Logic
Though we seem settled and our thoughts determined by preconceived directions and boundaries, we are, in fact, in constant mental conflict. As rational beings as well as evolved animals, our minds move in two often opposing directions, the logical (mechanical) direction (which we revere, probably way too much) and the tribal (communal) direction (which we hold in contempt, but adhere to nevertheless with great passion and perseverance). In effect we live in two entirely different worlds which must, even so, function efficiently together if we are to function effectively.
Our logical self is mostly mechanical in its contrivances, whereas our tribal self is based largely on instinctive reactions to situations. Both are shaped by the passing down of information (for our mechanical [dehumanized] self’s instruction) and of tradition (for our instinctive [communal] self’s enrichment). The shape of information creates a foundation on which more information can be built and by which the usefulness of articles that surround us can be determined. The structure grows and is refined from generation to generation as is the usefulness of and effectiveness of our tools and weapons. The shape of tradition determines our culture, the things we value and how we value ourselves, others and our surroundings in general.
Our logical self drives us in the direction of hard facts and encourages us to become uncaring, cold and distant from those who care about us. We become mechanical, machine like, without emotion, no longer human. Our tribal self pulls us into an irrational, immediately gratifying, survival only psychological mood. We strike out instinctively at those who offend us, become hedonistic, trust indiscriminately, kill when provoked, animalistic. The constant conflict between these two tendencies, the balancing of the legal and the tribal that we experience every moment of our lives yet are unaware of, is what keeps us human.
Our legal self is our rational instinct, no different than any other survival skill but very effective in our struggle to survive and to dominate and therefore highly prized by us even to the detriment of our other survival skills which we have developed over millions of years. We are pretty much squeezing our other survival instincts into submission and over time perhaps even into oblivion leaving only our rational instinct driving us toward our ultimate destiny.
There are consequences to this. What will happen to poetry, music, introspection, dance, social intercourse? Can we remain human after our animal (so called) instincts are no more? Do we want to be rational? I would suggest that it is just as important to our future survival to continue to develop our irrational nature as it is to continue to fine tune our rational self. The struggle between the two must continue, but it must one of mutual respect rather one of malicious and destructive self degradation.
I’m going to be more specific. The present confrontation between science and religion is a perfect example of an inner turmoil gone bad. Our irrational (intuitive) nature (religion) has risen to challenge our rational (mechanical) nature. Rather than define the struggle as a reaction to repression however, it has chosen to represent itself as just as rational (scientific) as its adversary. By doing so it has assured for itself an immediate emotional dominance but an ultimate catastrophic failure because it simply does not have the rational resources to justify its claims. Only by accepting the truth of what it is really (irrational, intuitive) can Religion guarantee its deserved place in the human experience.
Religion must be irrational if it is to be relevant. It is a relationship, not a fact in the scientific sense but rather in the emotional sense. There is no need to justify a relationship any more than there is to justify an emotion. There is though a need for justification if our survival skills when no longer immediately necessary are metamorphed into a determination to dominate. In that case Religion whether Theist or Atheist can only create chaos and open itself to its own ultimate demise should the human race continue to develop as…..well…..human.
Our logical self is mostly mechanical in its contrivances, whereas our tribal self is based largely on instinctive reactions to situations. Both are shaped by the passing down of information (for our mechanical [dehumanized] self’s instruction) and of tradition (for our instinctive [communal] self’s enrichment). The shape of information creates a foundation on which more information can be built and by which the usefulness of articles that surround us can be determined. The structure grows and is refined from generation to generation as is the usefulness of and effectiveness of our tools and weapons. The shape of tradition determines our culture, the things we value and how we value ourselves, others and our surroundings in general.
Our logical self drives us in the direction of hard facts and encourages us to become uncaring, cold and distant from those who care about us. We become mechanical, machine like, without emotion, no longer human. Our tribal self pulls us into an irrational, immediately gratifying, survival only psychological mood. We strike out instinctively at those who offend us, become hedonistic, trust indiscriminately, kill when provoked, animalistic. The constant conflict between these two tendencies, the balancing of the legal and the tribal that we experience every moment of our lives yet are unaware of, is what keeps us human.
Our legal self is our rational instinct, no different than any other survival skill but very effective in our struggle to survive and to dominate and therefore highly prized by us even to the detriment of our other survival skills which we have developed over millions of years. We are pretty much squeezing our other survival instincts into submission and over time perhaps even into oblivion leaving only our rational instinct driving us toward our ultimate destiny.
There are consequences to this. What will happen to poetry, music, introspection, dance, social intercourse? Can we remain human after our animal (so called) instincts are no more? Do we want to be rational? I would suggest that it is just as important to our future survival to continue to develop our irrational nature as it is to continue to fine tune our rational self. The struggle between the two must continue, but it must one of mutual respect rather one of malicious and destructive self degradation.
I’m going to be more specific. The present confrontation between science and religion is a perfect example of an inner turmoil gone bad. Our irrational (intuitive) nature (religion) has risen to challenge our rational (mechanical) nature. Rather than define the struggle as a reaction to repression however, it has chosen to represent itself as just as rational (scientific) as its adversary. By doing so it has assured for itself an immediate emotional dominance but an ultimate catastrophic failure because it simply does not have the rational resources to justify its claims. Only by accepting the truth of what it is really (irrational, intuitive) can Religion guarantee its deserved place in the human experience.
Religion must be irrational if it is to be relevant. It is a relationship, not a fact in the scientific sense but rather in the emotional sense. There is no need to justify a relationship any more than there is to justify an emotion. There is though a need for justification if our survival skills when no longer immediately necessary are metamorphed into a determination to dominate. In that case Religion whether Theist or Atheist can only create chaos and open itself to its own ultimate demise should the human race continue to develop as…..well…..human.
posted by PaulEdward Snyder | 1:14 AM
|
0 comments
