disaster, or disaster caused by the very hand of man, humanity rises to bring comfort and aid to the suffering. Activist groups rise up to fight the abuses of human progress, whilst protest movements march against war and the violation of human rights. The compassionate nature of mankind, therefore, always seems to keep humanity in check. When the human intellect takes a turn for the worse – waging war, destroying the environment, or causing human suffering, it is the compassion of humanity that seeks to restore a sense of equilibrium. When humanity loses its way it is compassion that sets it back on course. But this corrective aspect of compassion within humanity isn’t necessarily its truest function. Instead, compassion can be used proactively- to create rather than correct, to guide rather than restore.
Whenever mankind is facing its darkest moment, it is invariably the result of the human intellect running amok. Whether it is through the creation of weapons, whose sole purpose is to destroy life, or whether it is through the very use of those weapons, mankind has the tendency to use its head without also using its heart. If compassion were used to temper the intellect, rather than to merely restore balance to it, how different would the human condition be? An intellect guided by compassion would avoid war, environmental abuse, and human injustice. Rather than having to clean up the mess of an unbridled intellect, humanity could enjoy the benefits of a more benevolent technology- focused on the protection of life and the environment, and not on their destruction. War would be waged against hunger, not against persons of a different race, nationality, or opinion. The environment would be nurtured, not exploited. All in all, the actions of humanity would be more carefully thought out, more conscientious, more heartfelt. Only when action is taken with the heart as well as with the head will humanity be able to really and truly thrive. Only when intellect and compassion are used in harmony- to compliment rather than to compete, will mankind be able to realize its full potential.
From Man Back to Monkey Again.
Through its cultural and religious evolution, humanity has been transformed into a species unlike any other. But how deep does this transformation go? Is it a transformation of appearance only, or does it affect humanity on a deeper, more fundamental level? Has humanity achieved a status superior to nature, or has it merely created the illusion of such a status? Just how different is man from beast?
On a fundamental level, the main thing that separates mankind from nature is technology. It is easy to understand why so many believe that mankind is superior to any other species on this planet. What other animal can claim to have achieved the things that mankind has achieved? What other species can boast the scientific breakthroughs that humanity can lay claim to? Simply put – none. But is this enough to truly separate man from beast? In the end, all of human science and technology is nothing more than a byproduct of the human intellect – one of the two hyper-qualities possessed by mankind. Hyper-qualities are certainly not unique to humanity – it is only the particular hyper-qualities of intellect and compassion that are unique to humanity. Thus, to say mankind is different from nature because of intellect would be like saying that dogs are different from nature because of their hyper-quality of smell, or bears for their hyper-quality of strength. Just because the hyper-intellect of mankind produces tangible, lasting results, unlike the hyper-qualities of smell or strength, it is essentially no different from the other hyper-qualities found in nature.
The best way to demonstrate the natural aspect of humanity’s hyper-intellect is to examine the purpose behind some of its greatest achievements. One area where humanity has had the most significant and profound of achievements is in the medical field. Through developments in surgery and medicine man has been able to extend the life expectancy of an individual by years or even decades. What was once lethal is now treatable. Artificial limbs and organ transplants can keep a person alive and active today while there would have been no such possibility just a few decades ago. Even the process of artificial insemination provides opportunities for procreation where no hope once existed. But to what end? For all the strides that mankind has taken in the name of science and technology within the medical field the purpose for such strides is no different from the purpose underlying all activity within nature- survival.
Another area of remarkable achievement is that of nutrition. Now instead of having to eat specific foods for the vitamins and nutrients they contain we can rely on vitamins and energy drinks. What was once hunted and foraged for is now in powder form, just add water. In fact, food itself may be a necessity of the past if science and technology continue down the path which has brought us this far. But again, to what end? Survival – to feed the human body the nutrients that it simply cannot survive without. Simply altering the form that our nutritional input takes does not alter the need for such nutrition in the first place. Whether we take vitamins or eat fruits and vegetables, the dynamic remains the same. Thus, while intellect may seem so vastly unnatural, it is in fact nothing more or less than an inherent tool for survival – just as the hyper-qualities of every other species.
Another thing to consider is how much the human intellect relies on nature. Mankind could create nothing without the raw materials provided by nature. In fact, with this in mind one could question whether mankind actually creates anything at all. The very vitamins that we take, replacing the need to have a well balanced diet just to stay alive, are they not simply the byproduct of natural ingredients? All the powders and shakes essentially start as natural elements of one form or another. Every man-made fabric, tool, building or contraption is nothing more than the working of natural materials into a finished product. Thus, it is less a case of man actually creating something, and more a case of man transforming things from one form to another. It is manipulation rather than creation. Whilst the product itself may be created in an intellectual sense, it is manipulated in the physical sense. Thus, the physical aspect of all of human technology is nothing more than nature reworked.
Since technology seems to connect rather than separate mankind from nature, what of the daily hustle and bustle of humanity within that technological environment? In comparison to nature, the daily life of mankind seems highly complex and sophisticated. Surely day to day life in such a technologically advanced species as man should have a higher purpose than day to day life in nature. What is the purpose of our daily efforts? What function does humanity serve in its day to day activities? And what differences, if any, are there between the functions served within the day to day life of mankind to those served within the day to day life of nature?
Nature, whilst being arguably complex, can never be considered complicated. Instead, nature is quite simple in a fundamental sense. This is especially true in terms of function within nature. For despite the multitude of shapes and sizes of life found within nature there are only two fundamental functions which all nature strives to achieve – survival as an individual, and survival as a species. This simplicity of function is in direct proportion to the simplicity of activity observed within nature. For the purpose of self survival an animal will find food and shelter. For the purpose of species survival an animal will find a mate and have offspring. Almost every action and interaction performed within nature is directly connected to these four principal actions. Thus, it can be said that virtually every action within nature can be seen as the fulfilling of the two fundamental functions of self survival and survival of the species.
So how different is function within humanity? Unlike nature, activity as observed within the context of humanity is anything but simple. There are virtually countless forms of activity performed within human society each and every day. But to what end? What functions lie beneath this complex web of activity? Perhaps the biggest common denominator within all human activity is that of work. Based on an average of 8 hours of sleep a day, and an average of a 40 hour work week, the average person spends 38% of their waking, conscious life at work. Thus, it can be deduced that a good 38% or more of a person’s activities are work related. The question then is what is the main reason for a person to have a job in the first place? The obvious and simple answer to that is, of course, the paycheck. The paycheck is what enables a person to afford the basic necessities of life, namely, food, shelter, and such things as clothing, electricity, etc. In short, 38% (give or take) of a person’s activities, no matter how complex and varied those activities may be, serve to fulfill the functions of self survival, and in the case of people with a family – survival of the species.
So what activities occupy the other 62% of conscious, waking life? One of the most popular of non – work activities is shopping. Shopping for the necessities, such as food, medicine, and other such items, falls under the two functions of survival. These are necessary actions to ensure self survival and survival of the species, as in the case of families. But what of the copious amounts of shopping which is somewhat less than necessary? This can be explained one of two ways. First, there is shopping that feathers the nest, so to speak. It is a natural impulse to want to make one’s habitation as comfortable as possible. Whether it is a sense of security, or whether it is just the fulfilling of the hunter gatherer instinct, it is a primal drive that underlies the endless need to shop, even for those things that one could literally live without.
The second reason people shop for non-necessities is that of entertainment. While entertainment may at first glance seem quite unnatural, it may perhaps be far more natural than most people realize. After all, what is the most common reason for the very need to be entertained? To get away from the daily grind. Entertainment gives us an escape from the day to day activities which we perform in order to fulfill the obligatory functions of self survival and survival of the species. Nature is not without its own forms of escape. If one observes nature for any given time one cannot help but see that, within nature, the majority of any given day is spent in somewhat idle activity. From lounging around in the sun, to bathing and grooming perhaps somewhat more than would be absolutely necessary, creatures spend a fair amount of time relaxing from the rigors of survival. In addition, many species can actually be seen playing. While this is most common in animals of a younger age, it is still not altogether uncommon to see adult animals engaging in playful activity. This seemingly unnecessary function of entertainment is really anything but unnecessary. To enjoy life has to be the most critical element of being alive. After all, if it wasn’t at least somewhat enjoyable to be alive, then what incentive would there be to struggle and strive just to ensure that life goes on?
In the end, the complexity of human activity is no reflection of the simplicity of the functions which that activity serves to accomplish. Humanity spends its time very much like the rest of nature – fulfilling the two basic functions of survival, and taking some time to appreciate simply being alive. What this complexity does reflect is the heightened intellect which humanity possesses. This heightened intellect, however, has only affected the way in which we achieve the functions of life; it has not affected the actual functions themselves. Thus, humanity is fundamentally no different from nature in terms of function.
The final aspect of humanity which has any chance of separating man from beast is that of form itself. Unfortunately, form is perhaps the aspect which most blatantly reveals mankind’s primal identity. Every part of human physiology is virtually synonymous with every other species in nature. From the five physical senses to the very necessity of eating and drinking, the physicality of man is no different from that of any other animal. Whether a person believes in evolution, creation, or any other doctrine which explains man’s existence, the simple fact of the matter is that humanity is a particular species of primate – namely, homo-sapien. Walking upright with two arms, two legs, two eyes, two ears, and all the other features which make us barely distinguishable from other primates, it’s no wonder that the theory of evolution was able to take shape. Take away a person’s house, car, gadgets and clothes and you are left with a physical creature which was born like any other creature, which has the same survival needs as any other creature, and which will eventually die like any other creature.
For all of our advancements and achievements we are still as natural in our existence as any other beast, bird or bug found within the rest of nature. On the outside it may seem as though humanity has evolved from monkey to man, but underneath it is clear that we really haven’t traveled very far at all. Despite our ability to replace broken parts, albeit with human or artificial parts, or to create life with somewhat unconventional methods, where does that leave us? In the end, we are still the eating, drinking, flesh and bone beasts that we were at the inception of our species. Sure, we can wear glasses and get our appendix removed, but in the end, we are still the same homo-sapiens as our primeval forbears. In the end, whilst science and technology has made the most profound changes to how we live, it has not changed the very nature of who we are. While we have been able to affect our lifespan, we have not effectively changed the nature of our being. While we have developed language, art, science and religion, we have not made one single physical change which in any way shape or form moves us one single step away from the rest of the species within nature. Every plane, ship, car and train is being driven, piloted and flown by primates. We are, figuratively speaking, little more than monkeys talking on cell phones.
Man’s Place in the Grand Scheme of Things
The food chain is perhaps the most commonly known and accepted model of survival. Who isn’t familiar with the concepts of eat or be eaten, and big fish eat small fish? And who hasn’t seen the chart linking all of nature together, from the smallest of insects to the largest, strongest of predators – momentarily reducing all living things to items on some primal menu? For as simple as the food chain may appear, the truth of the matter is that there is more to it than what we’ve been told. In fact, there is another chain of sorts which lies just beneath the food chain – one which measures not what is taken from the environment, but rather what is given back. This chain is the function chain.
Survival is not the one-sided phenomenon that most people think it to be. Instead, it is a symbiotic dynamic, one in which a creature not only gives as well as takes, but gives while it takes. The food chain is proof of this interactive relationship between beast and environment. It is a model of complete inter-dependency between an individual and the ecosystem which that individual dwells in. It shows that not only does the individual depend upon the environment to survive, but that the survival of the environment itself depends in no small way upon the actions of the individual. The one cannot survive without the other. The best way to see this symbiotic relationship in action is to consider the three main methods of food gathering and to see the function that each of those methods serves.
The first form of food gathering to consider is hunting. Hunting is the method of food gathering which requires the killing of an animal for the sole purpose of feeding other animals. It is quite apparent how this act benefits the animal eating the food, but how does this act benefit the environment? On an individual level it may be hard to demonstrate, but looking at it on a grander scale it becomes more obvious. When a species has no natural enemies the first thing which happens is the population of that species becomes unchecked. While this may not have negative consequences at first, eventually the resources which that particular species consumes will become exhausted as the demand increases faster than the supply. This can result in a micro-extinction of sorts, where a species of animal or plant becomes completely consumed within an ecosystem as the result of over-consumption. Once this happens then the delicate balance of that particular ecosystem is undermined. Rather than being an isolated problem, affecting one or two species within a given environment, the truth is that a domino effect is usually the consequence – seeing all species suffer, and perhaps seeing the ecosystem itself face total ruin. Thus, one of the things which serves to maintain the delicate balance of an ecosystem is an effective form of population control. This population control is the chief function served by all hunters within the food chain. This is a prime example of how an animal gives to its environment while taking from its environment for the purpose of survival.
The second form of food gathering to consider is scavenging. Many insects and birds find their food in already dead form. At first glance this could be seen as a sign of weakness- that these particular species are unable to hunt, and thus they rely on carcasses and leftover scraps to sustain them and their families. From the sole perspective of food gathering this does seem to be a rather lazy way to survive. But when we observe this phenomenon from the perspective of function, then a whole new picture emerges. Imagine an environment without scavengers. Imagine how that environment would look after a week, month or year with no scavengers to clean the flesh off of the carcasses of dead animals – victims of age, accident or fate. Carcasses would begin to become more and more numerous. The smell of rotting flesh would become more and more potent. With no one to clean up the mess, dead bodies would litter the environment, bringing not only an unpleasant sight and smell, but also deadly disease. Eventually this disease would wreak havoc on most, if not all species within a given ecosystem. This havoc would undermine the delicate balance of the ecosystem, which would in turn threaten the survival of the ecosystem itself. Thus, waste removal is another way in which the delicate balance of an ecosystem is maintained. Our scavengers, once thought to be weak and lazy, can now be seen as an integral part of the very survival of a given environment. Their function may not be glamorous or enviable, but it is of the highest significance for the survival of an environment and all species living therein.
This leaves just one form of food gathering left to consider – foraging. Perhaps the best example of how foraging can impact an ecosystem can be found in bees and the impact they have on life. Bees are certainly not the first thing which comes to mind when considering the food chain. Yet bees, like any other living being, eat and are themselves eaten. Thus they are very much a part of the food chain. But what possible function can bees serve when foraging for the nectar and pollen which make up their diet? How can eating pollen possibly make a difference on the environment in which bees live? Simply put, all plants and flowers which require pollination in order to reproduce or to bear fruit rely heavily on external factors. Up to 90% of pollination requires animal assistance of one form or another. Bees themselves do not necessarily make up this 90% difference, but they do account for a large portion of that number.
Take away the bees and perhaps upwards of 50% of fruit bearing plants and trees will no longer bear fruit. Imagine the toll that would take on the species within a given ecosystem which live on those fruits and vegetables. Imagine the dwindling numbers of plants when reproduction comes to a virtual halt. This would in no small way undermine the delicate balance of any ecosystem – shaking its very foundations. Plants and vegetation are often seen as the low end of the food chain. Take that away and the whole food chain collapses. Thus, when bees are buzzing around performing their seemingly insignificant tasks, it should be noted that those tasks are part of what keeps the whole environment alive. Without the pollination of fruit bearing trees and plants by bees no ecosystem could sustain any appreciable number of species for any sustainable amount of time. Bees, then, provide yet another perfect example of the symbiotic nature of survival.
The symbiotic nature of survival seems to be without exception. For every act of hunting, scavenging or foraging a function is performed which has direct consequences on the ecosystem as a whole. Thus, rather than seeing the food chain and the function chain as two distinct dynamics we can see them as a single dynamic, with the function chain being imbedded within the food chain. Now, instead of the one dimensional model for survival we know as the food chain we have a multidimensional model for survival. Now we have a model which encompasses survival of the individual, the species, and the environment as a whole. Now all species are inextricably linked not just to one another, but to the entire ecosystem. A new chain emerges from this new paradigm – no longer restricted to eating or being eaten. This new chain is the Survival Chain.
With this new-found model of life, linking all living things together in a more thorough, multidimensional way, one question remains – where does mankind fit into this model? When nature is observed it is easy to see the benefit which each species has on its environment. It is often more difficult to see how mankind benefits the environment in which we live. All too often we see examples of how humanity destroys the environment, depleting its resources, polluting the air and water, and laying waste to entire ecosystems – all in the name of progress. How can a species so seemingly oblivious to the symbiotic nature of survival possibly be of any benefit to an ecosystem? The answer lies in that most destructive and soul-less of mankind’s achievements – technology.
The origins of technology can be traced back to the dawn of humanity itself. When man was still close to nature, virtually indistinguishable from the other species roaming this yet unnamed planet, the first tools were fashioned. These tools were the tools of hunter gatherers – arrow heads, spear heads and the like. They served the sole purpose of making it easier to obtain food. Thus, the origins of technology were rooted in the very survival chain itself. Even though humans now used tools, their actions were still the same as all other species – hunt and forage for food, construct shelter, and perpetuate the species. But as time progressed technology began to serve other functions. Agriculture began to replace foraging, and thus a new breed of tools needed to be fashioned. Even so, this still falls under the category of food gathering. The first non food gathering function for which tools were fashioned was that of war. Now, instead of killing animals, man began killing man. The tools he fashioned for this purpose were given their own name – weapons. Beating plowshares into swords was to be mankind’s defining quality from the first arrow shot at another man right up to the present day.
Despite the darker developments within technology, the overall evolution of technology has been beneficial. As well as developing ways to kill humanity has also developed ways to heal. Medical technology has decreased infant mortality, extended life expectancy, and improved the general standard of living in between. While armies wage war on one another, medical science has waged war on disease, developing cures for what were once fatal illnesses. Other technological breakthroughs have occurred in the areas of food preservation, travel and communication. While these may seem like unrelated phenomena, the fact is that they stem from a singular drive – survival. All of technology has in one way or another been developed for the purpose of making life better, easier and safer.
This creates an apparent dichotomy within the human intellect. On the one hand we develop tools to kill, but on the other we develop tools to heal. How can such opposite means be reconciled? Simply put, even the weapons designed to kill were conversely intended to save lives. Some of the most horrific of weapons were designed for the sole purpose of ending war and preventing bloodshed for as long as possible. As bizarre as this may seem, the deadliest of weapons were therefore often designed to save life, not just to take life. This direction of technological evolution, albeit misguided, still points to the fact that survival is the single drive which underlies all human technological achievement. The question which remains, however, is how does this affect our environment? How does humanity, with all of its technological achievement, serve to benefit the grand ecosystem that we live in – planet Earth?
The evolution of technology hasn’t been a random event. Instead, it has gone hand in hand with the evolution of man’s understanding of survival. When survival was merely about obtaining food, then technology was solely for obtaining food. As man’s vision of survival began to expand, so too did technology. But up until now that vision of survival has been very self-centered. Just as the model of the food chain was one dimensional – focusing only on the survival of the individual, so too has the technology of man fallen into the trap of becoming self serving, with little or no regard for the symbiotic nature of survival within an ecosystem. This may all soon be about to change. As it stands, man is developing a deeper understanding of the symbiotic nature of survival – realizing that the health of our environment can and will have a very definite impact on the health of humanity itself. This is yet another expansion of man’s vision of survival, for as humanity’s understanding of survival evolves so too does technology. In this case, it’s time to beat the swords back into plowshares again.
Humanity has been given the gift of intellect on a scale higher than any other species. With this intellect comes two things – potential and responsibility. Our technology has been developed to suit our needs as a species. Nevertheless, we have reached a point in which our technology can either destroy our environment, or it can be used to save it. If we continue to create weapons of mass destruction, recklessly pollute our air and water, and allow human expansion to go on unchecked, then we will ultimately destroy our environment in our self centered struggle for survival. However, if we take our new found understanding of the symbiotic nature of survival, then we can turn our efforts to maintaining the very planet itself. We have already begun to direct efforts toward cleaner fuel technology, thus reducing the negative impact of pollution. Recycling is being implemented in an attempt to reduce the careless use of resources and the needless creation of massive quantities of waste material. In this light we have already begun to turn to a less negative direction. On a more positive note, technology is continually being developed to help reduce the devastation caused by natural phenomena such as tornadoes and hurricanes, as well as to help areas recover more quickly from the destruction that such catastrophes bring. We also possess the means by which to bring water to drought stricken regions, thus preventing famine and hunger. Even so, possessing such technologies is not enough. Mankind must begin to put these technologies to use if it is to have a positive impact on the environment.
Perhaps our greatest potential lies in our sphere of influence. Unlike other species, mankind has the potential to affect more than just an individual ecosystem. Humanity has the potential to destroy or save the very planet itself – the grand ecosystem as it were. The greatest paradox may be that the very technology which has the potential to destroy the planet may very well lead to the technology which has the potential to save it. One of humanity’s greatest achievements has been the development of weapons- most notably nuclear weapons. With those weapons has come the technology needed to deliver those weapons over long distances. This has been the inspiration behind rocket technology. While that technology has been used to both fight and deter war, there may yet be a more noble use for this seemingly darkest of human achievements. Astronomers now know that our planet is under constant threat from what they call Near Earth Objects – notably, comets or asteroids which have the potential of impacting Earth. If some of these objects were to actually hit Earth, then life as we know it may cease to exist. Thus, there is a very real need to develop a system to deter or destroy these objects before they have the chance to destroy us. Fortunately, the technology needed for such an endeavor already exists. The only thing which needs to be done is for mankind to put this technology to use for saving the planet rather than destroying it.
In the end it must be remembered that humanity is by all accounts a very young species. While evolutionary processes have given other species the hyper-qualities with which to survive, and in turn, to perform a beneficial function for their environment, humanity has had to develop its hyper-qualities in a relatively short span of time. While we can be concerned by the state of our technology, and the direction it seems to be going in, we must remember that mistakes will be made. To rid ourselves of all technology in the hopes of sparing the planet would be to take away any chance man has of saving the planet from the destruction that a large body impact would have. Instead, we must look at the situation as a chance to evolve- both in terms of technology and mindset. We have the chance to develop the conscience required to temper our technology and use it for its true purpose – survival. This time we can understand survival as the multidimensional, symbiotic dynamic that it truly is. All of humanity’s shortcomings and failures of the past can be seen as the growing pains of a species. We now have the opportunity to put all that right. We are now in a place where our other hyper-quality, compassion, needs to start shaping our intellect. We need to stop acting as a selfish, ignorant species, and find our place in the grand scheme of things. Humanity has perhaps the greatest of responsibilities bestowed upon it – the protection of and safe keeping of the planet itself. We and we alone can care for this grand ecosystem we call Earth.
The Primal Personality
In non industrial societies, especially those of the past such as the Mesoamerican, Polynesian, and Native American cultures, the connection between man and nature was not lost as it is today. Indeed, these cultures considered themselves a part of nature in a very real way. As a result, no emotion or quality found within humans was without its counterpart in nature. Each animal was seen as the embodiment of specific qualities. These qualities included strength, wisdom, fertility, paternal protection, and maternal nurturing. They ranged from the communal nature of some animals to the independent nature of others. From hunting to foraging, giving birth to killing, every primal tendency was represented. Thus, a person was able to identify with the particular animal which best personified their inner, true nature. Spiritual quests would result in an animal vision or experience, which would teach an individual the lessons they needed to learn. More often than not this animal represented the aspect of the individual needed to overcome the question or adversity at hand. Thus, the representations of animals in the art and religion of these cultures was in fact the symbolic language of the human soul. It was the representation of the true nature of each individual. It was, in fact, the primal personality.
The tradition of associating animals with human qualities is not altogether strange even in modern times. Many phrases we use on a daily basis reflect this very phenomenon. Calling an independent person a lone-wolf or a conniving person a snake in the grass are but a couple of examples. Others include referring to the boss as the top dog, or to followers as sheep. The use of animal imagery to describe a person’s personality can also be seen in the form of nicknames – king Richard I as Richard the Lionheart, or Field Marshal Erwin Rommel as the Dessert Fox are perhaps the two most familiar in western culture. As well as describing individuals, animal imagery is also used to describe collectives. From the names of sports teams- tigers, lions, eagles, etc. to national symbolism – the eagle of the United States, or the bear of Russia, animal personification can be seen almost anywhere you look. Thus, even though we are often unaware of it, the association between humanity and nature is still very much alive and well despite the technological age in which we live.
What exactly is this primal personality? And how do we look for it? Simply put, the primal personality is the emotional, instinctive and intuitive part of who we are. It is, in essence, our true nature. But how to find it, and how to recognize it once found, are the true challenges that we face. Fortunately, these challenges have been solved in several ways throughout human history. It is the quest for the connection of the individual to his or her true nature, and thus, to nature itself, that gave rise to traditions of totems, animal guides and other such natural personifications of personality.
Perhaps the most common way in which the primal personality is manifest in modern times is through pets. A lot can be determined about a person’s nature through the simple question – “are you a dog person or a cat person?” As innocent and simple as this question seems, it is in fact a throwback to the ancient traditions of totem animals. Dogs are loyal, active, territorial and full of energy, and they don’t like to be alone. Cats, on the other hand, are lovers of peace and quiet, preferring little to no company. They too are loyal, but far more passive and leisurely than their canine counterparts. Subsequently, how a person defines themselves, as a dog person or a cat person, is one way that they recognize their individual primal identity – in part, at least. It shows whether a person prefers activity or tranquility, company or solitude. It begins to scratch the surface of an individual’s true essence. It is a glimpse into their primal personality.
In the end, the best way for a person to find their primal personality is to look for the animal they most identify with. Is a person a lion, possessing the qualities of courage and leadership? Or are they a monkey, being always inquisitive and playful, preferring to laugh rather than fight? Do they prefer to be in a pack, such as a dog, or do they like to be alone like a wolf? Are they wise, or do they prefer to have decisions made for them? The answers to these questions should never be seen as right or wrong, better or worse. If a person is courageous as a lion, or timid as a mouse, neither is right or wrong. Just as the planet could not survive with only lions, so too, humanity cannot function with just leaders. It’s not about finding your ideal persona, but rather it is about discovering your true identity, and finding the animal that best embodies that identity.
Unfortunately, the primal personality is often hidden in the deepest recesses of our soul. It is the part of us that is perhaps the truest part of who we are, but it is also the part of us that has been most suppressed and altered by our domestication. Just as any pet is domesticated by teaching it how to behave in a house, to obey its owners and to resist its instinctive impulses, so too are each of us conditioned to live in society. We are taught how to act professionally, to follow the orders of our superiors, and to not act on our impulses, but to swallow our pride and hide our emotions. The more that we learn and follow the rules and conventions of society is the more that we lose touch with the qualities which make us unique.
The real question is, just how significant is this aspect of our nature? If the individual aspect of primal identity can be domesticated, then what affect does it actually have on our lives? In truth, the individual aspect of the primal identity has the most profound effect on our lives. Just because it is suppressed does not mean that it goes away. Nor does it mean that it is changed. It’s like getting dressed. The more clothing that you put on is the more hidden your body becomes. But no matter how many layers of clothes you put on, your body is still there, buried beneath. It doesn’t disappear, nor is it actually changed. The only thing that is different is the outward appearance of the individual. No matter how you are dressed, your body will still get hungry, thirsty and tired. And no matter what you wear, these urges, these feelings, will still dominate your mind. Whether you are wearing a suit and tie, or a t-shirt and shorts, hungry is hungry. In the end, it’s the body, not the clothes, that is real. So it is with this individual aspect of our primal nature. No matter how refined and domesticated we become, our true essence is still very much alive and well, lurking deep within. Our true strengths and weaknesses never change. Our abilities can only be nurtured or ignored – never taken away or replaced. We are who we are, no matter what our outer appearance may be.
The most common misconception of this part of our identity is that it is somehow dangerous and unruly. It has become a common notion in the psyche of modern civilization that anything natural is inferior to that which is manmade. Anything wild is destructive. It is a case of civilized vs savage. Thus, anything that is not domesticated must necessarily be a threat. This fear of the untamed keeps us from a truer, deeper understanding of who each and every one of us truly is. This fear, and subsequent ignorance of our individual primal identity, is what is truly dangerous, for it causes us to live life without ever fully understanding who we are. It is only when we understand our true individual nature that we can best understand the functions we are best suited for. Even though we are all human we are never the less distinct beings with distinct qualities. Only when we truly understand our true nature, distinct qualities and all, can we have any hope of living a life true to ourselves.
The whole point of discovering and connecting to the primal personality is to better understand our strengths and our weaknesses. Rather than trying to transform into an indistinct part of society, we should embrace that which makes us unique. Instead of wondering why we have a harder time than others in a certain environment, we should try to better understand ourselves, and thus, place ourselves in an environment more suitable to our true nature. It’s no good trying to teach a cat how to catch a tennis ball. If you want to take an animal to a park and play catch, then take a dog. Leave the cat to lie in a patch of sun and sleep the day away. So too, rather than trying to become something that we are not, we should actually find out who we are, and shape our lives around that. Most, if not all the struggles we face, are the result of us not being true to ourselves. Thus, the sooner we discover our true nature, and the sooner we adjust our lives to better suit this true identity, is the sooner we can eliminate the senseless struggles which plague us in day to day life. To know your inner animal is to know the true you.
True Identity
Identity, like life, is a polarity. Like any polarity, the true essence of identity cannot be found at either end, but rather, must be sought for in the middle where both ends meet – the middle ground of truth. Thus, true identity is not a choice between the one end or the other, but it is the perfect blend of both.
At the one end of the polarity is the domestic identity. This is the identity which is bestowed upon a person by the dynamic structures of family, society and religion. It is the identity which is symbolized by the fourth wall of an individual’s personal dynamic structure. This sense of identity is how we are perceived through the eyes of others. It is our fame, our wealth, our education. It is being defined by our job, our bank account or our religious affiliation. Its essence is manifest in the dress code, the uniform, or the suit which a person is required to wear in their day to day existence. It is the state of being defined by our function within the context of domestic life. It is that which defines us from the outside-in.
At the other end of the polarity is the primal identity. This is the identity which resides deep within the individual. It is the true essence of a person from a purely natural perspective. It is the individual not as a career or education, but as an animal, a living being in a more pure, primal context. It is the primal aspect of the soul – the culmination of instincts, intuition, and raw energy. If the domestic identity is that which seems to separate man from nature, then it is the primal identity which restores man to nature once again. The primal identity is that which lies beneath the facade of dress code and title. It is the pure essence of life itself. It is that which defines us from the inside-out.
True identity is the balanced combination of both primal identity and domestic identity. While these two forms of identity may seem incompatible, they are in fact quite symbiotic. The one cannot succeed without the successful application of the other. Primal identity without domestic identity is like a soul without a body, and domestic identity without primal identity is like the body without a soul. While the one gives life to the other, the other gives form to the otherwise formless life. The trick is in realizing that domestic identity is the opportunity to express the primal personality. Whilst it defines you from the outside-in, it can also be seen as a projection of that which lies within.
Perhaps the best way to explain it is in terms of clothing. When a person sees you one of the first things they see are the clothes you wear. This gives them an impression of who you are. It defines you from the outside-in. Too often what we wear is decided for us. Dress codes, uniforms and the like serve to identify us in terms that we do not always choose. This is the consequence of being too defined by domestic identity. On the other extreme we could wear nothing at all. This would be the same as being solely defined by primal identity, with no reference to domestic identity. Our pure essence would be all that we would present. But somewhere in the middle there is balance – the solution of true identity. This balance is when we choose our clothes to suit our mood. When we decide to go out, and we take a moment to decide how we feel and what message we want to send, then we choose the clothes to suit that mood, to send that message. Then, when someone sees us, and they see the clothes that we are wearing, then they not only see us from the outside, but they see a projection of what lies beneath – our mindset, our feelings, our mood. Now, not only do our clothes define us from the outside-in, but they themselves are defined from the inside-out.
This is true identity – when we look as we feel – when the outside represents the inside. This should be our goal in life – to use domestic identity to express our primal identity. When we take the time to discover our primal personality, then we can shape our domestic identity around that. Rather than living a life with no form, or a form with no life, we can actually create our true identity by using our life to shape our form. When that which is within defines how we appear on the outside, then we rid ourselves of the identity crisis that so many face. We eliminate the endless anxieties and stresses of trying to juggle two different lives at the same time. We can eliminate the need for masks and fronts, choosing instead to live a more truthful, thorough life. When our outer truth is the manifestation of our inner truth, then we have found that balance. Then we have discovered our true identity.
Meaning of Life
What is life, and who am I? These are the two questions which mankind has contemplated since the beginning of humanity itself. They are what drive humanity to discovery. And it is this drive that defines us as a species. It is not enough for man to simply be alive. He must also understand what that life means. He must know the meaning of life.
Life is the totality of all reality around us. This reality has two layers – active life (the tangible, physical side) and passive life (the intangible, non-physical side). The passive aspect of life permeates all of tangible, or active, life. It is the aspect of life which contains the patterns that govern active life. As though some program exists just beneath the surface of all that we can touch and see, this passive aspect of life gives shape to the physical reality which we experience each and every day. This is not some great conscious mind, mentally conducting the great symphony of life, however. Rather it is essentially the universal subconscious mind. It is what makes the laws of physics work no matter what day of the week it is, no matter where you stand on this planet, or on any other planet in the universe. It is what maintains order within the universe through the phenomenon of equivalence.
Active life, then, can be seen as the byproduct of passive life – the physical projection of a non-physical essence. Governed by the single law of causality, it is what we experience with our five physical senses each and every day. It is the arena in which passive life is given form and function. It is where potential is realized, where vision becomes reality. Active life is virtually the expression of passive life.
Life, then, is the culmination of its active and passive elements. It is not a static dichotomy, however, but a dynamic polarity where truth is not found with one or other extreme, but with the perfect balance between the two. Governed both by equivalence and causality, it is a structured, orderly reality. Thus, while life may seem random, especially in the grand scheme of things, it is never chaotic. Being both mind and form, passive and active, life is the simple yet complex totality in which we exist.
On a more microcosmic level, that of the individual, life is still the same two layer experience. Consisting of both mind and form, each one of us is a perfect model of the active/passive nature of life as a whole. Individual life is a continual creative process, using both the active and passive elements of life. The intellect is the part of the mind which bridges those elements. It is that which can transform an idea into a reality through the medium of action. This is the true wonder of life – the fact that we are always creating our own reality. Whether or not we believe it, whether or not we are aware of it, we are the sole author of our state of being. We chose every action that we take. We chose which dreams to follow, and how far to follow them. Most of the time we form habits which simply perpetuate the reality we are in, but that is no less a part of the creative process than taking steps in new directions in order to change our reality. In the end, while the universe is in a perpetual state of creation and transformation, so too is each and every single individual who draws breath. The difference, if there is one, is that we can consciously direct the course of our reality.
Like life, identity has both a collective and an individual aspect. As a species, mankind is a part of the grand ecosystem we call Earth. Possessing the hyper-qualities of intellect and compassion, humanity is unique within nature, but not separate from it. We form a critical part of the survival chain – that which forms the symbiotic relationship between all living things and the environment in which they live. As a species we have the ability to preserve or destroy our environment, and thus, all life therein. Despite this overwhelming burden of responsibility we are fundamentally no different from the rest of nature, both in terms of form and function. Thus, despite our sense of separateness from nature, the truth is that we, as a species, are very much a part of nature.
As individuals we have a polaristic sense of identity. On the one end there is the domestic identity, as is defined as our relationship within the domestic structures of family, society and religion. This is the sum of our race, creed, political affiliation, job title and all other tags which define us within domestic life. While much of this is determined by our condition, there is room for us to affect our domestic identity. This is where our creative potential, as pertains to individual life, is so vital. We have the ability to create our reality using both the passive and active elements of our lives. This, then, gives insight to our true nature. We are both creation and creator. Thus, our lives are dynamic rather than static – malleable rather than fixed. If there is any sense of purpose to life, then it must be this: to discover our true sense of self, and to create a reality around that which we truly are. Thus, it can be said that only those who truly know themselves can live a life of greater, truer fulfillment.
The other end of our identity is our primal identity. This is where our true sense of self resides. It is our inner beast, our true nature. It is the sum of the qualities that define us on a primal level – courage/fear, leader/follower, aggressive/passive, etc. It is foolish to assume that just because we appear the same on the outside that we must also necessarily appear the same on the inside. The truth is that just as no two people are exactly the same on the outside, so too are they different within. And just as humanity, as a species, has a responsibility to discover and fulfill its true purpose for the good of all life, so too each of us has the responsibility to discover and fulfill our true purpose for the good of those around us. Just as humanity can affect the ecosystem of Earth, so too can each of us affect the ecosystem in which we live.
Each and every one of us is a manifestation of passive life. We are each a unique aspect of infinite potential. But the same can be said for all living things. That is the true beauty of it. To be aware of the significance of human nature is meaningless if we are not aware of the significance of all living things. All life, human, animal and otherwise, must be considered equally sacred. All living things contribute equally to the very perpetuation of our planet. Just as the ancients revered all living things as pieces of a whole, so too must we realize the same. We are all byproducts of passive life. Thus, the universe shouldn’t be seen so much as a place for life, but rather it should be seen as a place of life. Essentially, we are all a living part of a living universe. In the end, the purpose and meaning of life can be summed up in one simple axiom – find your truth, live your truth.
Glossary of Terms
Polarity- The string which links two opposite extremes. Unlike a dichotomy, a polarity allows for a blend of the two opposites, rather than having to choose only one or the other. While the true balance is found in the middle, an individual’s truth within a particular polarity can be found anywhere along the string. A polarity allows for direction toward one extreme or another, thus defining behavior as dynamic, rather than static as in the case of a dichotomy.
Active Life- The aspect of life which is tangible. That which is experienced by the five physical senses. The counterpart to Passive Life, it is governed by the law of Causality.
Passive Life- The aspect of life which is intangible. It is the essence of life- the thought rather than the form. That which underlies active life; it is governed by the law of Equivalence.
Causality- The single law which governs Active Life. It states that for every action there is a consequence. Recognizing neither right nor wrong, reward or punishment, it simply establishes the pattern of cause and effect.
Equivalence- The single law which governs Passive Life. It is the system of patterns which connects all of life, creating order where there would otherwise be chaos.
Consequential Momentum- The momentum of cause and effect created by repetitious action or behavior. It is the direction formed by habit. It is the cycle of cause creating effect, which in turn becomes cause itself.
Consequential Interference- The condition where the natural effects of a particular cause or action are redirected, so as to not affect the doer of the action. It is the manipulation of Causality.
Domestic Identity- The identity of an individual as is defined within the domestic structures of family, society and religion. It is the sum of a person’s race, gender, creed, job title, religious beliefs, political affiliation, and the like. It is the individual as a what rather than as a who.
Physical Identity- The identity of an individual based solely upon physical characteristics – specifically gender, age and race.
Conditional Identity- The identity of an individual based upon the individual’s context within a given dynamic structure. In society this form of identity is the sum of such factors as finance, education and job title.
Potential Identity- The identity an individual might achieve based on the sum of the physical and conditional identity. It is what a person can become based upon who or what they currently are.
Primal Identity- The identity of an individual which lies beneath domestic identity. It is the individual as an animal- a living entity rather than a title or job description. It is that which identifies the individual and the collective as a part of nature.
Primal Personality- The specific qualities which define an individual in terms of the Primal Identity. Personified by a particular animal, these qualities are the true essence of the individual.
Survival Chain- The model which demonstrates the symbiotic relationship between the survival of the individual (or species) and the survival of the environment in which they live.
Hyper Quality- Any quality, usually one of the five physical senses, which is enhanced within a particular individual or species, thus, giving the individual or species an advantage in terms of survival.
Dynamic Structure- A system which gives form and order to what would otherwise be random and chaotic. This system is a living, active system, being born of and perpetuated by actions, belief systems, relationships and the like. The three prime Dynamic Structures are family, society and religion.
Table of Contents-
- Part 1 -What is Life?
- -Polarities
- -The Middle Ground
- -Active Life
- -Causality
- -Consequential Momentum
- -Consequential Interference
- -Passive Life
- -Mind Under Matter
- -Equivalence
- -The Zero Dimension
- -True Life
- -Natural Order
- Part 2 -Who am I?
- -Domestic Identity
- -The Creation of Man
- -Family
- -Society
- -Religion
- -The Three Walled Cell
- -Domestic Identity
- -Primal Identity
- -From Monkey to Man
- -The Evolution of Religion
- -Hyper-Qualities
- -From Man Back to Monkey Again
- -Man’s Place in the Grand Scheme of Things
- -The Primal Personality
- -True Identity
- -Meaning of Life
- -Glossary of Terms